{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_15304/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_15304","id":"gutenberg_15304","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15304","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Society of Friends"],"text":"Produced by Carlo Traverso, Graeme Mackreth and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team. This file was produced from images generously\nmade available by the Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)\nat http://gallica.bnf.fr.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA\nPORTRAITURE OF QUAKERISM.\n\nTAKEN FROM A VIEW\nOF THE\nEDUCATION AND DISCIPLINE,\nSOCIAL MANNERS,\nCIVIL AND POLITICAL ECONOMY,\nRELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES\nAND\nCHARACTER,\nOF THE\n\nSociety of Friends\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nBY THOMAS CLARKSON, M.A.\n\nAUTHOR OF SEVERAL ESSAYS ON THE SLAVE TRADE.\n\nVOL. III.\n\nCONTENTS OF THE THIRD VOLUME.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGREAT TENETS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_Civil government--Governors have no right to interfere in matters of\nreligion--Nor are the governed bound to obey, where their consciences\nare oppressed by doing it--but they are to be willing to suffer the\npenalties annexed to their disobedience--and they are on no account to\nresist them by force of arms,_\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n_Oaths--Christians are not to take civil oaths--Reasons of the Quakers\nfor their disuse of them,_\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSECT. I. _War--Unlawful for Christians to fight--Scriptural passages in\nsupport of this tenet--Answers to these and replies,_\n\nSECT. II. _These passages supported by the opinions and practice of the\nearly Christians,_\n\nSECT. III. _Objection to the motive assigned for this practice--Reply to\nthis objection--Motive confirmed,_\n\nSECT. IV. _Conduct of the early Christians further examined--While\nChristianity continued pure, they held it unlawful to fight--As it\nbecame less pure, their scruples against it declined--As it became\ncorrupt, they ceased,_\n\nSECT. V. _Reflections of the author on the foregoing subject--Supposed\nconversation with a superior being in another region--New arguments from\nthence,_\n\nSECT. VI. _Subject further considered--Erroneous conceptions of those\nwho argue in favor of the necessity of war--This necessary only where\nthe policy of the world is pursued--Nature of this policy--But not\nnecessary where men act on the policy of the Gospel,_\n\nSECT. VII. _This doctrine confirmed by historical cases,_\n\nSECT. VIII. _Final examination of the subject,_\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nSECT. I. _Maintenance of a Gospel ministry--Quakers hold it unlawful to\npay their own ministers, or those of any other denomination, for their\nGospel labours--Scriptural passages and historical facts relative to\nthis doctrine,_\n\nSECT. II. _Additional reasons against the payment of those of another\ndenomination, as collected from a history of tithes,_\n\nSECT. III. _A more particular statement of these reasons,_\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCHARACTER.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n_Character of the Quakers--Difficulties in the proper estimation of\ncharacter--These removable in the present case,_\n\nCHAPTER II. _Character general or particular--General is that of a moral\npeople,_\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSECT. I. _Character particular--First of the particular traits is\nbenevolence to man in his temporal capacity,_\n\nSECT. II. _Second is benevolence to man in his religious capacity,_\n\nSECT. III. _Third is benevolence, or a tender feeling for the brute\ncreation,_\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n_Fourth is complacency of mind and manners,_\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_Fifth is, that they do not sacrifice their consciences, as a body of\nChristians, where they believe a compliance with any law or custom to be\nwrong,_\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_Sixth is, that in political affairs they reason upon principle, and not\nupon consequences,_\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_Seventh is independence of mind,_\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nSECT. I. _Eighth is courage in life,_\n\nSECT. II. _Ninth is courage in death,_\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n_Tenth is punctuality to words and engagements,_\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n_Imperfect traits--These are either intellectually or morally\ndefective--First of these is a deficiency in literature and science,\nwhen compared with other people,_\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n_Second is superstition--Distinctions on this subject,_\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n_Third is obstinacy--No foundation for this trait,_\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nSECT. I. _Fourth is a money-getting spirit--This spirit seldom\nchargeable with avarice,_\n\nSECT. II. _Practicable methods suggested for the extirpation of it,_\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nFifth is a want of animation or affection--This an appearance only.\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nSixth is evasiveness in speech--No foundation for this trait.\n\nCHAPTER XVI. Seventh is shyness--This an appearance only.\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nEighth is a disregard of truth--Inconsistency of the imputation of this\ntrait.\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nSECT. I. Character of the Quaker women--Women share in the virtues of\nthe men, but do not partake of all their reputed imperfections.\n\nSECT. II. Quaker women have a public character--Influence of this upon\ntheir minds.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMISCELLANEOUS PARTICULARS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nQuakers a happy people--Subordinate causes of this happiness.\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nGood, which the Quakers have done as a society upon earth.\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nQuakers in England on the decline in point of numbers, as a religious\nsociety--Certain causes of this decline.\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nSupposed remedies for the diminution of some of these causes--These of\nvarious kinds--One of these a superior education--Supposed effect of\nthis education.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n_Component parts of this education--Favourable state of the society for\nthe admission of it,_\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n_Various arguments against it--These examined,_\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n_Conclusory remarks, as they relate to those who may have had thoughts\nof leaving the society,_\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n_Conclusory remarks, as they relate to those who may be called the\nworld,_\n\n\n\n\nGREAT TENETS\nOF THE\nQUAKERS.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Civil government--First tenet is, that governors have no right to\ninterfere with the governed on the subject of Religion--and that if they\ninterfere, and insist upon things which the conscience disapproves, the\ngoverned ought to refuse a compliance with them, and to bear patiently\nall the penalties annexed to such a refusal, but never to resist the\ngovernors by violence on this or any other account._\n\n\nThe Quakers hold four principles, which I shall distinguish by the name\nof Great Tenets. These are considered as arising out of the implied or\npositive injunctions of Christianity, and were insisted upon as\nessentials on the formation of the society. The first of these is on the\nsubject of Civil Government.\n\nCivil Government had existed long before the appearance of Christianity\nin the world. Legislators since that era, as they have imbibed its\nspirit, so they have introduced this spirit more or less into their\nrespective codes. But, no nation has ever professed to change its system\nof jurisprudence, or to model it anew, in consequence of the new light\nwhich Christianity has afforded: neither have the alterations been so\nnumerous in any nation, however high its profession of Christianity,\nwith respect to laws, as to enable us to say, that there is any\ngovernment in the known world, of Christian origin, or any government\nwholly upon the principles of the gospel.\n\nIf all men were to become real Christians, civil government would become\nless necessary. As there would be then no offences, there would be no\nneed of magistracy or of punishment. As men would then settle any\ndifferences between them amicably, there would be no necessity for\ncourts of law. As they would then never fight, there would be no need of\narmies. As they would then consider their fellow-creatures as brethren,\nthey would relieve them as such, and there would be no occasion of laws\nfor the poor. As men would then have more solicitude for the public\ngood, and more large and liberal notions, than at any former time, they\nwould of themselves conceive and raise all necessary public institutions\nand works. Government then is not so necessary for real Christians. It\nis necessary principally, as the apostle says, for evil-doers. But if it\nbe chiefly necessary for evil-doers, then governors ought to be careful\nhow they make laws, which may vex, harrass, and embarrass Christians,\nwhom they will always find to be the best part of their communities, or,\nin other words, how they make laws, which Christians, on account of\ntheir religious scruples, cannot conscientiously obey.\n\nIt is a tenet of the Quakers, on the subject of government, that the\ncivil magistrate has no right to interfere in religious matters, so as\neither to force any particular doctrines upon men, or to hinder them\nfrom worshipping God in their own way, provided that, by their creeds\nand worship, they do no detriment to others. The Quakers believe,\nhowever, that Christian churches may admonish such members as fall into\nerror, and may even cut them off from membership, but this must be done\nnot by the temporal, but by the spiritual sword.\n\nThis tenet the Quakers support, first, by reason. Religion, they say, is\na matter solely, between God and man, that is, between God and that man\nwho worships him. This must be obvious, they conceive, because man is\nnot accountable to man for his religious opinions, except he binds\nhimself to the discipline of any religious society, but to God alone. It\nmust be obvious again, they say, because no man can be a judge over the\nconscience of another. He can know nothing of the sincerity or hypocrisy\nof his heart. He can be neither an infallible judge, nor an infallible\ncorrecter of his religious errors. \"The conscience of man, says Barclay,\nis the seat and throne of God in him, of which he alone is the proper\nand infallible judge, who, by his power and spirit, can rectify its\nmistakes.\" It must be obvious again, they say, from the consideration\nthat, if it were even possible for one man to discern the conscience of\nanother, it is impossible for him to bend or controul it. But conscience\nis placed both out of his sight and of his reach. It is neither visible\nnor tangible. It is inaccessible by stripes or torments. Thus, while the\nbody is in bondage, on account of the religion of the soul, the soul\nitself is free, and, while it suffers under torture, it enjoys the\ndivinity, and feels felicity in his presence. But if all these things\nare so, it cannot be within the province either of individual\nmagistrates or of governments, consisting of fallible men, to fetter the\nconsciences of those who may live under them. And any attempt to this\nend is considered by the Quakers as a direct usurpation of the\nprerogative of God.\n\nThis tenet the Quakers adopt again on a contemplation of the conduct and\ndoctrines of Jesus Christ and of his apostles. They find nothing in\nthese, which can give the least handle to any man to use force in the\nreligious concerns of another. During the life of Jesus Christ upon\nearth, it is no where recorded of him, that he censured any man for his\nreligion. It is true that he reproved the Scribes and Pharisees, but\nthis was on account of their hypocrisy, because they pretended to be\nwhat they were not. But he no where condemned the devout Jew, who was\nsincere in his faith. But if he be found no where to have censured\nanother for a difference in religious opinions, much less was it ever\nsaid of him, that he forced him to the adoption of his own. In the\nmemorable instance, where James and John were willing to have called\nfire from Heaven, to burn those who refused to receive him, he rebuked\nthem by an assurance, that \"they knew not what spirit they were of.\"\nAnd, with respect to his doctrines, nothing can be more full to the\npoint than his saying, that \"his kingdom was not of this world,\" by\nwhich he meant that his dominion was wholly of a spiritual nature, and\nthat men must cast off all worldly imaginations, and become spiritually\nminded, before, they could belong to him. But no application of outward\nforce, in the opinion of the Quakers, can thus alter the internal man.\nNor can even the creeds and doctrines of others produce this effect,\nexcept they become sanctioned by the divine influence on the heart.\n\nNeither is it recorded of any of the apostles, that they used any other\nweapons than those of persuasion and the power of God in the propagation\nof their doctrines, leaving such as did not choose to follow them to\ntheir own way. They were explicit also in stating the spiritual nature\nof Christ's kingdom, from whence an inference similar to the former is\ndeducible, namely, that no compulsory interference can be effectual in\nmatters of religion. And St. Paul, in particular, tells the Corinthians,\nthat, in his spiritual services to them, he does not consider himself\n[1]\"as having any dominion over their faith, but as helpers of their\njoy.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: 2 Cor. i. 24.]\n\nBut if neither Jesus Christ, who was the author of that religion, which\nmany civil governments have established, nor the apostles, who\nafterwards propagated it, forced their doctrines upon other men, or\nhindered them by force from worshipping in their own way, even though\nthe former could have called legions of angels to his support, it\ncertainly does not become weak, ignorant, and fallible men, because they\nare placed in the situation of governors, to set up their own creeds as\nsupreme, and to throw penalties and restrictions in the way of the\nreligious exercise of others.\n\nBut if governors, contrary to the example of Jesus Christ and of his\napostles, should interfere in religious matters, and impose laws upon\nthe governed, of which, as Christians, they cannot but disapprove, then\nthe Quakers are of opinion, that the governed ought always to obey the\nlaws of Jesus Christ, rather than the laws of any governors, who are\nonly men. Thus when Peter and John were commanded by the rulers of the\nJews to speak no more in the name of Jesus, they dared not yield\nobedience to their commands, reasoning thus,[2] \"Whether it be right in\nthe sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.\"\n\n[Footnote 2: Acts iv. 19.]\n\nAnd as the governed in such case ought, in obedience to God, the Supreme\nRuler of the Universe, and the King of Kings, to refuse a compliance\nwith the laws of their own governors, so they ought to be prepared\npatiently to submit to the penalties which are annexed to such refusal,\nand on no account, if just representations made in the meek and quiet\nspirit of their religion, are not likely to be effectual, to take up\narms or resist them by force. And this doctrine they ground, first, on\nthe principle, that it is not only more noble, but more consistent with\ntheir duty as Christians, to suffer, than to give growth to the passions\nof revenge, or by open resistance to become the occasion of loss of life\nto others. And, secondly, on the example of Jesus Christ, and of the\napostles and primitive Christians, all of whom patiently submitted to\nthe pains and penalties inflicted upon them by the governments of their\nrespective times for the exercise of their religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Oaths--Quakers conceive it unlawful for Christians to take an\noath--their sufferings on this account--Consider oaths as\nunnecessary--as having an immoral tendency, which even the Heathens\nallowed--and as having been forbidden by Jesus Christ--Explanation of\nthe scriptural passages cited on this occasion--Christianity not so\nperfect with the lawfulness of oaths as without it--Other reasons taken\nfrom considerations relative to the ancient oath \"by the name of God\"_\n\n\nA second tenet, which the Quakers hold, is, that it is unlawful for\nChristians to take a civil oath.\n\nMany and grievous were the sufferings of the Quakers, in the early part\nof their history, on account of their refusing to swear before the civil\nmagistrate. They were insulted, fined, and imprisoned. Some of the\njudges too indulged a rancour against them on this account, unworthy of\ntheir high office, which prescribed justice impartially to all. For when\nthey could not convict them of the offences laid to their charge, they\nadministered to them the oath of allegiance, knowing that they would not\ntake it, and that confiscation of property and imprisonment would\nensue. But neither ill usage, nor imprisonment, nor loss of property,\never made any impression upon the Quakers, so as to induce them to swear\nin judicial cases, and they continued to suffer, till the legislature,\ntired out with the cries of their oppression, decreed, that their\naffirmation should in all cases except criminal, or in that of serving\nupon juries, or in that of qualifications for posts of honour or\nemolument under government, be received as equivalent to their oath. And\nthis indulgence towards them is continued to them by law to the present\nday.\n\nThe Quakers have an objection to oaths, as solemn appeals to God,\nbecause they are unnecessary.\n\nIt is an old saying among the Quaker writers, that \"truth was before all\noaths.\" By this they mean, there was a time, when men's words were\nreceived as truths, without the intervention of an oath. Ancient fable,\nindeed, tells us, that there were no oaths in the golden age, but that,\nwhen men departed from their primitive simplicity, and began to quarrel\nwith one another, they had recourse to falsehood to substantiate their\nown case, after which it became necessary, that some expedient should be\ndevised, in the case of disputes, for the ascertaining the truth. Hence\nHesiod makes the god of oaths the son of Esis or of contention. This,\naccount differs but little from that of Polybuis, who says, that the use\nof oaths in judgment was rare among the ancients, but that, as perfidy\ngrew, oaths increased.\n\nAnd as it is a saying of the Quakers, that \"truth was before all oaths,\"\nso they believe, that truth would be spoken, if oaths were done away.\nThus, that which is called honour by the world, will bind men to the\ntruth, who perhaps know but little of religion. But if so, then he, who\nmakes Christianity his guide, will not be found knowingly in a\nfalsehood, though he be deprived of the opportunity of swearing.\n\nBut if it be true, that truth existed before the invention of oaths, and\nthat truth would still be spoken, even if all oaths were abolished, then\nthe Quakers say, that oaths are not so necessary as some have imagined,\nbecause they have but a secondary effect in the production of the truth.\nThis conclusion they consider also as the result of reason. For good men\nwill speak truth without an oath, and bad men will hardly be influenced\nby one. And where oaths are regarded, it is probable that truth is\nforced out of men, not so much, because they consider them as solemn\nappeals to God, as that they consider the penalties, which will follow\ntheir violation; so that a simple affirmation, under the same pains and\npenalties, would be equally productive of the truth.\n\nThe Quakers consider oaths again as very injurious to morality. For\nfirst, they conceive it to be great presumption in men to summon God as\na witness in their trilling and earthly concerns.\n\nThey believe, secondly, that, if men accustom themselves to call upon\nGod on civil occasions, they render his name so familiar to them, that\nthey are likely to lose the reverence due to it, or so to blend\nreligious with secular considerations, that they become in danger of\nlosing sight of the dignity, solemnity, and awfulness of devotion. And\nit is not an unusual remark, that persons, most accustomed to oaths, are\nthe most likely to perjury. A custom-house oath has become proverbial in\nour own country. I do not mean by this to accuse mercantile men in\nparticular, but to state it as a received opinion, that, where men make\nsolemn things familiar, there is a danger of their moral degradation.\nHence the Quakers consider the common administration of oaths to have a\ntendency that is injurious to the moral interests of men.\n\nThis notion relative to the bad tendency of oaths, the Quakers state to\nhave prevailed even in the Gentile world. As Heathen philosophy became\npure, it branded the system of swearing as pernicious to morals. It was\nthe practice of the Persians to give each other their right hand as a\ntoken of their speaking the truth. He, who gave his hand deceitfully,\nwas accounted more detestable than if he had sworn the Scythians, in\ntheir conference with Alexander the Great, addressed him thus: \"Think\nnot that the Scythians confirm their friendship by an oath. They swear\nby keeping their word.\" The Phrygians were wholly against oaths. They\nneither took them themselves, nor required them of others. Among the\nproverbs of the Arabs, this was a celebrated one, \"Never swear, but let\nthy word be yes or no.\" So religious was Hercules, says Plutarch, that\nhe never swore but once. Clinias, a Greek philosopher, and a scholar of\nPythagoras, is said to have dreaded an oath so much, that, when by\nswearing he could have escaped a fine of three talents, he chose rather\nto pay the money than do it, though he was to have sworn nothing but the\ntruth. Indeed, throughout all Greece, the system of swearing was\nconsidered as of the most immoral tendency, the very word, which\nsignified \"perjured,\" in the Greek language, meaning, when analysed, \"he\nthat adds oath to oath,\" or \"the taker of many oaths.\"\n\nBut, above all, the Quakers consider oaths as unlawful for Christians,\nhaving been positively forbidden by Jesus Christ.\n\nThe words, in which they conceived this prohibition to have been\ncontained, they take from the sermon on the Mount.\n\n[3] \"Again, ye have heard, that it hath been said by them of old time,\nThou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine\noaths.\"\n\n[Footnote 3: Matt. v. 33.]\n\n\"But I say unto you, swear not at all, neither by heaven, because it is\nGod's throne.\"\n\n\"Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem, for it\nis the city of the great King.\"\n\n\"Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one\nhair white or black.\"\n\n\"But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is\nmore than this cometh of evil.\"\n\nIt is said by those, who oppose the Quakers on this subject, that these\nwords relate, not to civil oaths, but to such as are used by profane\npersons in the course of their conversation. But the Quakers deny this,\nbecause the disciples, as Jews, must have known that profane swearing\nhad been unlawful long before this prohibition of Jesus Christ. They\nmust relate, therefore, to something else, and to something, which had\nnot before been forbidden.\n\nThey deny it also on account of the construction of the sentences, and\nof the meaning of the several words in these. For the words, \"Swear not\nat all,\" in the second of the verses, which have been quoted, have an\nimmediate reference to the words in the first. Thus they relate to the\nword \"forswear,\" in the first. But if they relate to the word\n\"forswear,\" they must relate to perjury, and if to perjury, then to a\ncivil oath, or to an oath, where an appeal is made to God by man, as to\nsomething relating to himself. The word oath also is explicitly\nmentioned in the first of these verses, and mentioned as an oath which\nhad been allowed. Now there was one oath, which had been allowed in\nancient time. The Jews had been permitted, in matters of judgment, to\nswear by the name of God. This permission was given them, for one, among\nother reasons, that they might be prevented from swearing by the name of\nthose idols by which their neighbours swore; for a solemn appeal to any\nHeathen god necessarily includes an acknowledgment of the omnipresence\nof the same.\n\nThat they related to this oath in particular, the Quakers conceive to be\nobvious from the prohibition in the verses which have been cited, of\nswearing by heaven, by earth, and by other things. The Jews, knowing the\nsacredness of the name of God, had an awful notion of the consequences\nof perjury, if committed after an appeal to it, and therefore had\nrecourse to the names of the creatures, in case they should swear\nfalsely. But even the oaths, thus substituted by them, are forbidden by\nJesus Christ; and they are forbidden upon this principle, as we find by\na subsequent explanation given by St. Matthew, that whosoever swore by\nthese creatures, really and positively swore by the name of God. But if\nthey are forbidden, because swearing by these creatures is the same\nthing as swearing by God who made them, then the oath \"by the name of\nGod,\" which had been permitted to the Jews of old, was intended by Jesus\nChrist to be discontinued, or to have no place in his new religion.\n\nThe Quakers then, considering the words in question to have the meaning\nnow annexed to them, give the following larger explanation of what was\nthe intention of our Saviour upon this occasion.\n\nIn his sermon on the Mount, of which these words on the subject of oaths\nare a part, he inculcated into his disciples a system of morality, far\nexceeding that of the Jews, and therefore in the verses which precede\nthose upon this subject, he tells them, that whereas it was said of old,\n\"thou shall not kill,\" he expected of them, that they should not even\nentertain the passion of revenge. And whereas it was said of old, \"thou\nshalt not commit adultery,\" he expected, that they should not even lust\nafter others, if they were married, or after those in a married state.\nThus he brings both murder and adultery from act to thought. He attaches\na criminality to unlawful feelings if not suppressed, or aims at the\nsubjugation of the passions, as the springs of the evil actions of men.\nGoing on to shew the farther superiority of his system of morality over\nthat of the Jews, he says again, whereas it was said of old, \"thou\nshall not forswear thyself,\" he expects that they should not swear at\nall, not even by the name of God, which had been formerly allowed, for\nthat he came to abrogate the ancient law, and perjury with it. It was\nhis object to make the word of his true disciples equal to the ancient\noath. Thus he substituted truth for oaths. And he made this essential\ndifference between a Jew and a Christian, that, whereas the one swore in\norder that he might be believed; the other was to speak truth in order\nthat he might not swear. Such was the intended advance from Jew to\nChristian, or from Moses to Christ.\n\nThe Quakers are farther confirmed in their ideas upon this subject, by\nbelieving, that Christianity would not have been as perfect as they\napprehend it to have been intended to be, without this restriction upon\noaths. Is it possible, they say, that Jesus Christ would have left it to\nChristians to imagine, that their words were to be doubted on any\noccasion? Would he have left it to them to think so dishonourably of one\nanother, or of their new vocation, that their words were to be tried by\nthe touchstone of oaths, when his religion was to have a greater effect\nthan any former system of morality ever known, in the production of\ntruth? Is it possible, when oaths sprung out of fraud and falsehood, as\nhe himself witnesses, (for whatever is more than yea and nay, cometh of\nevil) that he would have left this remnant of antiquity standing, as if\nhis religion was not intended to extirpate the very ground-work of it?\n\nFinally, the Quakers are confirmed in their ideas upon this subject from\na belief that oaths were to cease, either at the coming of Jesus Christ,\nor as men became Christians. For, in the first place, the oath \"by the\nname of God,\" is considered by some, as I have before noticed, to have\nbeen permitted to the Jews during their weak state, that they might not\nswear by the idols of their cotemporary neighbours, and thus lose sight\nof the only and true God. But what Christian stands in need of any\npreservative against idolatry, or of any commemorative of the existence\nand superintendence of an almighty, wise, beneficent, and moral Governor\nof the world? Some again have imagined, that, as the different\npurifications among the Jews, denoting the holiness of God, signified\nthat it became men to endeavour to be holy, so the oath \"by the name of\nGod,\" denoting the verity of God, signified, that it became men to\ndevote themselves to the truth. But no true Christian stands in need of\nsuch symbols, to make him consider his word as equivalent to his oath.\nOthers again have imagined, that the oath \"by the name of God,\" typified\nthe truth, or the eternal word. But as the type ceases when the\nantitype appears, so the coming of Jesus Christ, who in the gospel\nlanguage is called both the truth and the eternal word, may be\nconsidered as putting an end to this, as to other types and shadows, of\nthe Jewish church.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_War--Tenet on war--Quakers hold it unlawful for Christians to\nfight--Scriptural passages, which they produce in support of this\ntenet--Arguments which others produce from scriptural authority against\nit--Reply of the Quakers to these arguments._\n\n\nThe next of the great tenets which the Quakers hold, is on the subject\nof war. They believe it unlawful for Christians to engage in the\nprofession of arms, or indeed to bear arms under any circumstances of\nhostility whatever. Hence there is no such character as that of a Quaker\nsoldier. A Quaker is always able to avoid the regular army, because the\ncircumstance of entering into it is a matter of choice. But where he has\nno such choice, as is the case in the militia, he either submits, if he\nhas property, to distraints upon it, or, if he has not, to prison.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: The Quakers have been charged with inconsistency in\nrefusing military service, and yet in paying those taxes, which are\nexpressly for the support of wars. To this charge they reply, that they\nbelieve it to be their duty to render to Caesar the things which are\nCaesar's, and to leave the application of them to Caesar himself, as he\njudges best for the support of government. This duty they collect from\nthe example of Jesus Christ, who paid the tribute money himself, and\nordered his disciples to do it, and this to a government, not only\nprofessedly military, but distinguished for its idolatry and despotism.\nPersonal service, however, they conceive to militate against a positive\ncommand by our Saviour, as will be explained in this chapter.]\n\nThe Quakers ground the illicitness of war on several passages, which are\nto be found in the New Testament. I shall not quote all the texts they\nbring forward, but shall make a selection of them on this occasion.\n\nJesus Christ, in the famous sermon, which he preached upon the Mount,\ntook occasion to mention specifically some of the precepts of the Jewish\nlaw, and to inform his hearers, that he expected of those, who were to\nbe his true disciples, that they would carry these to a much higher\nextent in their practice under the new dispensation, which he was then\naffording them. Christianity required a greater perfection of the human\ncharacter than under the law. Men were not only not to kill, but not\neven to cherish the passion of revenge.[5] And \"whereas it was said of\nold, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, I say unto you, says\nChrist, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy\nright cheek, turn to him the other also.\" And farther on in the same\nchapter, he says, \"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love\nthy neighbour, and hate thine enemy: But I say unto you, love your\nenemies,[6] bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,\nand pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. For if ye\nlove them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the\nPublicans the same? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which\nis in heaven is perfect.\" Now the Quakers are of opinion, that no man\ncan receive this doctrine his heart, and assist either offensively or\ndefensively in the operations of war.\n\n[Footnote 5: Matt. v. 38.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The Heathen nations, on account of their idolatry, were\ncalled enemies by the Jews.]\n\nOther passages, quoted by the Quakers, in favour of their tenet on war,\nare taken from the apostles Paul and James conjointly.\n\nThe former, in his[7] second epistle to the Corinthians, says, \"For\nthough we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: For the\nweapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the\npulling down of strong holds, to the casting down imaginations, and\nevery high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and\nbringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.\" From\nhence the Quakers argue, that the warfare of Christianity, or that which\nChristianity recognises, is not carnal, but spiritual, and that it\nconsists in the destruction of the evil imaginations, or of the evil\nlusts and passions of men. That is, no man can be a true soldier of\nChrist, unless his lusts are subdued, or unless the carnal be done away\nby the spiritual mind. Now this position having been laid down by St.\nPaul, or the position having been established in Christian morals, that\na state of subjugated passions is one of the great characteristic marks\nof a true Christian, the Quakers draw a conclusion from it by the help\nof the words of St. James. This apostle, in his letter to the dispersed\ntribes, which were often at war with each other, as well as with the\nRomans, says,[8] \"From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come\nthey not hence even of your lusts that war in your members?\" But if wars\ncome from the lusts of men, then the Quakers say, that those who have\nsubdued their lusts, can no longer engage in them, or, in other words,\nthat true Christians, being persons of this description, or being such,\naccording to St. Paul, as are redeemed out of what St. James calls the\nvery grounds and occasions of wars, can no longer fight. And as this\nproposition is true in itself, so the Quakers conceive the converse of\nit to be true also: For if there are persons, on the other hand, who\ndeliberately engage in the wars and fightings of the world, it is a\nproof, that their lusts are not yet subjugated, or that, though they may\nbe nominal, they are not yet arrived at the stature of true or of\nfull-grown Christians.\n\n[Footnote 7: 2 Cor. x. 3, 4, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 8: James iv. I.]\n\nA third quotation, made by the Quakers, is taken from St. Paul\nexclusively.[9] \"Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is\nnone of his.\" That is, if men have not the same disposition which Jesus\nChrist manifested in the different situations of his life, the same\nspirit of humility and of forbearance, and of love, and of forgiveness\nof injuries, or if they do not follow him as a pattern, or if they do\nnot act as he would have done on any similar occasion, they are not\nChristians. Now they conceive, knowing what the spirit of Jesus was by\nthose things which have been recorded of him, that he could never have\nbeen induced or compelled, by any earthly consideration or power, to\nhave engaged in the wars of the world. They are aware that his mission,\nwhich it became him to fulfil, and which engrossed all his time, would\nnot have allowed him the opportunity of a military life. But they\nbelieve, independently of this, that the spirit which he manifested upon\nearth, would have been of itself a sufficient bar to such an employment.\nThis they judge from his opinions and his precepts. For how could he\nhave taken up arms to fight, who enjoined in the new dispensation, that\nmen were not to resist evil; that they were to love their enemies; that\nthey were to bless those who cursed them, and to do good to those who\nhated them? This they judge also from his practice. For how could he\nhave lifted up his arm against another, who, \"when he was reviled,\nreviled not again;\" and who, in his very agony upon the Cross, prayed\nfor his persecutors, saying, \"Father, forgive them, for they know not\nwhat they do.\" But if Jesus Christ could not have been induced or\ncompelled to have engaged in a profession, which would have subjected\nhim to take away the life of another, so neither can any Christian; \"for\nif a man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.\"\n\n[Footnote 9: Rom. viii. 9.]\n\nThree arguments are usually brought against the Quakers on this subject.\n\nThe first is, that John the Baptist,[10] when the soldiers demanded of\nhim what they should do, did not desire them to leave the service in\nwhich they were engaged, but, on the other hand, to be content with\ntheir wages. To this the Quakers reply, that John told them also, \"to do\nviolence to no man.\" But even if he had not said this, they apprehend\nthat nothing could be deduced from his expressions, which could become\nbinding upon Christians. For John was the last prophet of the old\ndispensation, but was never admitted into the new. He belonged to the\nsystem which required an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but\nnot to that which required no resistance to evil, and which insisted\nupon the love of enemies as well as of friends. Hence Jesus Christ said\nof him, that \"he who was least in the kingdom of heaven, was greater\nthan he.\"\n\n[Footnote 10: Luke iii. 14.]\n\nThe second argument brought against the Quakers on this occasion, is of\na similar nature with the former. It is said that, if war had been\nunlawful, our Saviour, when the centurion[11] came to him at Capernaum,\nwould have found fault with his profession; but he did not do this, but\non the other hand he highly commended him for his religion. In answer to\nthis the Quakers observe, first, that no solid argument can be drawn\nfrom silence on any occasion. Secondly, that Jesus Christ seems, for\nwise purposes, to have abstained from meddling with many of the civil\ninstitutions of his time, though in themselves wicked, thinking\nprobably, that it was sufficient to have left behind him such general\nprecepts, as, when applied properly, would be subversive of them all.\nAnd, thirdly, that he never commended the centurion on account of his\nmilitary situation, but on account of his profession of his faith.\n\n[Footnote 11: Matt. viii. 5.]\n\nThey say farther, that they can bring an argument of a much more\npositive nature than that just mentioned, from an incident which took\nplace, and where Jesus was again concerned. When Peter cut off the ear\nof one of the servants of the high priest, who was concerned in the\napprehension of his Lord, he was not applauded, but reprimanded for the\npart which he thus took in his defence in the following words:[12] \"Put\nup again thy sword in its place, for all they that take the sword, shall\nperish by the sword.\" Now the Quakers conceive, that much more is to be\ninferred against the use of the sword from this instance, than from the\nformer in favour of it.\n\n[Footnote 12: Matt. xxvi, 52.]\n\nThe last argument, which is usually adduced against the Quakers on this\nsubject, is, that they have mistaken the meaning of the words of the\nfamous sermon upon the Mount. These words teach us the noble lesson,\nthat it is more consistent with the character of a Christian to forgive,\nthan to resist an injury. They are, it is said, wholly of private\nimport, and relate solely to private occurrences in life. But the\nQuakers have extended the meaning of them beyond private to public\ninjuries or wars.\n\nThe Quakers, in answer to this observe, that they dare not give to the\nwords in question a less extensive meaning. They relate to every one who\nreads them. They relate to the poor. They relate to the rich. They\nrelate to, every potentate who may be the ruler of a land. They relate\nto every individual of his council. There is no exception, or\ndispensation to any one, in favour of any case.\n\nThat they relate to public as well as private wars, or that they extend\nthemselves naturally to those which are public, the Quakers conceive it\nreasonable to suppose from the following consideration. No man, they\napprehend, can possess practically the divine principle of loving an\nindividual enemy at home, or of doing good to the man who hates him, but\nhe must of necessity love his enemy in any and every other place. He\nmust have gone so for forward on the road to Christian perfection, as to\nbe unable to bear arms against any other person whatsoever, and\nparticularly when, according to the doctrines of the New Testament, no\ngeographical boundaries fix the limits of love and enmity between man\nand man, but the whole human race are considered as the children of the\nsame parent, and therefore as brothers to one another. But who can truly\nlove an enemy and kill him? And where is the difference, under the\nGospel dispensation, between Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bond\nand free?\n\nThat these words were meant to extend to public as well as to private\nware, the Quakers believe again from the views which they entertain\nrelative to the completion of prophecy. They believe that a time will\ncome, in one or other of the succeeding ages, \"when men shall bent their\nswords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and when\nnation shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall not learn\nwar any more.\" Now other Christians, who differ from them in the\ninterpretation of the words in question, believe equally with them, that\nthe times thus predicted will come to pass. The question then is,\nwhether the more enlarged interpretation of these words, as insisted\nupon by the Quakers, or of the less enlarged as insisted upon by others,\nbe the most consistent with the belief of the future accomplishment of\nthe prophecy just mentioned. And in this case the Quakers are of\nopinion, that if wars were ever to cease, one ought to expect that some\nfoundation would have been previously laid in Christianity for this\ngreat and important end. The subjugation of the passions, which it is\nthe direct tendency of Christianity to effect, would produce this end.\nAnd so far such a foundation has already been laid in this system. But\nas the admission of moral precepts into the education of man, so as to\nform habits of moral opinion, is another, way of influencing conduct in\nlife, the Quakers think it likely that some such maxim as \"that\nChristians should not fight,\" would have been introduced also, because\nthe adoption of such a maxim would have had a similar tendency with the\nsubjugation of the passions in producing the same end. For it seems\nabsurd, they conceive, to suppose that wars should cease, and that no\nprecept should have been held out that they were wrong. But the more\nenlarged interpretation of the words in question furnishes such a\nprecept, and therefore another foundation seems to have been laid in\nChristianity for the same end. They admit, therefore, the larger\ninterpretation as included in the less, because it comports more with\nthe design of Providence, who, by the mouth of his prophets wills\nuniversal peace, that the prohibition of public as well as of private\nwars should be understood as a Christian doctrine, than that the words\nin question should be confined to private injuries alone.\n\nThe last reason, which the Quakers give for adopting the larger\ninterpretation of the words in the sermon upon the Mount, as well as the\nless, is the following. They are of opinion, that, as Christians, they\nought not to lessen the number of the moral obligations of the Gospel.\nThey ought not to abridge its dignity, nor to put limits to its\nbenevolence. If it was the desire of Jesus Christ, that men should love\ntheir enemies, it is their duty to believe, that his wish could not have\nbeen otherwise than universal. If it was an object with him to cure\nmoral evil, it is their duty to suppose, that it was his desire to\ndestroy it, not partially, but to the utmost possible extent. If it was\nhis design to give happiness to man, it is their duty to determine, that\nhe intended to give it not in a limited proportion, but in the largest\nmeasure. But when they consider the nature of wars, that they militate\nagainst the law of preservation, that they include the commission of a\nmultitude of crimes, that they produce a complication of misery and\nsuffering to man, they conceive they would not be doing their duty as\nChristians, or giving to Christianity its due honour, if they were not\nto admit the larger meaning of the words in question as well as the\nless. Reason too, pleads for the one as well as for the other.\nConsistency of moral doctrine again demands both. But if we admit the\nrestricted interpretation, and exclude the larger, we offend reason. All\nconsistency is at an end. Individual responsibility for moral turpitude\nwill be taken from man. Crimes, clearly marked and defined in the page\nof Christianity, will cease to be crimes at the will of princes. One\ncontradiction will rush in after another; and men will have two\ndifferent standards of morality, as they adhere to the commands of the\nGospel, or to the customs of governments or of the world.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Meaning of the scriptural passages advanced by the Quakers, supported\nby the opinions and practice of the early Christians--Early Christian\nwriters held it unlawful for Christians to fight, as appears from\nJustin--Tatian--Clemens--and others--Christians would not enter into the\narmies for more than two centuries, as appears from Ireneus--Tertullian\n--Celsus--Origen and others--and generally left the military service,\nif they happened to be converted in it.\n\n\nIt may be presumed to be difficult for Christians, who have been in the\nhabit of seeing wars entered into and carried on by their own and other\nChristian governments, and without any other censure than that they\nmight be politically wrong, to see the scriptural passages of\n\"non-resistance to evil and love of enemies,\" but through a vitiated\nmedium. The prejudices of some, the interests of others, and custom with\nall, will induce a belief among them, that these have no relation to\npublic wars. At least they will be glad to screen themselves under such\na notion. But the question is, what a Heathen would have said to these\npassages, who, on his conversion to Christianity, believed that the New\nTestament was of divine origin, that it was the book of life, and that\nthe precepts, which it contained, were not to be dispensed with, to suit\nparticular cases, without the imputation of evil. Now such a trial, the\nQuakers say, has been made. It was made by the first Christians, and\nthey affirm, that these interpreted the passages, which have been\nmentioned, differently from those of most of the Christians of the\npresent age; for that both their opinions and their practice spoke\nloudly against the lawfulness of war.\n\nUpon this new subject I shall enter next. And I confess I shall enter\nupon it willingly. First, because I know of none that is more important.\nSecondly, because, though controversy may have thrown some light upon\nit, much remains to be added. And, thirdly, because the assertions of\nthe Quakers on this point are disputed by many at the present day. With\nrespect to the opinions of the early Quakers, which I shall notice\nfirst, it must be premised, that such of them as have written books,\nhave not all of them entered on this subject. Some of them have not had\neven occasion to mention it. But where they have, and where they have\nexpressed an opinion, I believe that this will be found unfavourable to\nthe continuance of war.\n\nJustin the Martyr, one of the earliest writers in the second century,\nconsiders war as unlawful. He makes also the devil \"the author of all\nwar.\" No severer sentence could have been passed upon it than this, when\nwe consider it as coming from the lips of an early Christian. The\nsentiment too was contrary to the prevailing sentiments of the times,\nwhen, of all professions, that of war was most honourable, and was the\nonly one that was considered to lead to glory. It resulted, therefore,\nin all probablity, from the new views, which Justin had acquired by a\nperusal of such of the scriptures, as had then fallen into his hands.\n\nTatian, who was the disciple of Justin, in his oration to the Greeks,\nspeaks precisely in the same terms on the same subject.\n\nFrom the different expressions of Clemens of Alexandria, a contemporary\nof the latter, we collect his opinion to be decisive against the\nlawfulness of war.\n\nTertullian, who may be mentioned next in order of time, strongly\ncondemned the practice of bearing arms, as it related to Christians. I\nshall give one or two extracts from him on this subject. In his\ndissertation on the worship of idols, he says, \"Though the soldiers came\nto John, and received a certain form to be observed, and though the\ncenturion believed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter, disarmed every\nsoldier afterwards: for custom never sanctions an illicit act.\" And in\nhis \"Soldier's Garland,\" he says, \"Can a soldier's life be lawful, when\nChrist has pronounced, that he who lives by the sword shall perish by\nthe sword? Can one, who professes the peaceable doctrines of the Gospel,\nbe a soldier, when it is his duty not so much as to go to law? and shall\nhe, who is not to revenge his own wrongs, be instrumental in bringing\nothers into chains, imprisonment, torment, death?\"\n\nCyprian, in his Epistle to Donatus, takes a view of such customs in his\nown times, as he conceived to be repugnant to the spirit or the letter\nof the Gospel. In looking at war, which was one of them, he speaks thus:\n\"Suppose thyself, says he, with me on the top of some very exalted\neminence, and from thence looking down upon the appearances of things\nbeneath thee. Let our prospect take in the whole horizon, and let us\nview, with the indifference of persons not concerned in them, the\nvarious motions and agitations of human life. Thou wilt then, I dare\nsay, have a real compassion for the circumstances of mankind, and for\nthe posture in which this view will represent them. And when thou\nreflectest upon thy condition, thy thoughts will rise in transports of\ngratitude and praise to God for having made thy escape from the\npollutions of the world. The things thou wilt principally observe, will\nbe the highways beset with robbers, the seas with pirates, encampments,\nmarches, and all the terrible forms of war and, bloodshed. When a single\nmurder is committed, it shall be deemed perhaps a crime; but that crime\nshall commence a virtue, when committed under the shelter of public\nauthority, so that punishment is not rated by the measure of guilt, but\nthe more enormous the size of the wickedness is, so much the greater is\nthe chance for impunity.\" These are the sentiments of Cyprian, and that\nthey were the result of his views of Christianity, as taken from the\ndivine writings, there can be little doubt. If he had stood upon the\nsame eminence, and beheld the same sights previously to his conversion,\nhe might, like others, have neither thought piracy dishonourable, nor\nwar inglorious.\n\nLactantius, who lived some time after Cyprian, in his treatise\n\"Concerning the True Worship of God,\" says, \"It can never be lawful for\na righteous man to go to war, whose warfare is in righteousness itself,\"\nAnd in another part of the same treatise he observes, that \"no exception\ncan be made with respect to this command of God. It can never be lawful\nto kill a man, whose person the Divine Being designed to be sacred as to\nviolence.\"\n\nIt will be unnecessary to make extracts from other of the early\nChristian writers, who mention this subject. I shall therefore only\nobserve, that the names of Origen, Archelaus, Ambrose, Chrysostom,\nJerom, and Cyril, may be added, to those already mentioned, as the names\nof persons who gave it as their opinion, that it was unlawful for\nChristians to go to war.\n\nWith respect to the practice of the early Christians, which is the next\npoint to be considered, it may be observed, that there is no well\nauthenticated instance upon record, of Christians entering into the army\nfor the first two centuries; but it is true, on the other hand, that\nthey declined the military profession, as one in which it was not lawful\nfor them to engage.\n\nThe first species of evidence, which I shall produce to this point, may\nbe found in the following facts, which reach from the year 169 to the\nyear 198, Avidius Crassus had rebelled against the emperor Verus, and\nwas slain in a short time afterwards. Clodius Albinus in one part of the\nworld, and Pescenninus Niger in another, rebelled against the emperor\nSeverus, and both were slain likewise. Now suspicion fell, as it always\ndid in these times, if any thing went wrong, upon the Christians, as\nhaving been concerned upon these occasions. But Tertullian, in his\nDiscourse to Scapula, tells us, that no Christians were to be found in\nthese armies. And yet these armies were extensive. Crassus was master of\nall Syria, with its four legions, Niger of the Asiatic and Egyptian\nlegions, and Albinus of those of Britain, which legions together\ncontained between a third and an half of the standing legions of Rome.\nAnd the fact, that no Christians were to be found in these, is the more\nremarkable, because, according to the same Tertullian, Christianity had\nreached all the places, in which these armies were.\n\nA second species of evidence, as far as it goes, may be collected from\nexpressions and declarations in the works of certain authors of those\ntimes. Justin the Martyr, and Tatian, make distinctions between\nsoldiers and Christians; and the latter says, that the Christians\ndeclined even military commands. Clemens of Alexandria, gives the\nChristians, who were cotemporary with him, the appellation of\n\"peaceable, or of the followers of peace,\" thus distinguishing them from\nthe soldiers of his age. And he says expressly, that \"those, who were\nthe followers of peace, used none of the instruments of war.\"\n\nA third species of evidence, which is of the highest importance in this\ncase, is the belief which the writers of these times had, that the\nprophecy of Isaiah, which stated, that men should turn their swords into\nploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, was then in the act\nof completion.\n\nIrenaeus, who flourished about the year 180, affirms, that this famous\nprophecy had been completed in his time; \"for the Christians, says he,\nhave changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace,\nand they know not how to fight,\" Justin Martyr, who was cotemporary with\nIrenaeus, asserted the same thing, which he could not have done if the\nChristians in his time had engaged in war. \"That the prophecy, says he,\nis fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past\nkilled one another, do not now fight with our enemies.\" And here it is\nobservable, that the word \"fight\" does not mean to strike, or to beat,\nor to give a blow, but to fight as in war; and the word \"enemy\" does\nnot mean a common adversary, or one who has injured us, but an enemy of\nthe state; and the sentence, which follows that which has been given,\nputs the matter again out of all doubt. Tertullian, who lived after\nthese, speaks in those remarkable words: \"Deny that these (meaning the\nturning of swords into ploughshares) are the things prophesied of, when\nyou see what you see, or that they are the things fulfilled, when you\nread what you read; but if you deny neither of these positions, then you\nmust confess, that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the\npractice of every individual is concerned, to whom it is applicable.\" I\nmight go from Tertullian even as far as Theoderet, if it were necessary,\nto shew, that the prophecy in question was considered as in the act of\ncompletion in those times.\n\nThe fourth and last proof will be found in the assertions of Celsus, and\nin the reply of Origen to that writer. Celsus, who lived at the end of\nthe second century, attacked the Christian religion. He made it one of\nhis charges against the Christians, that they refused in his time to\nbear arms for the emperor, even in the case of necessity, and when their\nservices would have been accepted. He told them farther, that if the\nrest of the empire were of their opinion, it would soon be overrun by\nthe Barbarians. Now Celsus dared not have brought this charge against\nthe Christians, if the fact had not been publicly known. But let us see\nwhether it was denied by those, who were of opinion that his work\ndemanded a reply. The person, who wrote against him in favour of\nChristianity, was Origen, who lived in the third century. But Origen, in\nhis answer, admits the fact as stated by Celsus, that the Christians\nwould not bear arms, and justifies them for refusing the practice on the\nprinciple of the unlawfulness of war.\n\nAnd as the early Christians would not enter into the armies, so there is\ngood ground to suppose, that, when they became converted in them, they\nrelinquished their profession. Human nature was the same both in and out\nof the armies, and would be equally worked upon, in this new state of\nthings, in both cases. Accordingly we find, from Tertullian, in his\n\"Soldier's Garland,\" that many in his time, immediately on their\nconversion, quitted the military service. We are told also, by\nArchelaus, who flourished under Probus in the year 278, that many Roman\nsoldiers, who had embraced Christianity, after having witnessed the\npiety and generosity of Marcellus, immediately forsook the profession of\narms. We are told also by Eusebius, that, about the same time, \"Numbers\nlaid aside a military life, and became private persons, rather than\nabjure their religion.\" And here it may not be unworthy of remark, that\nsoldiers, after their conversion, became so troublesome in the army,\nboth on account of their scruples against the idolatrous practices\nrequired of the soldiery, and their scruples against fighting, that they\nwere occasionally dismissed the service on these accounts.\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_Objection to the foregoing statement, that the idolatry, which was then\nconnected with the military service, and not the unlawfulness of war,\nwas the reason why Christians declined it--Idolatry admitted to be a\ncause--Instance in Marinus--But the belief of the unlawfulness of\nfighting was another, and an equally powerful cause--Instances in\nMaximilian--Marcellus--Cassian--Marlin--The one scruple as much then a\npart of the Christian religion as the other._\n\n\nAs an objection may be made to the foregoing statement, I think it\nproper to notice it in this place.\n\nIt will be said, that the military oath, which all were obliged to take\nalike in the Roman armies, and which was to be repeated annually, was\nfull of idolatry; that the Roman standards were all considered as gods,\nand had divine honours paid to them by the soldiery; and that the images\nalso of the emperors, which were either fixed upon these standards, or\nplaced in the midst of them in a temple in the camp, were to be adored\nin the same manner. Now these customs were interwoven with the military\nservice. No Roman soldier was exempted from them. It will be urged,\ntherefore, that no Christian could submit to these services. Indeed when\na person was suspected of being a Christian in those times, he was\ninstantly taken to the altars to sacrifice, it being notorious, that if\nhe were a Christian he would not sacrifice, though at the hazard of his\nlife. Is it not, therefore, to be presumed, that these idolatrous tests\noperated as the great cause, why Christians refused to enter into the\narmy, or why they left it when converted as described in the former\nsection?\n\nThat these tests operated as a cause, we must allow. And let this be\nconsidered as an insuperable argument against those, who contend that\nthere were Christian soldiers in these times, for no Christian could\nsubmit to such idolatrous homage; but, if so, no Christian could be a\nsoldier.\n\nThat these tests must have operated as a cause, we may infer from the\nhistory of Marinus. Marinus, according to Eusebius, was a man of family\nand fortune, and an officer in a legion, which, in the year 260, was\nstationed at Caesarea of Palestine. One of the centurion's rods happened\nto become vacant in this legion, and Marinus was appointed to it. But\njust at this moment another, next to him in rank, accused him before the\ntribunal of being a Christian, stating, that \"the laws did not allow a\nChristian, who refused to sacrifice to the emperors, to hold any dignity\nin the army.\" Achaeus, the judge, asked Marinus if it was true, that he\nhad become a Christian. He acknowledged it. Three hours were then\nallowed him to consider, whether he would sacrifice or die. When the\ntime was expired, he chose the latter. Indeed, so desirous were the\nearly Christians of keeping clear of idolatry in every shape, that they\navoided every custom that appeared in the least degree connected with\nit. Thus when a largess was given in honour of the emperors, L.\nSeptimius Severus the father, and M. Aurelius Caracalla the son, a\nsolitary soldier, as we learn from Tertullian, was seen carrying the\ngarland, which had been given him on that occasion, in his hand, while\nthe rest wore it upon their heads. On being interrogated by the\ncommander, why he refused wearing it, he replied, that[13] he had become\na Christian. He was immediately punished before the army, and sent into\nprison. What became of him afterwards is not related. But it must be\nclear, if he lived and cherished his Christian feelings, that, when the\nday of the renewal of his oath, or of the worshipping of the standards,\nor of any sacrifice in the camp, should arrive, he would have refused\nthese services, or abandoned his profession.\n\n[Footnote 13: The priests wore the garland, when they sacrificed to the\nHeathen gods.]\n\nBut though unquestionably the idolatrous services, required of the\nsoldiers of those times, hindered Christians from entering into the\narmies, and compelled those, who were converted in them, to leave them,\nnothing is more true, than that the belief, that it was unlawful for\nChristians to fight, occasioned an equal abhorrence of a military life.\nOne of the first effects, which Christianity seems to have produced upon\nits first converts, when it was pure and unadulterated, and unmixed\nwith the interpretations of political men, was a persuasion, that it\nbecame them, in obedience to the divine commands, to abstain from all\nmanner of violence, and to become distinguishable as the followers of\npeace. We find accordingly from Athenagoras, and other early writers,\nthat the Christians of his time, abstained, when they were struck, from\nstriking again, and that they carried their principles so far, as even\nto refuse to go to law with those who injured them. We find also, from\nthe same Athenagoras, and from Theophilus Antiochenus, Tatian, Minucius\nFelix, and others, that they kept away from the shews of the gladiators.\nThis they did, not only because these shews were cruel; but because, as\nTheophilus says, \"lest we should become partakers of the murders\ncommitted there.\" A similar reason is also given by Athenagoras on this\noccasion: \"Who is there, says he, that does not prize the shews of the\ngladiators, which your emperors make for the people? But we, thinking\nthat there is very little difference whether a man be the author or\nspectator of murder, keep away from all such sights.\" And here it may be\nobserved, that the gladiators themselves were, generally prisoners of\nwar, or reputed enemies, and that the murder of these was by public\nauthority, and sanctioned; as in war, by the state. Now what conclusion\nare we to draw from these premises? Can we think it possible, that\nthose, who refused to strike again, or to go to law with those who\ninjured them, and who thought an attendance at the gladiatorial\nspectacles criminal on the principle, that he who stood by was a\nmurderer, though the murder was sanctioned by law; should not have an\nobjection to the military service, on the principle, that it was\nunlawful to fight?\n\nIn short, the belief of the unlawfulness of war, was universal among\nChristians in those times. Every Christian writer of the second century,\nwho notices the subject, makes it unlawful for Christians to bear arms.\nAnd if the Christian writers of this age were of this opinion, contrary\nto all their sentiments before their conversion, and wholly from their\nknowledge of divine truths, why should not others, who had a common\nnature with these, be impressed, on receiving the same truths, in a\nsimilar manner? And so undoubtedly they were. And as this belief was\nuniversal among the Christians of those times, so it operated with them\nas an impediment to a military life, quite as much as the idolatry, that\nwas connected with it, of which the following instances, in opposition\nto that of Marinus, may suffice.\n\nThe first case I propose to mention shall be, where there was an\nobjection to entering into the military service upon this principle. And\nhere, I apprehend none can be more in point than that of Maximilian, as\npreserved in the acts of Ruinart.\n\nMaximilian, having been brought before the tribunal, in order to be\nenrolled as a soldier, Dion, the proconsul, asked him his name.\nMaximilian, turning to him, replied, \"Why wouldst thou know my name? I\nam a Christian, and cannot fight.\"\n\nThen Dion ordered him to be enrolled, and when he was enrolled, it was\nrecited out of the register, that he was five feet ten inches high.\nImmediately after this, Dion bade the officer mark him. But Maximilian\nrefused to be marked, still asserting that he was a Christian. Upon\nwhich Dion instantly replied, \"Bear arms, or thou shalt die.\"\n\nTo this Maximilian answered, \"I cannot fight, if I die. I am not a\nsoldier of this world, but a soldier of God.\" Dion then said, \"Who has\npersuaded thee to behave thus?\" Maximilian answered, \"My own mind, and\nhe who called me.\" Dion then spoke to his father, and bade him persuade\nhis son. But his father observed, that his son knew his own mind, and\nwhat it was best for him to do.\n\nAfter this had passed, Dion addressed Maximilian again in these words,\n\"Take thy arms, and receive the mark.\" \"I can receive, says Maximilian,\nno such mark. I have already the mark of Christ.\" Upon which Dion said,\n\"I will send thee quickly to thy Christ.\" \"Thou mayest do so, said\nMaximilian, but the glory will be mine.\"\n\nDion then bade the officer mark him. But Maximilian still persisted in\nrefusing, and spoke thus: \"I cannot receive the mark of this world, and\nif thou shouldst give me the mark, I will destroy it. It will avail\nnothing. I am a Christian, and it is not lawful for me to wear such a\nmark about my neck, when I have received the saving mark of the Lord\nJesus Christ, the Son of the living God, whom thou, knowest not, who\ndied to give us life, and whom God gave for our sins. Him all we\nChristians obey. Him we follow as the restorer of our life, and the\nauthor of our salvation.\"\n\nDion instantly replied to this, \"Take thy arms, and receive the mark, or\nthou shalt suffer a miserable death.\"--\"But I shall not perish, said\nMaximilian. My name is already enrolled with Christ. I cannot fight.\"\n\nDion said, \"Consider then thy youth, and bear arms. The profession of\narms becomes a young man.\" Maximilian replied, \"My arms are with the\nLord. I cannot fight for any earthly consideration. I am now a\nChristian.\"\n\nDion the proconsul, said, \"Among the life-guards of our masters\nDioclesian and Maximian, and Constantius and Maximus, there are\nChristian soldiers, and they fight.\" Maximilian answered, \"They know\nbest what is expedient for them, but I am a Christian, and it is\nunlawful to do evil.\"\n\nDion said, \"Take thy arms. Despise not the profession of a soldier, lest\nthou perish miserably.\"--\"But I shall not perish, says Maximilian; and\nif I should leave this world, my soul will live with Christ the Lord.\"\n\nDion then ordered his name to be struck from the roll, and, when this\nwas done, he proceeded, \"Because, out of thy rebellious spirit, thou\nhast refused to bear arms, thou shall be punished according to thy\ndeserts for an example to others.\" And then he delivered the following\nsentence: \"Maximilian! because thou hast with a rebellious spirit\nrefused to bear arms, thou art to die by the sword.\" Maximilian replied,\n\"Thanks be to God.\"\n\nHe was twenty years, three months, and seventeen days old, and when he\nwas led to the place of execution, he spoke thus: \"My dear brethren,\nendeavour with all your might, that it may be your portion to see the\nLord, and that he may give you such a crown;\" and then, with a pleasant\ncountenance, he said to his father, \"Give the executioner the soldier's\ncoat thou hast gotten for me, and when I shall receive thee in the\ncompany of the blessed martyrs, we may also rejoice together with the\nLord.\"\n\nAfter this he suffered. His mother Pompeiana obtained his body of the\njudge, and conveyed it to Carthage, and buried it near the place where\nthe body of Cyprian the Martyr lay. And thirteen days after this his\nmother died, and was buried in the came place. And Victor, his father,\nreturned to his habitation, rejoicing and praising God, that he had sent\nbefore such a gift to the Lord, himself expecting to follow after.\n\nI shall only observe, upon this instance, that it is nearly pure and\nunmixed, or that it is but little connected with idolatrous\ncircumstances, or rather, that the unlawfulness of fighting was\nprincipally urged by Maximilian as a reason against entering upon a\nmilitary life. Let us now find a case, where, when a person was\nconverted in the army, he left it, pleading this principle, as one among\nothers, for his dereliction of it.\n\nMarcellus was a centurion in the legion called \"Trajana.\" On a festival,\ngiven in honour of the birth-day of Galerius, he threw down his military\nbelt at the head of the legion, and in the face of the standards,\ndeclared with a loud voice, that he would no longer serve in the army,\nfor that he had become a Christian. \"I hold in detestation, said he,\naddressing himself to all the soldiers, the worship of your gods: gods,\nwhich are made of wood and stone, gods which are deaf and dumb.\" So far\nMarcellus, it appears, seems to have been influenced in his desertion of\na military life by the idolatry connected with it. But let us hear him\nfarther on this subject. \"It is not lawful, says he, for a Christian,\nwho is the servant of Christ the Lord, to bear arms for any earthly\nconsideration.\" After a delay of more than three months in prison after\nthis transaction, which delay was allowed for the purpose of sparing\nhim, he was brought before the prefect. There he had an opportunity of\ncorrecting his former expressions. But as he persisted in the same\nsentiments, he suffered. It is remarkable, that, almost immediately\nafter his execution, Cassian, who, was the notary to the same legion,\nrefused to serve any longer, by publicly throwing his pen and\naccompt-book upon the ground, and declaring, at the same time, that the\nsentence of Marcellus was unjust. When taken up by the order of\nAurelianus Agricolanus, he is described by the record, preserved by\nRuinart, to have avowed the same sentiments as Marcellus, and, like him,\nto have suffered death.\n\nIt may not be necessary, perhaps, to cite any other instances, as\nopposed to that of Marinus, to the point in question. But, as another\noccurs, which may be related in few words, I will just mention it in\nthis place. Martin, of whom Sulpicius Severus says so much, had been\nbred to the profession of arms, but, on his conversion to Christianity,\ndeclined it. In the answer, which he gave to Julian the Apostate for his\nconduct on this occasion, we find him making use only of these words, \"I\nam a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight.\"\n\nNow this answer of Martin is detached from all notions of idolatry. The\nunlawfulness of fighting is given as the only motive for his\nresignation. And there is no doubt, that the unlawfulness of fighting\nwas as much a principle of religion in the early times of Christianity,\nas the refusal of sacrifice to the Heathen gods; and that they operated\nequally to prevent men from entering into the army, and to drive them\nout of it on their conversion. Indeed these principles generally went\ntogether, where the profession of arms presented itself as an occupation\nfor a Christian. He, who refused the profession on account of the\nidolatry connected with it, would have refused it on account of the\nunlawfulness of fighting. And he, who refused it on account of the guilt\nof fighting, would have refused it oh account of the idolatrous services\nit required. Both and each of them were impediments, in the early times\nof Christianity, to a military life.\n\n\nSECT. IV.\n\n_Early Christians then declined the army on account, of one, among other\npersuasions, that it was unlawful for Christians to fight--Their\npractice examined farther, or into the fourth century--shewn from hence,\nthat while Christianity continued pure, Christians still declined the\nmilitary profession--but as it became less pure, their scruples against\nit became less--and when it became corrupt, their scruples against it\nceased--Manner in which the Quakers make the practice of these early\ntimes support the meaning of the scriptural passages, which they adduce\nin favour of their tenet on war._\n\n\nAs it will now probably be admitted, that the early Christians refused\nto enter into the army, and that they left it after their conversion, on\naccount of one, among other persuasions, that it was unlawful for them\nto fight, I must examine their practice, as it related to this subject,\nstill farther, or I must trace it down to a later period, before I can\nshow how the Quakers make the practice of these early times support the\nmeaning of the scriptural passages, which they advance in favour of\ntheir tenet on war.\n\nIt may be considered as a well founded proposition, that, as the lamp of\nChristianity burnt bright, in those early times, so those, who were\nilluminated by it, declined the military profession; and, that, as its\nflame shone less clear, they had less objection to it. Thus, in the two\nfirst centuries, when Christianity was the purest, there were no\nChristian soldiers. In the third century, when it became less pure,\nthere is frequent mention of such soldiers. And in the fourth, when its\ncorruption was fixed, Christians entered upon the profession of arms\nwith as little hesitation, as they entered upon any other occupation in\nlife.\n\nThat there were no Christian soldiers in the first and second centuries,\nhas already been made apparent.\n\nThat Christianity also was purest in these times, there can be no doubt.\nLet us look at the character which is given of the first Christians by\nAthenagoras, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, and others of the early\nChristian writers. According to these they were plain and neat in their\napparel, and frugal in their furniture. They were temperate in their\neating and drinking. They relinquished all the diversions of the times,\nin which they saw any tendency to evil. They were chaste in their\nconversation, tempering mirth with gravity. They were modest and chaste\nin their deportment and manners. They were punctual to their words and\nengagements. They were such lovers of the truth, that, on being asked,\nif they were Christians, they never denied it, though death was the\nconsequence of such a religious profession. They loved each other as\nbrethren, and called one another by that name. They were kind, and\ncourteous, and charitable, beyond all example, to others. They abstained\nfrom all manner of violence. They prayed for those who persecuted them.\nThey were patterns of humility and patience. They made no sacrifice of\ntheir consciences, but would persevere in that which was right, never\nrefusing to die for their religion. This is the character, which is\nuniformly given of them by the Christian writers of those times.\n\nThat their conduct was greatly altered in the third century, where we\nare now to view it, we may collect from indisputable authority. I stated\nin the former section, that a Christian soldier was punished for\nrefusing to wear a garland, like the rest of his comrades, on a public\noccasion. This man, it appears, had been converted in the army, and\nobjected to the ceremony on that account. Now Tertullian tells us, that\nthis soldier was blamed for his unseasonable zeal, as it was called, by\nsome of the Christians at that time, though all Christians before\nconsidered the wearing of such a garland as unlawful and profane. In\nthis century there is no question but the Christian discipline began to\nrelax. To the long peace the church enjoyed from the death of Antoninus\nto the tenth year of Severus, is to be ascribed the corruption that\nensued. This corruption we find to have spread rapidly; for the same\nTertullian was enabled to furnish us with the extraordinary instance of\nmanufacturers of idols being admitted into the ecclesiastical order.\nMany corruptions are also noticed in this century by other writers.\nCyprian complained of them, as they existed in the middle, and Eusebius,\nas they existed at the end of it, and both attributed it to the peace,\nor to the ease and plenty, which the Christians had enjoyed. The latter\ngives us a melancholy account of their change. They had begun to live in\nfine houses, and to indulge in luxuries. But, above all, they had begun\nto be envious, and quarrelsome, and to dissemble, and to cheat, and to\nfalsify their word, so that they lost the character, which Pliny, an\nadversary to their religion, had been obliged to give of them, and which\nthey had retained for more than a century, as appears by their own\nwriters.\n\nThat there were Christian soldiers in this more corrupt century of the\nchurch, it is impossible to deny. For such frequent mention is made of\nthem in the histories, which relate to this period, that we cannot\nrefuse our assent to one or other of the propositions, either that there\nwere men in the armies, who called themselves Christians, or that there\nwere men in them, who had that name given them by others. That they were\nChristians, however, is another question. They were probably such\nChristians, as Dion mentioned to have been among the life-guards of\nDioclesian and Maximian, and of Constantius and Maximus, of whom\nMaximilian observed, \"These men may know what it is expedient for them\nto do, but I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight.\" Indeed, that\nreal Christians could have been found in the army in this century is\nimpossible, for the military oath, which was full of idolatry, and the\nadoration of the standards, and the performance of sacrifice, still\ncontinued as services[14] not to be dispensed with by the soldiery. No\none, therefore, can believe, that men in the full practice of Pagan\nidolatry, as every legionary soldier must then have been, were real\nChristians, merely because it is recorded in history, that men, calling\nthemselves Christians, were found in the army in those times. On the\nother hand, if any soldiers professed Christianity at this period, or\nare related by authors to have professed it, and yet to have remained\nsoldiers, it may be directly pronounced, that they could only have been\nnominal or corrupted Christians.\n\n[Footnote 14: The military oath was not altered for Christians till the\nnext century, when they were allowed to swear \"by God, by Christ, and by\nthe Holy Spirit, and by the majesty of the emperor, which, next to God,\nis to be loved and honoured by mankind.\"]\n\nThat Christianity was more degenerate in the fourth than in the third\ncentury (which is the next position) we have indubitable proof. One of\nthe first facts, that strikes us, is an extraordinary one related by\nLactantius, in his \"Death of the persecuted,\" that there were Christians\nat this time, who, having probably a superstitious belief, that the sign\nof the Cross would be a preventive of pollution, were present, and even\nassisted at some of the Heathen sacrifices. But it is not necessary to\ndetail these or other particulars. Almost every body knows, that more\nevils sprang up to the church in this century, than in any other, some\nof which remain at the present day. Indeed, the corruption of\nChristianity was fixed as it were by law in the age now mentioned.\nConstantine, on his conversion, introduced many of the Pagan ceremonies\nand, superstitions, in which he had been brought up, into the Christian\nreligion. The Christians, rejoiced at seeing an emperor of their own\npersuasion, under whom they had hopes of restoration to equal privileges\nwith others, and of freedom from persecution, submitted, in order to\nplease or flatter him, to his idolatrous customs and opinions, thus\nsacrificing their consciences to their ease and safety. Many, on the\nother hand, who had always been Heathens, professed themselves\nChristians at once out of compliment to their emperor, and without any\nreal conversion of the heart. Thus there was a mixture of Christianity\nand Paganism in the church, which had never been known before.\nConstantine too did not dispense with the blasphemous titles of\nEternity, Divinity, and Pontifex Maximus, as they had been given to his\npredecessors. After his death, he was considered also as a god. And if\nPhilostorgius is to be believed, the Christians, for so he calls them,\nprayed to and worshipped him as such.\n\nNow in this century, when the corruption of the church may be\nconsidered to have been fixed, we scarcely find any mention of Christian\nsoldiers, or we find the distinction between them and others gradually\npassing away. The truth is, that, when the Christians of this age had\nsubmitted to certain innovations upon their religion, they were in a fit\nstate to go greater lengths; and so it happened, for as Heathens, who\nprofessed to be Christians out of compliment to their emperor, had no\nobjection to the military service, so Christians, who had submitted to\nHeathenism on the same principle, relaxed, in their scruples concerning\nit. The latter too were influenced by the example of the former. Hence\nthe unlawfulness of fighting began to be given up. We find, however,\nthat here and there an ancient father still retained it as a religious\ntenet, but these dropping off one after another, it ceased at length to\nbe a doctrine of the church.\n\nHaving now traced the practice of the Christians down to the fourth\ncentury, as far as the profession of arms is concerned, I shall state in\nfew words the manner in which the Quakers make this practice support the\nmeaning of the scriptural passages, which they produce in favour of\ntheir tenet on war.\n\nThe Quakers then lay it down as a position, that the Christians of the\nfirst and second centuries, as we had already observed, gave the same\ninterpretation, as they themselves give, of the passages in question.\n\nNow they say first, that if there were any words or expressions in the\noriginal manuscripts of the Evangelists or Apostles, which might throw\nlight upon the meaning of these or other passages on the same subject,\nbut which words and expressions were not in the copies which came after,\nthen many of those who lived in the first and second centuries, had\nadvantages with respect to knowledge on this subject, which their\nsuccessors had not, inasmuch as the former were soon afterwards lost.\n\nThey say secondly, that if there was any thing in tradition which might\nhelp to explain these passages more satisfactorily, those of the first\nand second centuries had advantages again, because they lived nearer to\nthese traditions, or to the time when they were more pure, than those\nChristians did, who succeeded them.\n\nThey say thirdly, that, if primitive practice be to be considered as the\nbest interpreter of the passages in question, then those of the first\nand second centuries had their advantages again, because many of them\nlived in the times of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and all of them\nnearer to those who succeeded the Evangelists and Apostles, than those\nin the subsequent ages of the Christian era.\n\nBut in direct inference, they conceive, is to be drawn from these\npremises, namely, that the opinions of those who lived in the first and\nsecond centuries, relative to the meaning of the passages in question,\nare likely to be more correct on these several accounts, than those of\nChristians in any of the ages that followed.\n\nAnd as in the first and second centuries of the church, when\nChristianity was purest, there were no Christian soldiers, but as in the\nfourth century, when it became corrupt, Christians had lost their\nobjections to a military life, they conceive the opinions of the former\nto be more correct than those of the latter, because the opinions of\nreal Christians, willing to make any sacrifice for their religion, must\nbe always less biassed and more pure, than those of persons calling\nthemselves Christians, but yet submitting to the idolatrous and other\ncorrupt practices of the world.\n\nAnd as they conceive this to be true of the opinions of the second\ncentury, when compared with those of the fourth, so they conceive it to\nbe true of the opinions of the second, when compared with those of the\nmoderns upon this subject, because, whatever our progress in\nChristianity may be, seeing that it is not equal to that of the first\nChristians, it is certain, besides the distance of time, that we have\nprejudices arising from the practice of fourteen centuries, during all\nwhich time it has been held out, except by a few individuals, as lawful\nfor Christians to fight.\n\n\nSECT.V.\n\n_Reflections of the author on the foregoing subject--Case of a superior\nbeing supposed, who should reside in the planet nearest to us, and see\nwar carried on by men no larger than the race of ants--His enquiry as to\nthe origin of these wars--their duration--and other circumstances--supposed\nanswers to these questions--New arguments, from this supposed\nconversation, against war._\n\n\nI have now stated the principal arguments, by which the Quakers are\ninduced to believe it to be a doctrine of Christianity, that men should\nabstain from war, and I intended to close the subject in the last\nsection. But when I consider the frequency of modern wars; when I\nconsider that they are scarcely over, before others rise up in their\nplace; when I consider again, that they come like the common diseases,\nwhich belong to our infirm nature, and that they are considered by men\nnearly in a similar light, I should feel myself criminal, if I were not\nto avail myself of the privilege of an author, to add a few observations\nof my own upon this subject.\n\nLiving as we do in an almost inaccessible island, and having therefore\nmore than ordinary means of security to our property and our persons\nfrom hostile invasion, we do not seem to be sufficiently grateful to the\nDivine Being for the blessings we enjoy. We do not seem to make a right\nuse of our benefits by contemplating the situation, and by feeling a\ntender anxiety for the happiness of others. We seem to make no proper\nestimates of the miseries of war. The latter we feel principally in\nabridgments of a pecuniary nature. But if we were to feel them in the\nconflagration of our towns and villages, or in personal wounds, or in\nthe personal sufferings of fugitive misery and want, we should be apt to\nput a greater value than we do, upon the blessings of peace. And we\nshould be apt to consider the connexion between war and misery, and\nbetween war and moral evil, in a light so much stronger than we do at\npresent, that we might even suppose the precepts of Jesus Christ to be\ndeficient, unless they were made to extend to wars, as well as to\nprivate injuries.\n\nI wonder what a superior being, living in the nearest planet to our\nearth, and seeing us of the size of ants, would say, if he were enabled\nto get any insight into the nature of modern wars.\n\nIt must certainly strike him, if he were to see a number of such\ndiminutive persons chasing one another in bodies over different parts of\nthe hills and vallies of the earth, and following each other in little\nnut-shells, as it were upon the ocean, as a very extraordinary sight,\nand as mysterious, and hard to be explained. He might, at first,\nconsider them as occupied in a game of play, or as emigrating for more\nfood, or for a better climate. But when he saw them stop and fight, and\ndestroy one another, and was assured that they were actually engaged in\nthe solemn game of death, and this at such a distance from their own\nhomes, he would wonder at the causes of these movements, and the reason\nof this destruction, and, not knowing that they possessed rational\nfaculties, he would probably consider them as animals, destined by\nnature to live upon one another.\n\nI think the first question he would ask would be, And from whence do\nthese fightings come? It would be replied of course, that they came from\ntheir lusts; that these beings, though diminutive in their appearance,\nwere men; that they had pride, and ambition; that they had envy and\njealousy; that they indulged also hatred, and malice, and avarice, and\nanger; and that, on account of some or other of these causes, they\nquarrelled and fought with one another.\n\nWell, but the superior being would say, is there no one on the earth,\nwhich I see below me, to advise them to conduct themselves better, or\nare the passions you speak of eternally uppermost, and never to be\nsubdued? The reply would of course be, that in these little beings,\ncalled men, there had been implanted the faculty of reason, by the use\nof which they must know that their conduct was exceptionable, but that,\nin these cases, they seldom minded it. It would also be added in reply,\nthat they had a religion, which was not only designed by a spirit from\nheaven, who had once lived among them, but had been pronounced by him as\nefficacious to the end proposed; that one of the great objects of this\nreligion was a due subjugation of their passions; and this was so much\ninsisted upon, that no one of them was considered to have received this\nreligion truly, unless his passions were subdued. But here the superior\nbeing would enquire, whether they acknowledged the religion spoken of,\nand the authority from whence it came? To which it would of course be\nreplied, that they were so tenacious of it, notwithstanding their\nindulgence of their passions, and their destruction of one another, that\nyou could; not offend them more grievously than by telling them, that\nthey did not belong to the religion they professed.\n\nIt is not difficult to foresee what other questions the superior being\nwould ask, and probably the first of these would be, the duration of the\nlives of these little beings, and the length and frequency of their\nwars? It would be replied to this, that their lives were but as a\nvapour, which appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away, and\nthat a quarter, and sometimes half of their time on earth, was spent in\nthose destructive pursuits. The superior being would unquestionably be\ngrieved at this account, because he would feel, that they really\nfrustrated their own happiness, or that they lost by their own fault a\nconsiderable portion of the enjoyment of their lives.\n\nIn this impatience and anxiety for their future comfort, he would\nprobably ask again, if they had any notion of any generous end for which\nthey were born, for it is impossible they could suppose, that they came\ninto the world to destroy one another. It would be replied, that they\ncould not be ignorant of the true object or end; for the same religion,\nin which they believed, and which was said before to have been given\nthem by a spirit sent from heaven, inculcated that they were sent there\non a life of trial, and that in a future existence they were to give an\naccount of their conduct, and were to be rewarded or punished\naccordingly. The same religion, it would be replied, also inculcated,\nnotwithstanding their fightings, the utmost benevolence from one towards\nanother. It wished so much every one of them to live peaceably, that it\nenjoined it as a duty rather to put up with an injury than to resent it,\nand it carried its benevolence so far, that it made no distinction\nbetween others of the same species, who spoke a different language, or\nlived in other districts or parts of the same world.\n\nBut here the superior being would interrupt.--What, he would say! Are\nthey not to resent injuries, and yet do they go to war? And are they not\nafraid of fighting in this manner, when they are to give an account of\ntheir conduct in a future state? It would be replied, No: they have\ntheir philosophers among them, and most of these have determined, that,\nin this particular case, responsibility lies at the door of those who\nemploy them. But, notwithstanding this, there are others living among\nthem, who think otherwise. These are of opinion, that those who employ\nthem cannot take the responsibility upon themselves without taking it\nfrom those whom they thus employ. But the religion of the Great Spirit\nno where says, that any constituted authorities among them can take away\nthe responsibility of individual creatures, but, on the other hand, in\nthe most positive terms, that every individual creature is responsible\nwholly for himself. And this religion does not give any creature an\nexemption on account of any force which may be used against him; because\nno one, according to its precepts, is to do evil, not even that good may\ncome. But if he be persecuted, he is to adhere to that which is right,\nand to expect his reward in the other state. The impossibility,\ntherefore, of breaking or dissolving individual responsibility, in the\ncase of immoral action, is an argument to many, of the unlawfulness of\nthese wars. And those who reason in this manner, think they have\nreasoned right, when they consider besides, that, if any of the beings\nin question were to kill one of his usually reputed enemies in the time\nof peace, he would suffer death for it, and be considered as accountable\nalso for his crime in a future state. They cannot see, therefore, how\nany constituted authorities among them can alter the nature of things,\nor how these beings can kill others in time of war, without the\nimputation of a crime, whom they could not kill without such an\nimputation in time of peace. They see in the book of the Great Spirit no\ndispensation given to societies to after the nature of actions, which\nare pronounced to be crimes.\n\nBut the superior being would say, is it really defined, and is it\ndefined clearly in the great book of the Spirit, that if one of them\nshould kill another, he is guilty of a crime! It would be replied, not\nonly of a crime, but of the greatest of all crimes, and that no\ndispensation is given to any of them to commit it in any case. And it\nwould be observed farther, that there are other crimes, which these\nfightings generally include, which are equally specified and forbidden\nin the great book, but which they think it proper to sanction in the\npresent case. Thus, all kinds of treachery and deceit are considered to\nbe allowable, for a very ancient philosopher among them has left a maxim\nupon record, and it has not yet been beaten out of their heads,\nnotwithstanding the precepts of the great book, in nearly the following\nwords: \"Who thinks of requiring open courage of an enemy, or that\ntreachery is not equally allowable in war?\"[15]\n\n[Footnote 15: Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat?]\n\nStrange! the superior being would reply. They seem to me to be reversing\nthe order of their nature, and the end of their existence. But how do\nthey justify themselves on these occasions? It would be answered, that\nthey not only justify themselves, but they even go so far as to call\nthese fightings honourable. The greater the treachery, if it succeeds,\nand the greater the number of these beings killed, the more glorious is\nthe action esteemed.\n\nStill more strange! the superior being would reply. And is it possible,\nhe would add, that they enter into this profession With a belief, that\nthey are entering into an honourable employ? Some of them, it would be\nreplied, consider it as a genteel employ. And hence they engage in it.\nOthers, of a lazy disposition, prefer it to any other. Others are\ndecoyed into it by treachery in various ways. There are also strong\ndrinks, which they are fond of, and if they are prevailed upon to take\nthese to excess, they lose their reason, and then they are obliged to\nsubmit to it. It must be owned too, that when these wars begin, the\ntrades of many of these little beings are stopped, so that, to get a\ntemporary livelihood, they go out and fight. Nor must it be concealed,\nthat many are forced to go, both against their judgment and against\ntheir will.\n\nThe superior being, hurt at these various accounts, would probably ask,\nand what then does the community get by these wars, as a counterbalance\nfor the loss of so much happiness, and the production of so much evil?\nIt would be replied, nothing. The community is generally worse off at\nthe end of these wars, than when it began to contend. But here the\nsuperior being would wish to hear no more of the system. He would\nsuddenly turn away his face, and retire into one of the deep valleys of\nhis planet, either with exclamations against the folly, or with emotions\nof pity for the situation, or with expressions of disgust at the\nwickedness, of these little creatures.\n\n   \"O for a lodge in some vast wilderness,\n   Some boundless contiguity of shade,\n   Where tumour of oppression and deceit,\n   Of unsuccessful or successful war,\n   Might never reach me more! My ear is pain'd,\n   My soul is sick with every day's report,\n   Of wrong and outrage, with which earth is fill'd.\n   Lands, intersected by a narrow frith,\n   Abhor each other. Mountains interpos'd,\n   Make enemies of nations who had else,\n   Like kindred drops, been mingled into one.\n   Thus men devotes his brother, and destroys--\n   Then what is man? And what man, seeing this,\n   And having human feelings, does not blush,\n   And hang his head, to think himself a man?\"\n\nCOWPER\n\n\nSECT. VI.\n\n_Subject farther considered--Sad conceptions of those relative to the\nDivine Being, and the nature of the Gospel, who plead for the necessity\nof war--War necessary, where statesmen pursue the policy of the\nworld--Nature and tendency of this policy--but not necessary where they\npursue the policy of the Gospel--Nature and tendency of this\npolicy--This tendency farther confirmed by a supposed case of a few\nQuakers becoming the governors of the world._\n\n\nIt is now an old maxim, and time with all its improvements has not worn\nit away, that wars are necessary in the present constitution of the\nworld. It has not even been obliterated, that they are necessary, in\norder to sweep off mankind on account of the narrow boundaries of the\nearth. But they, who make use of this argument, must be aware, that, in\nespousing it, they declare no less, than that God, in the formation of\nhis system, had only half calculated or half provided for its\ncontinuance, and that they charge him with a worse cruelty than is\nrecorded of the worst of men: because, if he told men to increase and\nmultiply, and gave them passions accordingly, it would appear as if he\nhad created them only to enjoy an eternal feast in the sight of their\ndestruction. Nor do they make him a moral governor of the world, if he\nallows men to butcher one another without an individual provocation or\noffence.\n\nNeither do persons, arguing for the necessity of wars, do less than set\nthemselves above the prophecies or oracles of God, which declare, that\nsuch warfare shall some time or other cease.\n\nNeither do they, when they consider wars as necessary, and as never to\nbe done away on account of the wicked passions of men, do less than\nspeak blasphemy against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because they\nproclaim it to be inadequate to the end proposed. For the proper\nsubjugation of these, among other purposes, it was that the Gospel was\npromulgated. If it be thought a miracle, that the passions of men should\nbe subdued, it is still a miracle, which Christianity professes to work;\nwhich it has worked since the hour of its institution; which it has\nworked in men, who have placed their highest reputation in martial\nglory; and which it continues to work, at the present day. Those,\ntherefore, who promote wars, and excite the passions of men for this\npurpose, attempt to undo what it is the object of Christianity to do,\nand to stop the benign influence of the Gospel in the hearts of men.\n\nThat wars are necessary, or rather that they will be begun and\ncontinued, I do not mean to deny, while statesmen pursue the wisdom or\npolicy of the world.\n\nWhat this wisdom or policy is, it will not be difficult to trace. And\nfirst, when any matter is in dispute among the rulers of nations, is it\nnot a maxim, that a high tone is desirable in the settlement of it, in\norder that the parties may seem to betray neither fear nor weakness, and\nthat they may not be thought to lose any of their dignity or their\nspirit? Now as the human passions are constituted, except they have\npreviously been brought under due regulation by Christianity, what is\nmore likely than that a high tone of language on one side should beget a\nsimilar tone on the other, or that spirit, once manifested, should,\nproduce spirit in return, and that each should fly off, as it were, at a\ngreater distance from accommodation than before, and that, when once\nexasperation has begun, it should increase. Now what is the chance, if\nsuch policy be resorted to on such occasions, of the preservation of\npeace between them?\n\nAnd, secondly, is it not also a received maxim, that, in controversies\nof this sort, a nation, even during the discussion, should arm itself,\nin order that it may shew itself prepared? But if any one nation arms\nduring the discussion; if it fits out armies or fleets of observation\nwith a view of deterring, or of being ready in case of necessity of\nstriking, as it is called, the first blow; what is more probable, than\nthat the other will arm also, and that it will fit out its own armies\nand fleets likewise? But when both are thus armed, pride and spirit will\nscarcely suffer them to relax, and what is then more probable, than that\nthey will begin to fight?\n\nAnd, thirdly, is it not a maxim also, that, even during the attempt to\nterminate the dispute, the public mind should be prepared? Are not the\npublic papers let loose to excite and propagate a flame? And are not\nthe deeds of our ancestors ushered into our ears to produce a martial\nspirit? But if the national temper is roused on both sides, and if\npreparations are carrying on at the same time with the utmost vigour,\nwhere again is the hope of the prevention of war between them?\n\nAnd, fourthly, after hostilities are commenced, is it not a maxim also\nto perpetuate the enmity, which has been thus begun, and to give it a\ndeeper root, and even to make it eternal by connecting it with religion?\nThus flag-staffs are exhibited upon steeples, bells are rung to announce\nvictories, and sermons are preached as occasions arise, as if the places\nallotted for Christian worship, were the most proper from whence to\nissue the news of human suffering, or to excite the passions of men for\nthe destruction of one another. Nor is this all. The very colours of the\narmies are consecrated. I do not mean to say, that like the banners in\nthe Praetorian tents, they are actually worshipped, but that an attempt\nis made to render them holy in the eyes of those who are present. An\nattempt is made, wonderful to relate, to incorporate war into the\nreligion of Jesus Christ, and to perpetuate enmity on the foundation of\nthe Gospel!\n\nNow this is the policy of the world, and can it be seriously imagined,\nthat such a system as this can ever lead to peace? For while\ndiscussions relative to matters of national dispute are carried on in a\nhigh tone, because a more humble tone would betray weakness or fear;\nwhile again, during this discussion, preparations for war are going on,\nbecause the appearance of being prepared would convey the idea of\ndetermined resolution, and of more than ordinary strength; while again,\nduring the same discussion, the national spirit is awakened and\ninflamed; and while again, when hostilities have commenced, measures are\nresorted to, to perpetuate a national enmity, so that the parties\nconsider themselves as natural enemies even in the succeeding peace,\nwhat hope is there of the extermination of war on earth?\n\nBut let us now look at the opposite policy, which is that of the Gospel.\nNow this policy would consist in the practice of meekness, moderation,\nlove, patience, and forbearance, with a strict regard to justice, so\nthat no advantages might be taken on either side. But if these\nprinciples, all of which are preventive of irritation, were to be\ndisplayed in our negotiations abroad, in the case of any matter in\ndispute, would they not annihilate the necessity of wars? For what is\nthe natural tendency of such principles? What is their tendency, for\ninstance, in private life? And who are the negotiators on these\noccasions but men? Which kind of conduct is most likely to disarm an\nopponent, that of him who holds up his arm to strike, if his opponent\nshould not comply with his terms, or of him who argues justly, who\nmanifests a temper of love and forbearance, and who professes that he\nwill rather suffer than resist, and that he will do every thing sooner\nthan that the affair shall not be amicably settled? The Apostle Paul,\nwho knew well the human heart, says, \"If thine enemy hunger, feed him,\nfor in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.\" That is,\nthou shall cause him, by thy amiable conduct, to experience burning\nfeelings within himself, which, while they torment him with the\nwickedness of his own conduct, shall make him esteem thee, and bring him\nover to thy side. Thus thou shalt overcome his evil by thy good. Or, in\nother words, as fire melts the hardest metals, so thy kindness shall\nmelt his anger. Thus Parnell--\n\n   \"So artists melt the sullen ore of lead,\n   By heaping coals of fire upon its head.\n   Touch'd by the warmth, the metal teams to glow,\n   And pure from dress, the silver tang below.\"\n\nThis policy again would consist of the practical duty of attempting to\ntranquillize the minds of the people, while the discussion was going on,\nof exhorting them to await the event with composure, of declaring\nagainst the folly and wickedness of wars, as if peace only could be the\nresult, of abstaining from all hostile preparations, and indeed from all\nappearance of violence. Now what influence would such conduct have\nagain, but particularly when known to the opposite party? If the\nopposite party were to see those alluded to keeping down the passions of\ntheir people, would they inflame the passions of their own? If they were\nto be convinced, that these were making no preparations for war, would\nthey put themselves to the expence of arming? Can we see any other\ntermination of such a contest than the continuance of peace?\n\nThat the policy of the Gospel, if acted upon by statesmen, would render\nwars unnecessary, we may infer from supposed cases. And, first, I would\nask this simple question, whether, if all the world were Quakers, there\nwould be any more wars? I am sure the reply would be, no. But why not?\nBecause nations of Quakers, it would be replied, would discuss matters\nin dispute between them with moderation, with temper, and with\nforbearance. They would never make any threats. They would never arm,\nand consequently they would never fight. It would be owing then to these\nprinciples, or, in other words, to the adoption of the policy of the\nGospel in preference of the policy of the world, that, if the globe were\nto be peopled by Quakers, there would be no wars. Now I would ask, what\nare Quakers but men, and might not all, if they would suffer themselves\nto be cast in the same mould as the Quakers, come out of it of the same\nform and character?\n\nBut I will go still farther. I will suppose that any one of the four\ncontinents, having been previously divided into three parts, was\ngoverned only by three Quakers, and that these had the same authority\nover their subjects, as their respective sovereigns have at present. And\nI win maintain, that there would never be, upon this continent, during\ntheir respective administrations, another war. For, first, many of the\ncauses of war would be cut off. Thus, for instance, there would be no\ndisputes about insults offered to flags. There would be none again about\nthe balance of power. In short, it would be laid down as a position,\nthat no one was to do evil, that good might come. But as,\nnotwithstanding, there might still be disputes from other causes, these\nwould be amicably settled. For first, the same Christian disposition\nwould be manifest in the discussion as in the former case. And,\nsecondly, if the matter should be of an intricate nature, so that one\nQuaker government could not settle it with another, these would refer\nit, according to their constitution, to a third. This would be the \"ne\nplus ultra\" of the business. Both the discussion and the dispute would\nend here. What a folly then to talk of the necessity of wars, when, if\nbut three Quakers were to rule a continent, they would cease there?\nThere can be no plea for such language, but the impossibility of taming\nthe human passions. But the subjugation of these is the immediate object\nof our religion. To confess, therefore, that wars must be, is either to\nutter a libel against Christianity, or to confess that we have not yet\narrived at the stature of real Christians.\n\n\nSECT. VII.\n\n_Subject farther examined--Case allowed, that if a cabinet of good men\nhad to negotiate with a cabinet of good men, there might be no wars--but\nwhat would be the issue if good had to deal with bad--Case of American\nsettlers, who adopted the policy of the world, and were always at\nwar--and of other American settlers, who adopted the policy of the\nGospel, and were always at peace--No case stronger, than where\ncivilized men had to deal with savage American tribes._\n\n\nI believe it will be allowed, that the Quaker instances, mentioned in\nthe last section, are in point. But I am aware also, it will be said\nthat, though different cabinets, all having the same Christian\ndisposition, would settle their disputes in a friendly manner, how would\na cabinet, consisting of spiritually minded men, settle with a cabinet\nof other men, who had not brought their passions under due regulation,\nand who, besides, had no notion of the unlawfulness of war.\n\nI apprehend that it will not be denied, that men, as ferocious as any\nrecorded in history, were those, who were found in America, when that\ncontinent was discovered. We hear nothing of Africans, or of Asiatics,\nwhich would induce us to suppose, that they were as wild and as\nbarbarous as these. And nothing is more true of these, than they, were\nfrequently concerned in wars. I shall therefore take these for an\nexample, and I shall shew by the opposite conduct of two different\ncommunities towards them, that it rests with men to live peaceably or\nnot, as they cultivate the disposition to do it, or as they follow the\npolicy of the Gospel in preference of the policy of the world.\n\nWhen the English, Dutch, and others, began to people America, they\npurchased land of the natives. But when they went to that continent,\nnotwithstanding there were amiable persons among them, and friends to\ncivil and religious liberty, they went with the notions of worldly\npolicy, and they did not take with them the Christian wisdom of the\nunlawfulness of war. They acted on the system of preparation, because\nthere might be danger. They never settled without palisadoes and a fort.\nThey kept their nightly watches, though unmolested. They were, in short,\nin the midst of war, though no injury had been offered them by the\nnatives, and though professedly in the midst of peace.\n\nIn the peopling of Connecticut, for I must begin with some one state, it\nwas ordered at an English court,[16] \"holden at Dorchester, on the\nseventh day of June, 1736, that every town should keep a watch, and be\nwell supplied with ammunition. The constables were directed to warn the\nwatches in their turns, and to make it their care, that they should be\nkept according to the direction of the court. They were required also to\ntake care that the inhabitants were well furnished with arms and\nammunition, and kept in a constant state of defence.\" As these infant\nsettlements, the author observes, \"were filled and surrounded with\nnumerous savages, the people conceived themselves in danger, when they\nlay down, and when they rose up, when they went out, and when they came\nin. Their circumstances were such, that it was judged necessary for\nevery man to be a soldier.\"\n\n[Footnote 16: Trumbull's History of Connecticut, p. 56.]\n\nI find from this author, looking farther into his history, that\npreviously to the order of the court at Dorchester, which did nothing\nmore than enjoin a more strict execution of the original plan, which was\nthat of military preparation and defence, some of the settlers had been\nkilled by the natives. The provocation which the natives received, is\nnot mentioned. But it was probably provocation enough to savage Indians,\nto see people settle in their country with all the signs and symptoms of\nwar. Was such a system likely to have any other effect than that of\nexciting their jealousy? They could see that these settlers had at least\nno objection to the use of arms. They could see that these arms could\nnever be intended but against other persons, and there were no other\npersons there but themselves. Judging therefore by outward\ncircumstances, they could draw no inference of a peaceable disposition\nin their new neighbours. War soon followed. The Pequots were attacked.\nPrisoners were made on both sides. The Indians treated those settlers\nbarbarously, who fell into their hands, for they did not see, on the\ncapture of their own countrymen, any better usage on the part of the\nsettlers themselves; for these settlers, again, had not the wisdom to\nuse the policy of the Gospel, but preferred the policy of the world.[17]\n\"Though the first planters of New-England and Connecticut, says the same\nauthor, were men of eminent piety and strict morals, yet, like other\ngood men, they were subject to misconception, and the influence of\npassion. Their beheading sachems whom they took in war, killing the male\ncaptives, and enslaving the women and children, was treating them with a\nseverity, which, on the benevolent principles of Christianity, it will\nbe difficult to justify.\"\n\n[Footnote 17: P. 112.]\n\nAfter this treatment, war followed war. And as other settlements were\nmade by others in other states on the same principles, war fell to their\nportion likewise. And the whole history of the settlement of America,\nwhere these principles were followed, or where the policy of the world\nwas adopted, is full of the wars between the settlers and the Indians,\nwhich have continued more or less, and this nearly up to the present\nday.\n\nBut widely different was the situation of the settlers under William\nPenn. When he and his fellow Quakers went to this continent, they went\nwith the principles of Christian wisdom, or they adopted the policy of\nthe Gospel instead of the policy of the world. They had to deal with the\nsame savage Indians as the other settlers. They had the same fury to\nguard against, and were in a situation much more exposed to attack, and\nof course much more creative of alarm; for they had neither sword nor\nmusket, nor pallisadoe, nor fort. They judged it neither necessary to\nwatch, nor to be provided with ammunition, nor to become soldiers. They\nspoke the language of peace to the natives, and they proved the\nsincerity of their language by their continuance in a defenceless\ncondition. They held out also, that all wars were unlawful, and that,\nwhatever injuries were offered them, they would sooner bear them, than\ngratify the principle of revenge. It is quite needless to go farther\ninto the system of this venerable founder of Pennsylvania. But it may be\nobserved, that no Quaker settlers, when known to be such,[18] were\nkilled, and, whatever attacks were made upon the possessors of land in\ntheir neighbourhood, none were ever made upon those who settled on the\nlands purchased by William Penn.\n\n[Footnote 18: \"The Indians shot him who had the gun, says Storey in his\nJournal, and when they knew the young man they killed was a Quaker, they\nseemed sorry for it, but blamed him for carrying a gun. For they knew\nthe Quakers would not fight, or do them any harm, and therefore, by\ncarrying a gun, they took him for an enemy.\" This instance, which was in\nafter times, confirms still more strongly all that has been said on this\nsubject. Quakers at this time occasionally armed themselves against the\nwild beasts of the country.]\n\nIt may not be improper to observe farther, that the harmonious\nintercourse between the Quakers and the Indians continues uninterrupted\nto the present day. In matters of great and public concern, of which I\ncould mention instances, it has been usual with the Indians to send\ndeputies to the Quakers for advice, and the former have even been\nprevailed upon by the latter to relinquish wars, which they had it in\ncontemplation to undertake. It is usual also for some of these to send\ntheir children to the Quakers for education. And so great is the\ninfluence of the Quakers over some of these tribes, that many\nindividuals belonging to them, and now living together, have been\nreclaimed from a savage life. These have laid aside the toilsome\noccupations of the chase. They raise horses, cattle, and sheep. They\ncultivate wheat and flax. They weave and spin. They have houses, barns,\nand saw-mills among them. They have schools also, and civilization is\ntaking place of the grossest barbarism.\n\nThese facts, when contrasted, speak for themselves. A cabinet of Quaker\nministers, acting upon the policy of the Gospel, has been seated in the\nheart of a savage and warlike nation, and peace has been kept with them\nfor ever. A cabinet of other settlers, acting on the policy of the\nworld, has been seated in the heart of nations of a similar description,\nand they have almost constantly, been embroiled in wars. If Christian\npolicy has had its influence on Barbarians, it would be libellous to\nsay, that it would not have its influence upon those who profess to be\nChristians. Let us then again, from the instances which have been now\nrecited, deprecate the necessity of wars. Let us not think so meanly of\nthe Christian religion, as that it does not forbid, nor so meanly of its\npower, as that it is not ante to prevent, their continuance. Let us not\nthink, to the disgrace of our religion, that the human heart, under its\ninfluence, should be so retrogade, that the expected blessing of\nuniversal peace should be thought no improvement in our moral condition,\nor that our feelings under its influence should continue so impure,\nthat, when it arrives, we should regard it not so much a blessing, as a\ncures. But let us, on the other hand, hope and believe, that, as an\nopposite and purer policy is acted upon, it will do good to our own\nnatures, good to the peace and happiness of the world, and honour to the\nreligion of the Gospel.\n\n\nSECT. VIII\n\n_Subject finally considered--Authors of wars generally justify their own\nas defensive--and state that, if any nation were to give up the practice\nof war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel, it would be overrun by\nothers, which acted upon the policy of the world--Reason to believe,\nthat such a nation would be held in veneration by others, and applied to\nby them for the settlement of their disputes--Sentiments of Bishop\nButler in a supposed case--Case of Antoninus Pius--Conclusion._\n\n\nHaving now said all that I intended to say on the supposed necessity of\nwars, I shall for a short time direct the attention of the reader to two\npoints, the only two, that I purpose to notice on this subject.\n\nIt is usually said, first, that the different powers, who go to war,\ngive it out that their wars are defensive, or that they justify\nthemselves on this principle.\n\nI shall observe in reply to this, that it is frequently difficult to\ndetermine, where actual aggression begins. Even old aggressions, of long\nstanding, have their bearings in these disputes. Not shall we find often\nany clue to a solution of the difficulty in the manifestoes of either\nparty, for each makes his own case good in these; and if we were to\ndecide on the merits of the question by the contents of these, we should\noften come to the conclusion, that both the parties were wrong. Thus,\nfor instance, a notion may have been guilty of an offence to another. So\nfar the cause of the other is a just one. But if the other should arm\nfirst, and this during an attempt at accommodation, it will be a\nquestion, whether it does not forfeit its pretensions to a just case,\nand whether both are not then to be considered as aggressors on the\noccasion?\n\nWhen a nation avows its object in a war, and changes its object in the\ncourse of it, the presumption is, that such a nation has been the\naggressor. And where any nation goes to war upon no other avowed\nprinciple, than that of the balance of power, such a nation, however\nright according to the policy of the world, is an aggressor according to\nthe policy of the Gospel, because it proceeds upon the principle, that\nit is lawful to do evil, that good may come.\n\nIf a nation hires or employs the troops of another to fight for it,\nthough it is not the aggressor in any war, yet it has the crime upon its\nhead of making those aggressors, whom it employs.\n\nBut, generally speaking, few modern wars can be called defensive. A war,\npurely defensive, is that in which the inhabitants of a nation remain\nwholly at home to repel the attacks of another, and content themselves\nwith sending protection to the settlements which belong to it. But few\ninstance are recorded of such wars.\n\nBut if there be often a difficulty in discerning between aggressive and\ndefensive wars, and if, moreover, there is reason to suppose, that most\nof the modern wars are aggressive, or that both patties become\naggressors in the course of the dispute, it becomes the rulers of\nnations to pause, and to examine their own consciences with fear and\ntrembling, before they allow the Sword to bedrawn, lest a dreadful\nresponsibility should fall upon their heads for all the destruction of\nhappiness, all the havoc of life, and all the slaughter of morals that\nmay ensue.\n\nIt is said, secondly, that if any nation were publicly to determine to\nrelinquish the practice if war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel,\nit would be overrun by other nations which might act on the policy of\nthe world.\n\nThis argument is neither more nor less than that of the Pagan Celsus,\nwho said in the second century, that, if the rest of the Roman empire\nwere Christians, it would be overrun by the Barbarians.\n\nIndependently of the protection, which such a nation might count upon\nfrom the moral Governor of the world, let us enquire, upon rational\nprinciples, what would be likely to be its fate.\n\nArmies, we know, are kept up by one nation, principally because they are\nkept up by another.\n\nAnd in proportion as one rival nation adds to its standing armies, it is\nthought by the other to be consistent with the policy of the world to do\nthe same. But if one nation were to decline keeping any armies at all,\nwhere would be the violence, to reason to suppose, that the other would\nfollow the example? Who would not be glad to get rid of the expence of\nkeeping them, if they could do it with safety? Nor is it likely, that\nany powerful nation, professing to relinquish war, would experience the\ncalamities of it. Its care to avoid provocation would be so great, and\nits language would be so temperate, and reasonable, and just, and\nconciliatory, in the case of any dispute which might arise, that it\ncould hardly fail of obtaining an accommodation. And the probability is,\nthat such a nation would grow so high in esteem with other nations, that\nthey would have recourse to it in their disputes with one another, and\nwould abide by its decision. \"Add the general influence, says the great\nBishop Butler in his Analogy, which each a kingdom would have over the\nface of the earth, by way of example particularly, and the reverence\nwhich would be paid to it. It would plainly be superior to all others,\nand the world must gradually come under its empire, not by means of\nlawless violence, but partly by what must be allowed to be just\nconquest, and partly by other kingdoms submitting themselves voluntarily\nto it, throughout a course of ages, and claiming its protection one\nafter another in successive exigencies. The head of it would be an\nuniversal monarch in another sense than any other mortal has yet been,\nand the eastern style would be literally applicable to him, \"that all\npeople, nations, and languages, should serve him.\" Now Bishop Butler\nsupposes this would be the effect, where the individuals of a nation\nwere perfectly virtuous. But I ask much less for my hypothesis. I only\nask that the ruling members of the cabinet of any great nation (and\nperhaps these would only amount to three or four) should consist of real\nChristians, or of such men as would implicitly follow the policy of the\nGospel, and I believe the result would be as I have described it.\n\nNor indeed are we without instances of the kind. The goodness of the\nemperor Antoninus Pius was so great, that he was said to have outdone\nall example. He had no war in the course of a long reign of twenty-four\nyears, so that he was compared to Numa. And nothing is more true, than\nthat princes referred their controversies to his decision.\n\nNor most I forget again to bring to the notice of the reader the\ninstance, though on a smaller scale, of the colonists and descendants of\nWilliam Penn. The Quakers have uniformly conducted themselves towards\nthe Indians in such a manner, as to have given them from their earliest\nintercourse, an exulted idea of their character. And the consequence is,\nas I stated in a former section, that the former, in affairs of\nimportance, are consulted by the latter at the present day. But why, if\nthe cabinet of any one powerful nation were to act upon the noble\nprinciple of relinquishing war, should we think the other cabinets so\nlost to good feelings, as not to respect its virtue? Let us instantly\nabandon this thought; for the supposition of a contrary sentiment would\nmake them worse than the savages I have mentioned.\n\nLet us then cherish the fond hope, that human animosities are not to be\neternal, and that man is not always to be made a tiger to man. Let us\nhope that the government of some one nation (and when we consider the\nvast power of the British empire, the nature of its constitution and\nreligion, and the general humanity of its inhabitants, none would be\nbetter qualified than our own) will set the example of the total\ndereliction of wars. And let us, in all our respective situations,\nprecede the anticipated blessing, by holding out the necessity of the\nsubjugation of the passions, and by inculcating the doctrine of\nuniversal benevolence to man, so that when we look upon the beautiful\nislands, which lie scattered as so many ornaments of the ocean, we may\nwish their several inhabitants no greater injury than the violence of\ntheir own waves; or that, when we view continents at a distance from us,\nwe may consider them as inhabited by our brothers; or that when we\ncontemplate the ocean itself, which may separate them from our sight, we\nmay consider it, not as separating our love, but as intended by\nProvidence to be the means of a quicker intercourse for the exchange of\nreciprocal blessings.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\nSECT. 1.\n\n_Fourth tenet is on the subject of a pecuniary maintenance of a Gospel\nministry--Example and precepts of Jesus Christ--Also of Paul and\nPeter--Conclusions from these premises--These conclusions supported by\nthe primitive practice--Great tenet resulting from these conclusions,\nand this primitive practice is, that the Quakers hold it unlawful to pay\ntheir own ministers, and also others of any other denomination, for\ntheir Gospel labours._\n\n\nThe fourth and last tenet of the Quakers is on the subject of the\nunlawfulness of a pecuniary maintenance of a Gospel ministry.\n\nIn explaining this tenet, I am aware that I am treading upon delicate\nground. The great majority of Christians have determined, that the\nspiritual labourer is worthy of his hire; that if men relinquish the\nusual occupations by which a livelihood is obtained, in order that they\nmay devote themselves to the service of religion, they are entitled to a\npecuniary maintenance; and that, if they produce a rich harvest from\nwhat they sow, they are of all men, considering their usefulness to man\nto be greater in this than in any other service they can render him, the\nmost worthy of encouragement and support. I am aware also of the\npossibility of giving offence to some in the course of the explanation\nof this tenet. To these I can only say, that I have no intention of\nhurting the feelings of any; that in the church there are those whom I\nesteem and love, and whom of all others I should be sorry to offend. But\nit must be obvious to these, and indeed to all, that it is impossible\nfor me, in writing a history of the manners and opinions of the Quakers,\nto pass over in silence the tenet that is now before me; and if I notice\nit, they must be sensible, that it becomes me to state fully and fairly\nall the arguments which the Quakers give for the difference of opinion,\nwhich they manifest from the rest of their fellow-citizens, on this\nsubject.\n\nIt does not appear then, the Quakers say, by any records that can be\nproduced, that Jesus Christ ever received any payment for the doctrines\nwhich he taught, neither does it appear, as far as his own instructions,\nwhich are recorded by the Evangelists, can be collected on this subject,\nthat he considered any pecuniary stipend as necessary or proper for\nthose who were to assist in the promotion of his religion.\n\nJesus Christ, on the erection of his Gospel ministry, gave rules to his\ndisciples, how they were to conduct themselves in the case before us. He\nenjoined the twelve, before he sent them on this errand, as we collect\nfrom St. Matthew and St. Luke, that,[19] \"as they had received freely,\nso they were to give freely; that they were to provide neither gold, nor\nsilver, nor brass in their purses, nor scrip, nor other things for their\njourney; for that the workman was worthy of his meat.\" And, on their\nreturn from their mission, he asked them,[20] \"When I sent you without\npurse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said,\nnothing. Then said he unto them, but now he that hath a purse let him\ntake it, and likewise his scrip.\"\n\n[Footnote 19: Matt x. 8. Luke ix. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Luke xxii. 35.]\n\nIn a little time afterwards, Jesus Christ sent out other seventy as\ndisciples, to whom he gave instructions similar to the former, that they\nshould not take scrip, clothes, and money with them. But to these he\nsaid additionally, that[21] \"wheresoever they were received, they were\nto eat such things as were given them; but where they were not received,\nthey were to go their way, and say, even the dust of your city, which\ncleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you.\" And as on that occasion he\ncompared the ministers of his Gospel to the labourers, whom a man sends\nto the harvest, he told them they were at liberty to eat what was set\nbefore them, because the labourer was worthy of his hire.\n\n[Footnote 21: Luke x.]\n\nThis the Quakers conceive to be the substance of all that Jesus Christ\ntaught upon this subject. They go therefore next to St. Paul for a\nfarther elucidation of it.\n\nThey are of opinion, that St. Paul, in his Epistle to[22] Timothy, and\nto the Corinthians, and Galatians, acknowledges the position, that the\nspiritual labourer is worthy of his hire.\n\n[Footnote 22: 1 Cor. ix.--1 Tim. v.--Gal. vi.]\n\nThe same Apostle, however, says, \"that[23] if any would not work,\nneither should he eat.\" From this text the Quakers draw two conclusions,\nfirst, that when ministers of the Gospel are idle, they are not entitled\nto bodily sustenance; and, secondly, that those only, who receive them,\nare expected to support them. The same Apostle says also,[24] \"Let him\nthat is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all\ngood things,\" but he nowhere says, \"to him that teacheth not.\"\n\n[Footnote 23: 2 Thes. iii. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Gal. vi. 6.]\n\nBut though men, who faithfully spend their time in preaching the Gospel,\nare entitled to bodily maintenance from those who receive them, yet St.\nPaul, the Quakers say, as far as his own practice was concerned thought\nit more consistent with the spirit of Christianity, and less detrimental\nto its interests, to support himself by the labour of his own hands,\nthan to be supported by that of others. And he advises others to do the\nsame, and not to make their preaching chargeable,[25] \"not because, says\nhe we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample to you to follow\nus.\"\n\n[Footnote 25: 2 Thes. iii. 0.]\n\nThis power the Quakers consider ministers of the Gospel to abuse, who\nmake their preaching chargeable, if by any means, they can support\nthemselves; for St. Paul says farther, [26] \"What is my reward then?\nVerily that, when I preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel of Christ\nwithout charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel.\" Thus the\nApostle, they conceive, looks up to God and not to men for the reward of\nhis spiritual labours. And the same Apostle makes it a characteristic of\nthe false teachers, that they make merchandize of their hearers.[27]\n\n[Footnote 26: 1 Cor. ix. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 27: 2 Pet. ii. 3.]\n\nIt is objected to the Quakers, on this occasion, that St. Paul received\nrelief from the brethren at Philippi, as well as from others, when he\ndid not preach. But their reply is, that this relief consisted of\nvoluntary and affectionate presents sent to him in circumstances of\ndistress. In this case the Apostle states, that he never desired these\ngifts, but that it was pleasant to him to see his religious instruction\nproduce a benevolence of disposition that would abound to their\naccount.[28]\n\n[Footnote 28: Philip. iv. 17.]\n\nSt. Peter is the only other person, who is mentioned in the New\nTestament as speaking on this subject. Writing to those, who had been\ncalled to the spiritual oversight of the churches, he advises as\nfollows:[29] \"Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the\noversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre,\nbut of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God's heritage, but\nbeing examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear,\nye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.\" Upon these\nwords the Quakers make three observations; that ministers should not\nmake a gain of the Gospel; that they should look to God for their\nreward, and not to men; and that Peter himself must have preached, like\nSt. Paul, without fee or reward, or he could not consistently have\nrecommended such a practice to others.\n\n[Footnote 29: 1 Pet. v. 2.]\n\nThe Quakers, therefore, from the example and precepts of Jesus Christ,\nand of the Apostles Paul and Peter, come to the following conclusions on\nthis subject. First, that God raises up his own ministers. Secondly,\nthat these are to dispense his Gospel freely. Thirdly, that they are to\ntake, whereever they are received, such things as are given them, which\nthings they deserve while in the exercise of their calling, as much as\nthe labourer his hire, but that no bargains are to be made about\nreligion; that they are not to compel men to give, neither are they to\ntake away any thing from those who are unwilling to receive them, but,\nin this case, to go their ways, and shake the dust from their feet\nagainst them, or, in other words, to declare that they have done their\nown duty in going to them with the word of God, and that the fault lies\nwith them in refusing to hear it. Neither, when they return from their,\nmissions, or are idle at home, are they to receive any thing, but to use\ntheir own scrips and purses, and clothes. And fourthly, that though it\nbe lawful for them to receive such sustenance, under such limitations,\nduring the exercise of their ministry, it would be more consistent with\nthe spirit of Christianity, if they would give their spiritual labours\nfreely, and look up to God for their reward, thus avoiding the character\nof false teachers, and the imputation of an abuse of their power in the\nGospel.\n\nNow these conclusions, the Quakers say, seem to have been sanctioned, in\na great measure, by the primitive practice for the three first centuries\nof the church, or till the darkness of apostacy began to overwhelm the\nreligious world.\n\nIn the very early times of the Gospel, many Christians, both at\nJerusalem and Alexandria in Egypt, sold their possessions, and lived\ntogether on the produce of their common stock. Others in Antioch,\nGalatia, and Pontus, retained their estates in their possession, but\nestablished a fund, consisting of weekly or monthly offerings, for the\nsupport of the church. This fund continued in after times. But it was\nprincipally for the relief of poor and distressed saints, in which the\nministers of the Gospel, if in that situation, might also share.\nTertullian, in speaking of such funds, gives the following account:\n\"Whatsoever we have, says he, in the treasury of our churches, is not\nraised by taxation, as though we put men to ransom their religion, but\nevery man once a month, or when it pleaseth him, bestoweth what he\nthinks proper, but not except he be willing. For no man is compelled,\nbut left free to his own discretion. And that, which is thus given, is\nnot bestowed in vanity, but in relieving the poor, and upon children\ndestitute of parents, and in the maintenance of aged and feeble persons,\nand of men wrecked by sea, and of such as have been condemned to\nmetallic mines, or have been banished to islands, or have been cast into\nprison, professing the Christian faith.\"\n\nIn process of time, towards the close of the third century, some lands\nbegan to be given to the church. The revenue from these was thrown into\nthe general treasury or fund, and was distributed, as other offerings\nwere, by the deacons and elders, but neither bishops nor ministers of\nthe Gospel were allowed to have any concern with it. It appears from\nOrigen, Cyprian, Urban, Prosper, and others, that if in those times such\nministers were able to support themselves, they were to have nothing\nfrom this fund. The fund was not for the benefit of any particular\nperson. But if such ministers stood in need of sustenance, they might\nreceive from it; but they were to be satisfied with simple diet, and\nnecessary apparel. And so sacred was this fund held to the purposes of\nits institution, that the first Christian emperors, who did as the\nbishops advised them, had no recourse to it, but supplied the wants of\nministers of the Gospel from their own revenues, as Eusebius, Theodoret,\nand Sozomen relate.\n\nThe council of Antioch, in the year 340, finding fault with the deacons\nrelative to the management of the funds of the churches, ordained that\nthe bishops might distribute them, but that they should take no part of\nthem to themselves, or for the use of the priests and brethren who lived\nwith them, unless necessity required it, using the words of the Apostle,\n\"Having food and raiment, be therewith content.\"\n\nIn looking at other instances, cited by the Quakers, I shall mention\none, which throws light for a few years farther upon this subject. In\nthe year 359, Constantine, the emperor, having summoned a general\ncouncil of bishops to Arminium in Italy, and provided for their\nsubsistence there, the British and French bishops, judging it not fit to\nlive on the public, chose rather to live at their own expence. Three\nonly out of Britain, compelled by want, but yet refusing assistance\noffered to them by the rest, accepted the emperor's provision, judging\nit more proper to subsist by public than by private support. This\ndelicate conduct of the bishops is brought to shew, that, where\nministers of the Gospel had the power of maintaining themselves, they\nhad no notion of looking to the public. In short, in those early times,\nministers were maintained only where their necessities required it, and\nthis out of the fund for the poor. Those, who took from the fund, had\nthe particular application given them of \"sportularii,\" or\nbasket-clerks, because, according to Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and\nothers, they had their portion of sustenance, given them in baskets.\nThese portions consisted but of a small pittance, sufficient only for\ntheir livelihood, and were given them on the principle laid down by St.\nMatthew, that the ministers of Jesus Christ were to eat and drink only\nsuch things as were set before them.\n\nIn process of time new doctrines were advanced relative to the\nmaintenance of the ministry, which will be hereafter explained. But as\nthese were the inventions of men, and introduced during the apostacy,\nthe Quakers see no reason, why they should look up to these in\npreference to those of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles, and of the\npractice of Christians in the purest periods of the church. They\nbelieve, on the other hand, that the latter only are to be relied upon\nas the true doctrines. These were founded in divine wisdom on the\nerection of the Gospel ministry, and were unmixed with the inventions of\nmen. They were founded on the genius and spirit of Christianity, and not\non the genius or spirit of the world. The Quakers therefore, looking up\nto these as to the surer foundation, have adopted the following tenets\non this subject.\n\nThey believe, first, that it would be inconsistent in them as\nChristians, to make a pecuniary payment to their own ministers for their\nGospel labours. And they regulate their practice accordingly upon this\nprinciple. No one is ever paid by the Quakers for the performance of any\noffice in the church. If a minister lives at home, and attends the\nmeeting to which he belongs, he supports himself, as St. Paul did, by\nhis own trade. If he goes on the ministry to other meetings, he is\nreceived by the Quakers as he travels along, and he finds meat and drink\nat the houses of these. His travelling expenses also are generally\ndefrayed in this particular case. But he receives no reward, or fixed or\npermanent stipend, for his services on these or on any other such\noccasions.\n\nAnd as the Quakers cannot pay their own ministers, so it is a tenet with\nthem, that they cannot pay those of other denominations for their Gospel\nlabours upon the same principle; that is, they believe, that all\nministers of every description ought to follow the example, which St.\nPaul gave and enjoined them, of maintaining themselves by their own\nhands; they ought to look up to God and not to men for their reward;\nthey ought to avoid the character of false teachers, and the imputation\nof abusing their power in the Gospel. And to these they add a particular\nreason, drawn from the texts quoted, which is not applicable in the\nformer case, namely, that ministers are not authorised to take meat and\ndrink from those who are not willing to receive them.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Other reasons why Quakers cannot pay ministers of the Gospel of a\ndifferent denomination from themselves--These arise out of the nature of\nthe payments made to them, or out of the nature of tithes--History of\ntithes from the fourth century to the reign of Henry the eighth, when\nthey were definitively consolidated into the laws of the land._\n\n\nBut the Quakers have other reasons, besides the general reasons, and the\nparticular one which has been given, why as Christians they cannot pay\nministers of a different denomination from themselves for their Gospel\nlabours, or why they cannot pay ministers of the established church.\nThese arise out of the nature of the payments which are made to them, or\nout of the nature of tithes. But to see these in their proper light,\nsome notion should be given of the origin of this mode of their\nmaintenance. I shall therefore give a very concise history of tithes\nfrom the fourth century, to which period I have already brought the\nreader, to the reign of Henry the eighth, when they took a station in\nthe laws of the land, from which they have never yet been displaced.\n\nIt has already appeared that, between the middle and the close of the\nfourth century, such ministers of the Gospel as were able, supported\nthemselves, but that those who were not able, were supported out of the\nfund for the poor. The latter, however, had no fixed or determined\nproportion of this fund allotted them, but had only a bare livelihood\nfrom it, consisting of victuals served out to them in baskets, as before\nexplained. This fund too consisted of voluntary offerings, or of\nrevenues from land voluntarily bequeathed. And the principle, on which\nthese gifts or voluntary offerings were made, was the duty of charity to\nthe poor. One material innovation, however, had been introduced, as I\nremarked before, since its institution, namely, that the bishops, and\nnot the deacons, had now the management of this fund.\n\nAt the latter end of the fourth century, and from this period to the\neighth, other changes took place in the system of which I have been\nspeaking. Ministers of the Gospel began to be supported, all of them\nwithout distinction, from the funds of the poor. This circumstance\noccasioned a greater number of persons to be provided for than before.\nThe people therefore were solicited for greater contributions than had\nbeen ordinarily given. Jerom and Omrysostom, out of good and pious\nmotives, exhorted them in turn to give bountifully to the poor, and\ndouble honour to those who laboured in the lord's work. And though they\nleft the people at liberty to bestow what they pleased, they gave it as\ntheir opinion, that they ought not to be less liberal than the ancient\nJews, who, under the Levitical law, gave a tenth of their property to\nthe priesthood and to the poor. Ambrose, in like manner, recommended\ntenths, as now necessary, and as only a suitable donation for these\npurposes.\n\nThe same line of conduct continued to be pursued by those who succeeded\nin the government of the church, by Augustin, bishop of Hippo, by Pope\nLeo, by Gregory, by Severin among the Christians, in Pannonia, and by\nothers. Their exhortations, however, on this subject, were now mixed\nwith promises and, threats. Pardon of sins and future rewards were held\nout on the one hand, and it was suggested on the other, that the people,\nthemselves would be reduced to a tenth, and the blood of all the poor\nwho died, would be upon their heads, if they gave less than a tenth of\ntheir incomes to holy uses. By exhortations of this sort, reiterated for\nthree centuries, it began at length to be expected of the people, that\nthey would not give less than tenths of what they possessed. No right\nhowever was alleged to such a proportion of their income, nor was\ncoercion ever spoken of. These tenths also were for holy uses, which\nchiefly included the benefit of the poor. They were called the Lord's\ngoods in consequence, and were also denominated the patrimony of the\npoor.\n\nAnother change took place within the period assigned, which I must now\nmention as of great concern. Ministers of the Gospel now living wholly\nout of the tenths, which with legacies constituted the fund of the poor,\na determined portion of this fund, contrary to all former usage, was set\napart for their use. Of this fund, one fourth was generally given to the\npoor, one fourth to the repairs of churches, one fourth to officiating\nministers, and one fourth to the[30] bishops with whom they lived. Hence\nthe maintenance of ministers, as consisting of these two orders, and\nthe repairs of churches, took now the greatest part of it, so that the\nface of things began to be materially altered. For whereas formerly this\nfund went chiefly to the poor, out of which ministers of the Gospel were\nprovided, it now went chiefly to the church, out of which there came a\nprovision for the poor. Another change also must be noticed with respect\nto the principle on which the gifts towards this fund were offered. For\nwhereas tenths were formerly solicited on the Christian duty of charity\nto the poor, they were now solicited on the principle, that by the law\nof Moses they ought to be given for holy uses, in which the benefit of\nthe fatherless, the stranger, and the widow, were included. From this\ntime I shall use the word tithes for tenths, and the word clergy instead\nof ministers of the Gospel.\n\n[Footnote 30: In process of time, as the bishops became otherwise\nprovided for, the fund was divided into three parts for the other three\npurposes just mentioned.]\n\nIn the eighth century, matters were as I have now represented them. The\npeople had been brought into a notion, that they were to give no less\nthan a tenth of their income to holy uses. Bishops generally at this\ntime, and indeed long previously to this, lived in monasteries. Their\nclergy lived also with them in these monasteries, and went from thence\nto preach in the country within the diocese. It must be also noticed,\nthat there were, at this time, other monasteries under abbots or priors,\nconsisting mostly of lay persons, and distinct from those mentioned, and\nsupported by offerings and legacies in the same manner. The latter,\nhowever, not having numerous ecclesiastics to support, laid out more of\ntheir funds than the former were enabled to do, towards the\nentertainment of strangers, and towards the maintenance of the poor. Now\nit must be observed, that, when these two kinds of monasteries existed,\nthe people were at liberty to pay their tithes to either of them as they\npleased, and that, having this permission, they generally favoured the\nlatter. To these they not only paid their tithes, but gave their\ndonations by legacy. This preference of the lay abbies to the\necclesiastical arose from a knowledge that the poor, for whose benefit\ntithes had been originally preached up, would be more materially served.\nOther circumstances too occurred, which induced the people to continue\nthe same preference. For the bishops in many places began to abuse their\ntrust, as the deacons had done before, by attaching the bequeathed lands\nto their sees, so that the inferior clergy, and the poor became in a\nmanner dependent upon them for their daily bread. In other places the\nclergy had seized all to their own use. The people therefore so\nthoroughly favoured the lay abbies in preference to those of the church,\nthat the former became daily richer, while the, latter did little more\nthan maintain their ground.\n\nThis preference, however, which made such a difference in the funds of\nthe ecclesiastical, and of the lay monasteries, was viewed with a\njealous eye by the clergy of those times, and measures were at length\ntaken to remove it. In a council under Pope Alexander the third, in the\nyear 1180, it was determined, that the liberty of the people should be\nrestrained with respect to their tithes. They were accordingly forbidden\nto make appropriations to religious houses without the consent of the\nbishop, in whose diocese they lived. But even this prohibition did not\nsucceed. The people still favoured the lay abbies, paying their tithes\nthere, till Pope Innocent the third, in the year 1200, ordained, and he\nenforced it by ecclesiastical censures, that every one should pay his\ntithes to those who administered to him spiritual things in his own\nparish. In a general council also held at Lyons, in the year 1274, it\nwas decreed, that it was no longer lawful for men to pay their tithes\nwhere they pleased, as before, but that they should pay them to mother\nchurch. And the principle, on which they had now been long demanded, was\nconfirmed by the council of Trent under Pope Pius the fourth, in the\nyear 1560, which was, that they were due by divine right. In the course\nof forty years after the payment of tithes had been forced by\necclesiastical censures and excommunications, prescription was set up.\nThus the very principle, in which tithes had originated, was changed.\nThus free will-offerings became dues, to be exacted by compulsion. And\nthus the fund of the poor was converted almost wholly into a fund for\nthe maintenance of the church.\n\nHaving now traced the origin of tithes, as far as a part of the\ncontinent of Europe is concerned, I shall trace it as far as they have\nreference to our own country. And here I may instantly observe, and in a\nfew words, that the same system and the same changes are conspicuous.\nFree will-offerings and donations of land constituted a fund for the\npoor, out of which the clergy were maintained. In process of time,\ntenths or tithes followed. Of these, certain proportions were allotted\nto the clergy, the repairs of the churches, and the poor. This was the\nstate of things in the time of Offa, king of Mercia, towards the close\nof the eighth century, when that prince, having caused Ethelbert, king\nof the East Angles, to be treacherously murdered, fled to the Pope for\npardon, to please whom, and to expiate his own sin, he caused those\ntithes to become dues in his own dominions, which were only at the will\nof the donors before.\n\nAbout sixty years afterwards, Ethelwolf, a weak and superstitious\nprince, was worked upon by the clergy to extend tithes as dues to the\nwhole kingdom; and he consented to it under the notion, that he was thus\nto avert the judgments of God, which they represented as visible in the\nfrequent ravages of the Danes. Poor laymen, however, were still to be\nsupported out of these tithes, and the people were still at liberty to\npay them to whichever religious persons they pleased.\n\nAbout the close of the tenth century, Edgar took from the people the\nright of disposing of their tithes at their own discretion, and directed\nthat they should be paid to the parish churches. But the other\nmonasteries or lay-houses resisting, his orders became useless for a\ntime. At this period the lay monasteries were rich, but the parochial\nclergy poor. Pope Innocent, however, by sending out his famous decree\nbefore mentioned to king John, which was to be observed in England as\nwell as in other places under his jurisdiction, and by which it was\nenacted, that every man was to pay his tithes to those only, who\nadministered spiritual help to him in his own parish, settled the\naffair; for he set up ecclesiastical courts, thundered out his\ninterdicts, and frightened both king and people.[31]\n\n[Footnote 31: To shew the principles, upon which princes acted with\nrespect to tithes in these times, the following translation of a\npreamble to a grant of king Stephen may be produced: \"Because, through\nthe providence of Divine Mercy, we know it to be so ordered, and by the\nchurches publishing it far and near, every body has heard, that, by the\ndistribution of alms, persons may be absolved from the bonds of sin, and\nacquire the rewards of heavenly joys, I, Stephen, by the grace of God,\nking of England, being willing to have a share with those, who by a\nhappy kind of commerce exchange heavenly things for earthly, and smitten\nwith the love of God, and for the salvation of my own soul, and the\nsouls of my father and mother, and all my forefathers and ancestors,\"\n&c.]\n\nRichard the second confirmed these tithes to the parishes, as thus\nsettled by this pope, but it was directed by an act, that, in all\nappropriations of churches, the bishop of the diocese should ordain a\nconvenient sum of money to be distributed out of the fruits and profits\nof every living among the poor parishioners annually, in aid of their\nliving and sustenance. \"Thus it seems, says Judge Blackstone, the people\nwere frequently sufferers by the withholding of those alms, for which,\namong other purposes, the payment of tithes was originally imposed.\" At\nlength tithes were finally confirmed, and, in a more explicit manner, by\nthe famous act of Henry the eighth on this subject. And here I must just\nobserve, that, whereas from the eighth century to this reign, tithes\nwere said to be due, whenever the reason of them was expressed, by\ndivine right as under the Levitical law, so, in the preamble to the act\nof Henry the eighth, they are founded on the same principle, being\ndescribed therein, \"as due to God and the church.\" Thus, both on the\ncontinent of Europe, as well as in our own country, were these changes\nbrought about, which have been described. And they were brought about\nalso by the same means, for they were made partly by the exhortations\nand sermons of monks, partly by the decrees of popes, partly by the\nedicts of popish kings, and partly by the determinations of popish\ncouncils.\n\nIt is not necessary, that I should trace this subject farther, or that I\nshould make distinctions relative to tithes, whether they may be\nrectorial, or vicarial, or whether they may belong to lay persons, I\nhave already developed enough of their history for my purpose. I shall\ntherefore hasten to state those other reasons, which the Quakers have to\ngive, why they cannot pay other ministers of the Gospel for their\nspiritual labours, or rather, why they cannot consent to the payment of\ntithes, as the particular species of payment demanded by the church.\n\n\nSECT. III\n\n_The other reasons then, as deducible from the history of tithes, are\nthe following--First, that they are not in equity dues of the\nchurch--Secondly, that the payment of them being compulsory, it would,\nif acceded to, be an acknowledgment that the civil magistrate has a\nright to use force in matters of religion--And thirdly, that being\nclaimed upon an act which holds them forth as of divine right, any\npayment of them would be an acknowledgment of the Jewish religion, and\nthat Christ had not yet actually come._\n\n\nThe other reasons then, which the Quakers have to give for refusing to\nsupport other ministers of the Gospel, may be now deduced from the\nnature of tithes, as explained in the former section.\n\nThe early Quakers rejected the payment of tithes for three reasons;\nand, first, because they were demanded of them as dues of the church.\n\nAgainst this doctrine, they set their faces as a religious body. They\ncontended that, if they were due at all, they were due to the poor, from\nwhom they had been forcibly taken, and to whom in equity they still\nbelonged; that no prince could alter the nature of right and wrong that\ntithes were not justly due to the church, because Offa wished them to be\nso, to expiate his own crimes; or because Ethelwolf wished them to be\nso, from a superstitious notion, that he might thus prevent the\nincursions of the Danes; or because Stephen wished them to be so, as his\nown grant expresses, on the principle, that \"the bonds of sin might be\ndissolved, and that he might have a part with those, who by a happy kind\nof commerce exchanged heavenly things for earthly;\" or because the popes\nof Rome wished them to be so, from whose jurisdiction all the subjects\nof England were discharged by law.\n\nThey resisted the payment of them, because, secondly, tithes had become\nof a compulsory nature, or because they were compelled to pay them.\n\nThey contended on this head, that tithes had been originally free\nwill-offerings, but that by violence they had been changed into dues,\nto be collected by force; that nothing could be more clear, than that\nministers of the Gospel, if the instructions of Jesus to his disciples\nwere to be regarded, were not authorized even to demand, much less to\nforce, a maintenance from others; and that any constrained payment of\nthese, while it was contrary to his intention, would be an infringement\nof their great tenet, by which they hold, that, Christ's kingdom being\nof a spiritual nature, the civil magistrate had no right to dictate a\nreligion to any one, nor to enforce payment from individuals for the\nsame, and that any interference in those matters, which were solely\nbetween God and man, was neither more nor less than an usurpation of the\nprerogative of God.\n\nThey resisted the payment of them, because, thirdly, they were demanded\non the principle, as appeared by the preamble of the act of Henry the\neighth, that they were due as under the Levitical law by divine right.\n\nAgainst this they urged, first, that, if they were due as the Levitical\ntithes were, they must have been subject to the same conditions. They\ncontended that, if the Levites had a right to tithes, they had\npreviously given up to the community their own right to a share of the\nland, but that the clergy claimed a tenth of the produce of the lands of\nothers, but had given up none of their own. They contended also, that\ntithes by the Levitical law were for the strangers, the fatherless, and\nthe widows, as well as for the Levites, but that the clergy, by taking\ntithes, had taken that which had been for the maintenance of the poor,\nand had appropriated it solely to their own use, leaving them thus to\nbecome a second burthen upon the land.\n\nBut they contended, that the principle itself was false. They\nmaintained, that the Levitical priesthood and tithes with it, had ceased\non the coming of Jesus Christ, as appeared by his own example and that\nof his Apostles; that it became them, therefore, as Christians, to make\na stand against this principle, for that, by acquiescing in the notion\nthat the Jewish law extended to them, they conceived they would be\nacknowledging that the priesthood of Aaron still existed, and that\nChrist had not actually come.\n\nThis latter argument, by which it was insisted upon, that tithes ceased\nwith the Jewish dispensation, and that those who acknowledged them,\nacknowledged the Jewish religion for Christians, was not confined to the\nearly Quakers, but admitted among many other serious Christians of those\ntimes. The great John Milton himself, in a treatise which he wrote\nagainst tithes, did not disdain to use it. \"Although, says he, hire to\nthe labourer be of moral and perpetual right, yet that special kind of\nhire, the tenth, can be of no right or necessity but to that special\nlabour for which God ordained it. That special labour was the Levitical\nand ceremonial service of the tabernacle, which is now abolished. The\nright, therefore, of that special hire, must needs be withal abolished,\nas being also ceremonial. That tithes were ceremonial is plain, not\nbeing given to the Levites till they had been first offered an heave\noffering to the Lord. He then, who by that law brings tithes into the\nGospel, of necessity brings in withal a sacrifice and an altar, without\nwhich tithes by that law were unsanctified and polluted, and therefore\nnever thought of in the first Christian times, nor till ceremonies,\naltars, and oblations had been brought back. And yet the Jews, ever\nsince their temple was destroyed, though they have rabbies and teachers\nof their law, yet pay no tithes, as having no Levites to whom, no temple\nwhere, to pay them, nor altar whereon to hallow them; which argues, that\nthe Jews themselves never thought tithes moral, but ceremonial only.\nThat Christians therefore should take them up, when Jews have laid them\ndown, must needs be very absurd and preposterous.\"\n\nHaving now stated the three great reasons, which the early Quakers gave,\nin addition to those mentioned in a former section, why they could not\ncontribute towards the maintenance of an alien ministry, or why they\ncould not submit to the payment of tithes, as the peculiar payment\ndemanded by the established church, I shall only observe, that these are\nstill insisted upon by their descendants, but more particularly the\nlatter, because all the more, modern acts upon this subject take the act\nof Henry the eighth as the great ground-work or legal foundation of\ntithes, in the preamble of which it is inserted, that \"they are due to\nGod and the church.\" Now this preamble, the Quakers assert, has never\nbeen done away, nor has any other principle been acknowledged instead of\nthat in this preamble, why tithes have been established by law. The\nQuakers therefore conceive, that tithes are still collected on the\nfoundation of divine right, and therefore that it is impossible for them\nas Christians to pay them, for that by every such payment, they would\nnot only be acknowledging the Jewish religion for themselves, but would\nbe agreeing in sentiment with the modern Jews, that Jesus Christ has not\nyet made his appearance upon earth.\n\n\n\n\nCHARACTER\nOF THE\nQUAKERS\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Character of the Quakers--Character of great importance in life--yet\noften improperly estimated--This the case with that of the\nQuakers--Attempt to appreciate it duly--Many outward circumstances in\nthe constitution of the Quakers, which may be referred to as certain\nhelps in the promotion of this attempt_.\n\n\nNothing is of more importance to an individual, than a good character,\nduring life. Posthumous reputation, however desirable it may be thought,\nis of no service to the person whom it follows. But a living character,\nif it be excellent, is inestimable, on account of the good which it\nproduces to him who possesses it. It procures him attention, civility,\nlove, and respect from others. Hence virtue may be said to have its\nreward in the present life. This account will be also true of bodies,\nand particularly of religious bodies, of men. It will make a difference\nto the individuals of these, whether they be respected, as a body, by\nthe individuals of other religious denominations, or by the government\nunder which they live.\n\nBut though character be of so much importance in life, there are few who\nestimate it, either when they view it individually or collectively, as\nif really is. It is often, on the one hand, heightened by partiality,\nand, on the other, lowered by prejudice. Other causes also combine to\nafford wrong apprehensions concerning it. For as different diseases\nthrow out often the same symptoms, and the judgment of the physician is\nbaffled, so different motives produce frequently similar actions, and\nthe man who tries to develop a character, even if he wishes to speak\ntruth, finds himself at a loss to pronounce justly upon it.\n\nAs these failings and difficulties have attended men in estimating the\ncharacter of individuals, so they seem to have attended those who have\nattempted to delineate that of the society of the Quakers. Indeed, if we\nwere to take a view of the different traits which have been assigned to\nthe latter, we could not but conclude, that there must have been some\nmistake concerning them. We should have occasion to observe, that some\nof these were so different in their kind, that they could not reasonably\nbe supposed to exist in the same persons. We should find that others\ncould scarcely be admitted among a body of professing Christians. The\nQuaker character, in short, as it has been exhibited to the world, is a\nstrange medley of consistency and contradiction, and of merit and\ndefect.\n\nAmidst accounts, which have been so incongruous, I shall attempt the\ntask of drawing the character of the Quakers. I shall state, first, all\nthe excellencies, that have been said to belong to it. I shall state\nalso, all the blemishes with which it has been described to be\nchargeable. I shall then enquire how far it is probable that any of\nthese, and in what degree they are true. In this enquiry, some little\nreliance must be placed upon my personal knowledge of the Quakers, and\nupon my desire not to deceive. It is fortunate, however, that I shall be\nable, in this case, to apply to a test, which will be more satisfactory\nto the world, than any opinion of my own upon this subject. I mean to\nsay that the Quakers, like others, are the creatures of their own\neducation and habits, or that there are circumstances in their\nconstitution, the knowledge of which will assist us in the discussion of\nthis question; circumstances, which will speak for themselves and to\nwhich we way always refer in the case of difficulty or doubt. Their\nmoral education, for example, which has been already explained, cannot\nbut have an influence on the minds of those who receive it. Their\ndiscipline also, which has appeared to be of so extraordinary a nature,\nand to be conducted in so extraordinary a manner, cannot but have an\neffect of its own kind. The peculiar customs, in which they have been\ndescribed to have been born and educated, and which must of course act\nupon them as a second nature, must have a correspondent influence again.\nFrom these, and other prominent and distinguishing features in their\nconstitution, I may hope to confirm some of the truths which have been\ntold, and to correct some of the errors that have been stated, on the\nsubject which is now before us.\n\nNor am I without the hope, that the discussion of this subject upon such\nprinciples, will be acceptable to many. To those, who love truth, this\nattempt to investigate it will be interesting. To the Quakers it will\nbe highly useful. For they will see, in the glass or mirror which I\nshall set before them, the appearance which they make in the world. And\nif they shall learn, in consequence, any of the causes either of their\nmerits or of their failings, they will have learnt a lesson, which they\nmay make useful by the farther improvement of their moral character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Good part of the character of the Quakers--This general or\nparticular--Great general trait is, that they are a moral people--This\nopinion of the world accounted for and confirmed by a statement of some\nof the causes that operate in the production of character--One of these\ncauses is, the discipline peculiar to this society._\n\n\nI come, according to my design, to the good part of the character of the\nQuakers. This may be divided into two sorts, into that which is general,\nand into that which is particular. On the subject of their general good\ncharacter I shall first speak.\n\nIt is admitted by the world, as I had occasion to observe in the first\nchapter of the first volume, that whatever other objections might be\nbrought against the Quakers as a body, they deserved the character of a\nmoral people.\n\nThough this fact be admitted, and there would therefore appear to be no\nnecessity for confirming it, I shall endeavour, according to the plan\nproposed, to shew, by means of the peculiar system of the Quakers as a\nreligious body, that this is one of the traits given them by the world,\nwhich cannot be otherwise than true.\n\nThe Quakers believe, in the first place, that the Spirit of God, acting\nin man, is one of the wises of virtuous character. They believe it to\nbe, of all others, the purest and sublimest source. It is that spring,\nthey conceive, to good action, and of course to exalted character, in\nwhich man can have none but a passive concern. It is neither hereditary\nnor factitious. It can neither be perpetuated in generation by the\nfather to the child, nor be given by human art. It is considered by the\nQuakers as the great and distinguishing mark of their calling. Neither\ndress, nor language, nor peculiar customs, constitute the Quaker, but\nthe spiritual knowledge which he possesses. Hence all pious men may be\nsaid to have been Quakers. Hence the patriarchs were Quakers, that is,\nbecause they professed to be led by the Spirit of God. Hence the\nApostles and primitive Christians were Quakers. Hence the virtuous\namong the Heathens, who knew nothing of Christianity, were Quakers also.\nHence Socrates may be ranked in profession with the members of this\nsociety. He believed in the agency of the Divine Spirit. It was said of\nhim, \"that he had the guide of his life within him; that this spirit\nfurnished him with divine knowledge; and that it often impelled him to\naddress and exhort the people.\" Justin the Martyr had no scruple in\ncalling both Socrates and Heraclitus Christians, though they lived long\nbefore Christ; \"for all such as these, says he, who lived according to\nthe divine word within them, and which word was in all men, were\nChristians.\" Hence also, since the introduction of Christianity, many of\nour own countrymen have been Quakers, though undistinguished by the\nexterior marks of dress or language. Among these we may reckon the great\nand venerable Milton. His works are full of the sentiments of[32]\nQuakerism. And hence, in other countries and in other ages, there have\nbeen men, who might be called Quakers, though the word Quakerism was\nunknown.\n\n[Footnote 32: Milton not only considered the Spirit of God as a divine\nteacher, but that the scriptures were not to be spiritually understood\nbut by the means of this spirit. He believed also, that human learning\nwas not necessary for the qualification of a minister of the Gospel.\nAnd he wrote an essay against tithes.]\n\nBut independently of the agency of the Spirit of God, which the Quakers\nthus consider to be the purest cause of a good life and character, we\nmay reckon a subordinate cause, which may be artificial, and within the\ncontrivance and wisdom of man. When the early Quakers met together as a\nreligious body, though they consisted of spiritually minded men, they\nresolved on a system of discipline, which should be followed by those\nwho became members of the society. This discipline we have already seen.\nWe have seen how it attempts to secure obedience to Christian precepts.\nHow it marks its offences. How it takes cognizance of them when\ncommitted. How it tries to reclaim and save. How, in short, by\nendeavouring to keep up the members of the society to a good life, it\nbecomes instrumental in the production or preservation of a good\ncharacter.\n\nFrom hence it will appear, that the virtue of the Quakers, and of course\nthat their character may be distinguished into two kinds, as arising\nfrom two sources. It may arise from spiritual knowledge on the one hand,\nor from their discipline on the other. That which arises from the first,\nwill be a perfect virtue. It will produce activity in excellence. That\nwhich arises from the second, will be inferior and sluggish. But,\nhowever it may be subject to this lower estimation, it will always be\nable to produce for those who have it, a certain degree of moral\nreputation in the opinion of the world.\n\nThese distinctions having been made as to the sources of virtuous\ncharacter, there will be no difficulty in shewing, that the world has\nnot been deceived in the point in question. For if it be admitted that\nthe Divine Spirit, by means of its agency on the heart of man, is really\na cause of virtuous character, it will then be but reasonable to\nsuppose, that the Quakers, who lay themselves open for its reception\nmore than others, both by frequent private retirements, and by their\npeculiar mode of public worship, should bear at least as fair a\nreputation as others, on account of the purity of their lives. But the\ndiscipline, which is unquestionably a guardian of morals, is peculiar to\nthemselves. Virtue therefore is kept up among the Quakers by an\nextraordinary cause, or by a cause which does not act among many other\nbodies of men. It ought therefore to be expected, while this\nextraordinary cause exists, that an extraordinary result should follow,\nor that more will be kept apparently virtuous among the Quakers, in\nproportion to their numbers, than among those where no such discipline\ncan be found, or, in other words, that, whenever the Quakers are\ncompared with those of the world at large, they will obtain the\nreputation of a moral people.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Particular traits in the Quaker character--The first of these is\nbenevolence--This includes good will to man in his temporal\ncapacity--Reasons why the world has bestowed this trait upon the\nQuakers--Probability of its existence--from their ignorance of many\ndegrading diversions of the world--from their great tenet on war--from\ntheir discipline which inculcates equality--and watchfulness over\nmorals--and from their doctrine that man is the temple of the Holy\nSpirit._\n\n\n[33]Of the good traits in the Quaker character, which may be called\nparticular, I shall first notice that of benevolence. This benevolence\nwill include, first, good will to man in his temporal capacity, or a\ntender feeling for him as a fellow creature in the varied situations of\nhis life.\n\n[Footnote 33: The reader must be aware, that all Quakers do not partake\nof this good part of the character. That the generality do, I believe.\nThat all ought to do, I know, because their principles, as will be\nclearly seen, lead to such a character. Those, therefore, who do not,\nwill see their own deficiency, or how much they have yet to attain,\nbefore they can become Quakers.]\n\nThe epithet of benevolent has been long given to this society. Indeed I\nknow of no point, where the judgment of the world has been called forth,\nin which it has been more unanimous, than in the acknowledgment of this\nparticular trait, as a part of the Quaker character.\n\nThe reasons for the application of this epithet to the society, may be\nvarious.\n\nIt has been long known, that as the early Christians called each other\nbrethren, and loved each other as such, so there runs through the whole\nsociety of the Quakers a system of similar love, their affection for one\nanother having been long proverbial.\n\nIt has been long known again, that as the early Christians extended\ntheir benevolence out of the pale of their own society to others who\nlived around them, so the Quakers manifest a similar disposition towards\ntheir countrymen at large. In matters of private distress, where persons\nof a different religious denomination have been the objects, and where\nsuch objects have been worthy, their purses have been generally open,\nand they have generally given as largely in proportion to their\nabilities as other people. To public charities in their respective\nplaces of residence, they have generally administered their proper\nshare. But of late years, as they have mixed more with the world, this\ncharacter of the society has become more conspicuous or better known. In\nthe cases of dearth and distress, which happened a few years ago, it is\na matter of publicity, that they were among the foremost in the\nmetropolis, and in same other towns in the kingdom, not only in\npecuniary contributions, but in frequent and regular attendances for the\nproper distribution of them. And if their character has ever stood\nhigher for willingness to contribute to the wants of others at any one\ntime than at another, it stands the highest, from whatever cause it may\nhappen, at the present day.\n\nIt has been long known again, that as the early Christians extended\ntheir love beyond their own society, and beyond those of the world who\nlived around them, to those who were reputed natural enemies in their\nown times, so the Quakers do not confine their benevolence to their own\ncountrymen, but extend it to the various inhabitants of the globe,\nwithout any discrimination, whether they are reputed hostile to the\ngovernment under which they live. In times of war we never see them\nbearing arms, and in times of victory we never see them exulting, like\nother people. We never see them illuminating their houses, or running up\nand down the streets, frantic with joy upon such occasions. Their joy,\non the other hand, is wounded by the melancholy consideration of the\ndestruction of the human race, when they lament, with almost equal\nsympathy, over the slaughter of enemies and friends.\n\nBut this character of a benevolent people has been raised higher of late\nyears in the estimation of the public by new circumstances or by the\nunanimous and decided part, which they have taken as a body, in behalf\nof the abolition of the slave-trade. For where has the injured African\nexperienced more sympathy than from the hearts of Quakers? In this great\ncause the Quakers have been singularly conspicuous. They have been\nactuated as it were by one spring. In the different attempts, made for\nthe annihilation of this trade, they have come forward with a religious\nzeal. They were at the original formation of the committee for this\nimportant object, where they gave an almost unexampled attendance for\nyears. I mentioned in the preceding volume, that near a century ago,\nwhen this question had not awakened the general attention, it had\nawakened that of the Quakers as a body; and that they had made\nregulations in their commercial concerns with a view of keeping\nthemselves clear of the blood of this cruel traffic. And from that time\nto the present day they have never forgotten this subject. Their yearly\nepistles notice it, whenever such notice is considered to be useful. And\nthey hold themselves in readiness, on all fit occasions, to unite their\nefforts for the removal of this great and shocking source of suffering\nto their fellow-creatures.\n\nBut whether these be the reasons, or whether they be not the reasons,\nwhy the Quakers have been denominated benevolent, nothing is more true\nthan that this appellation has been bestowed upon them, and this by the\nconsent of their countrymen. For we have only to examine our public\nprints, to prove the truth of the assertion. We shall generally find\nthere, that when there is occasion to mention the society, the word\n\"benevolent\" accompanies it.\n\nThe reader will perhaps be anxious to know how it happens, that the\nQuakers should possess this general feeling of benevolence in a degree\nso much stronger than the general body of their countrymen, that it\nshould have become an acknowledged feature in their character. He will\nnaturally ask, does their education produce it? Does their discipline\nproduce it? Do their religious tenets produce it? What springs act upon\nthe Quakers, which do not equally act upon other people? The\nexplanation of this phenomenon will be perfectly consistent with my\ndesign; for I purpose, as I stated before, to try the truth or falsehood\nof the different traits assigned to the character of the Quakers, by the\ntest of probabilities as arising from the nature of the customs or\nopinions which they adopt. I shall endeavour therefore to show, that\nthere are circumstances, connected with their constitution, which have a\ntendency to make them look upon man in a less degraded and hostile, and\nin a more kindred and elevated light, than many others. And when I shall\nhave accomplished this, I shall have given that explanation of the\nphenomenon, or that confirmation of the trait, which, whether it may or\nmay not satisfy others, has always satisfied myself.\n\nThe Quakers, in the first place, have seldom seen a man degraded but by\nhis vices. Unaccustomed to many of the diversions of the world, they\nhave seldom, if ever, seen him in the low condition of a hired buffoon\nor mimic. Men, who consent to let others degrade themselves for their\nsport, become degraded in their turn. And this degradation increases\nwith the frequency of the spectacle. Persons in such habits are apt to\nlose sight of the dignity of mankind, and to consider them as made for\nadministration to their pleasures, or in an animal or a reptile light.\nBut the Quakers, who know nothing of such spectacles, cannot, at least\nas far as these are concerned, lose either their own dignity of mind,\nor behold others lose it. They cannot therefore view men under the\ndegrading light of animals for sport, or of purchasable play-things.\n\nAnd as they are not accustomed to consider their fellow-creatures as\nbelow themselves, so neither are they accustomed to look with enmity\ntowards them. Their tenet on the subject of war, which has been so amply\ndetailed, prevents any disposition of this kind. For they interpret\nthose words of Jesus Christ, as I have before shewn, which relate to\ninjuries, as extending not to their fellow-citizens alone, but to every\nindividual in the world, and his precept of loving enemies, as extending\nnot only to those individuals of their own country, who may have any\nprivate resentment against them, but to those who become reputed enemies\nin the course of wars, so that they fix no boundaries of land or ocean,\nand no limits of kindred, to their love, but consider Jew and Gentile,\nGreek and Barbarian, bond and free, as their brethren. Hence neither\nfine nor imprisonment can induce them to learn the use of arms, so as to\nbecome qualified to fight against these, or to shed their blood. And\nthis principle of love is not laid as it were upon the shelf, like a\nvolume of obsolete laws, so that it may be forgotten, but is kept alive\nin their memories by the testimony which they are occasionally called to\nbear or by the sufferings they undergo by distraints upon their\nproperty, and sometimes by short imprisonments, for refusing military\nservice.\n\nBut while these circumstances may have some influence in the production\nof this trait of benevolence to man in the character of the Quakers, the\none by preventing the hateful sight of the loss of his dignity, and the\nother by destroying the seeds of enmity towards him, there are others,\ninterwoven into their constitution, which will have a similar, though a\nstronger tendency towards it.\n\nThe great system of equality, which their discipline daily teaches and\nenforces, will make them look with an equal eye towards all of the human\nrace. Who can be less than a man in the Quaker society, when the rich\nand poor have an equal voice in the exercise of its discipline, and when\nthey fill equally the important offices that belong to it? And who is\nthere out of the society, whom the Quakers esteem more than human? They\nbow their knees or, their bodies, as I have before noticed, to no man.\nThey flatter no man on account of his riches or his station. They pay\nhomage to no man on account of his rank or title. Stripped of all\ntrappings, they view the creature man. If then they view him in this\nabstracted light, they can view him only as an equal. Bit in what other\nsociety is it, that a similar estimate is made of him? The world are\napt in general to make too much of those in an elevated station, and\nthose again in this station are apt to make less of others beneath them\nthan they ought. Thus an under or an over valuation of individuals\ngenerally takes place in society; from whence it will unavoidably\nhappen, that if some men are classed a little below gods, others will be\nclassed but a little above the brutes of the field. Their discipline,\nagain, has a tendency to produce in them an anxious concern for the good\nof their fellow-creatures. Man is considered, in the theory of this\ndiscipline, as a being, for whose spiritual welfare the members are\nbound to watch. They are to take an interest in his character and his\nhappiness. If he be overtaken in a fault, he is not to be deserted, but\nreclaimed. No endeavour is to be spared for his restoration. He is\nconsidered, in short, as a creature, worthy of all the pains and efforts\nthat can be bestowed upon him.\n\nThe religion of the Quakers furnishes also a cause, which occasions them\nto consider man in an elevated light. They view him, as may be collected\nfrom the preceding volume, as a temple of the Spirit of God. There is no\nman, so mean in station, who is not made capable by the Quakers of\nfeeling the presence of the Divinity within him. Neither sect, nor\ncountry, nor colour, excludes him, in their opinion, from this\npresence. But it is impossible to view man as a tabernacle, in which the\nDivinity may reside, without viewing him in a dignified manner. And\nthough this doctrine of the agency of the Spirit dwelling in man belongs\nto many other Christian societies, yet it is no where so systematically\nacted upon as by that of the Quakers.\n\nThese considerations may probably induce the reader to believe, that the\ntrait of benevolence, which has been affixed to the Quaker character,\nhas not been given it in vain. There can be no such feeling for the\nmoral interests of man, or such a benevolent attention towards him in\nhis temporal capacity, where men have been accustomed to see one another\nin low and degrading characters, as where no such spectacles have\noccurred. Nor can there be such a genuine or well founded love towards\nhim, where men, on a signal given by their respective governments,\ntransform their pruning-hooks into spears, and become tygers to one\nanother without any private provocation, as where they can be brought\nunder no condition whatever, to lift up their arm to the injury of any\nof the human race. There must, in a practical system of equality, be a\ndue appreciation of man as man. There must, in a system where it is a\nduty to watch over him, for his good, be a tender attention towards him\nas a fellow creature. And in a system, which considers him as a temple\nin which the Divine Being may dwell, there must be a respect towards\nhim, which will have something like the appearance of a benevolent\ndisposition to the world.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Trait of benevolence includes again good will towards man in his\nreligious capacity--Quakers said to have no spirit of persecution, nor\nto talk with bitterness, with respect to other religious sects--This\ntrait probable--because nothing in their doctrines that narrows\nlove--their sufferings on the other hand--and their law against\ndetraction--and their aversion to making religion a subject of common\ntalk--all in favour of this trait._\n\n\nThe word benevolence, when mentioned as a trait in the character of the\nQuakers, includes also good will to man in his religious capacity.\n\nIt has often been observed of the Quakers, that they shew no spirit of\npersecution, and that you seldom hear them talk with bitterness, with\nrespect to other religious societies.\n\nOn the first part of this trait it may be observed, that the Quakers\nhave never had any great power of exercising dominion over others in\nmatters of religion. In America, where they have had the greatest, they\nhave conducted themselves well. William Penn secured to every colonist\nthe full rights of men as to religious opinion and worship. If the\nspirit of persecution is ever to be traced to the Quakers, it must be\nfound in their writings on the subject of religion. In one or two of the\nproductions of their first authors, who were obliged to support their\nopinions by controversy, there is certainly an appearance of an improper\nwarmth of temper; but it remarkable that, since these times, scarcely a\nbook has appeal written by a Quaker against the religion of another.\nSatisfied with their own religious belief, they seem to have wished only\nto be allowed to enjoy it in peace. For when they have appeared as\npolemical writers, it has been principally in the defence of themselves.\n\nOn the second part of the trait I may remark, that it is possible, in\nthe case of tithes, where their temper has been tried by expensive\ndistraints, and hard imprisonments, that they may utter a harsh\nexpression against a system which they believe to be anti-Christian, and\nwhich they consider also as repugnant to equity, inasmuch as it compels\nthem to pay labourers, who perform work in their own harvest; but this\nfeeling is only temporary, and is seldom extended beyond the object\nthat produces it. They have never, to my knowledge, spoken with\nbitterness against churchmen on this account. Nor have I ever heard\nthem, in such a season of suffering, pass the slightest reflection upon\ntheir faith.\n\nThat this trait of benevolence to man in his religious capacity is\nprobably true, I shall endeavour to shew according to the method I have\nproposed.\n\nThere is nothing, in the first place, in the religious doctrines of the\nQuakers, which can produce a narrowness of mind in religion, or a\ncontempt for the creeds of others. I have certainly, in the course of my\nlife, known some bigots in religion, though, like the Quakers, I censure\nno man for his faith. I have known some, who have considered baptism and\nthe sacrament of the supper as such essentials in Christianity, as to\ndeny that those who scrupled to admit them, were Christians. I have\nknown others pronouncing an anathema against persons, because they did\nnot believe the atonement in their own way. I have known others again,\nwho have descended into the greatest depths of election and reprobation,\ninstead of feeling an awful thankfulness for their own condition as the\nelect, and the most tender and affectionate concern for those whom they\nconsidered to be the reprobate, indulging a kind of spiritual pride on\ntheir own account, which has ended in a contempt for others. Thus the\ndoctrines of Christianity, wonderful to relate, have been made to narrow\nthe love of Christians! The Quaker religion, on the other hand, knows no\nsuch feelings as these. It considers the Spirit of God as visiting all\nmen in their day, and as capable of redeeming all, and this without any\nexception of persons, and that the difference of creeds, invented by the\nhuman understanding, will make no difference in the eternal happiness of\nman. Thus it does not narrow the sphere of salvation. It does not\ncircumscribe it either by numerical or personal limits. There does not\nappear therefore to be in the doctrines of the Quaker religion any thing\nthat should narrow their love to their fellow creatures, or any thing\nthat should generate a spirit of rancour or contempt towards others on\naccount of the religion they profess.\n\nThere are, on the contrary, circumstances, which have a tendency to\nproduce an opposite effect.\n\nI see, in the first place, no reason why the general spirit of\nbenevolence to man in his temporal capacity, which runs through the\nwhole society, should not be admitted as having some power in checking a\nbitter spirit towards him in his religious character.\n\nI see again, that the sufferings, which the Quakers so often undergo on\naccount of their religious opinions, ought to have an influence with\nthem in making them tender towards others on the same subject. Virgil,\nwho was a great master of the human mind, makes the queen of Carthage\nsay to Aeneas, \"Haud ignara mali, miseris succurere disco,\" or, \"not\nunacquainted with misfortunes myself, I learn to succour the\nunfortunate.\" So one would hope that the Quakers, of all other people,\nought to know how wrong it is to be angry with another for his religion.\n\nWith respect to that part of the trait, which relates to speaking\nacrimoniously of other sects, there are particular circumstances in the\ncustoms and discipline of the Quakers, which seem likely to prevent it.\n\nIt is a law of the society, enforced by their discipline, as I shewed in\na former volume, that no Quaker is to be guilty of detraction or\nslander. Any person, breaking this law, would come under admonition, if\nfound out. This induces an habitual caution or circumspection in speech,\nwhere persons are made the subject of conversation. And I have no doubt\nthat this law would act as a preventive in the case before us.\n\nIt is not a custom, again, with the Quakers, to make religion a subject\nof common talk. Those, who know them, know well how difficult it is to\nmake them converse, either upon their own faith, or upon the faith of\nothers. They believe, that topics on religion, familiarly introduced,\ntend to weaken its solemnity upon the mind. They exclude subjects also\nfrom ordinary conversation upon another principle. For they believe,\nthat religion should not be introduced at these times, unless it can be\nmade edifying. But, if it is to be made edifying, it is to come, they\nconceive, not through the medium of the activity of the imagination of\nman, but through the passiveness of the soul under the influence of the\nDivine Spirit.\n\n\nSECT. III.\n\n_Trait of benevolence includes again a tender feeling toward the brute\ncreation--Quakers remarkable for their tenderness to animals--This\nfeature produced from their doctrine, that animals are not mere\nmachines, but the creatures of God, the end of whose existence is always\nto be attended to in their treatment--and from their opinion as to what\nought to be the influence of the Gospel, as recorded in their own\nsummary_.\n\n\nThe word benevolence, when applied to the character of the Quakers,\nincludes also a tender feeling towards the brute creation.\n\nIt has frequently been observed by those who are acquainted with the\nQuakers, that all animals belonging to them are treated with a tender\nconsideration, and are not permitted to be abused, and that they feel,\nin like manner, for those which may be oppressed by others, so that\ntheir conduct is often influenced in some way or other upon such\noccasions.\n\nIt will be obvious, in enquiring into the truth of this trait in the\ncharacter of the Quakers, that the same principles, which I have\ndescribed as co-operating to produce benevolence towards man, are not\napplicable to the species in question. But benevolence, when once rooted\nin the heart, will grow like a fruitful plant, from whatever causes it\nmay spring, and enlarge itself in time. The man, who is remarkable for\nhis kindness towards man, will always be found to extend it towards the\ncreatures around him. It is an ancient saying, that \"a righteous man\nregards the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are\ncruel.\"\n\nBut, independently of this consideration, there is a principle in the\nQuaker constitution, which, if it be attended to, cannot but give birth\nto the trait in question.\n\nIt has been shewn in the first Volume, on the subject of the diversions\nof the field, that the Quakers consider animals, not as mere machines,\nto be used at discretion, but in the sublime light of the creatures of\nGod, of whose existence the use and intention ought always to be\nconsidered, and to whom rights arise from various causes, any violation\nof which is a violation of a moral law.\n\nThis principle, if attended-to by the Quakers, must, as I have just\nobserved, secure all animals which may belong to them, from oppression.\nThey must so consider the end of their use, as to defend them from\nabuse. They must so calculate their powers and their years, as to shield\nthem from excessive labour. They must so anticipate their feelings, as\nto protect them from pain. They must so estimate their instinct, and\nmake an allowance for their want of understanding, as not to attach to\ntheir petty mischiefs the necessity of an unbecoming revenge. They must\nact towards them, in short, as created for special ends, and must\nconsider themselves as their guardians, that these ends may not be\nperverted, but attained.\n\nTo this it may be added, that the printed summary of the religion of the\nsociety constantly stares them in the face, in which it is recorded,\nwhat ought to be the influence of Christianity on this subject. \"We are\nalso clearly of the judgment, that, if the benevolence of the Gospel\nwere generally prevalent in the minds of men, it would even influence\ntheir conduct in the treatment of the brute creation, which would no\nlonger groan, the victims of their avarice, or of their false ideas of\npleasure.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Second trait is that of complacency of mind or quietness of\ncharacter--This trait confirmed by circumstances in their education,\ndiscipline, and public worship, which are productive of quiet personal\nhabits--and by their disuse of the diversions of the world--by the mode\nof the settlement of their differences--by their efforts in the\nsubjugation of the will--by their endeavour to avoid all activity of\nmind during their devotional exercises--all of which are productive of a\nquiet habitude of mind_.\n\n\nA second trait in the character of the Quakers is that of complacency,\nor evenness, or quietness of mind and manner.\n\nThis trait is, I believe, almost as generally admitted by the world, as\nthat of benevolence. It is a matter of frequent observation, that you\nseldom see an irascible Quaker. And it is by no means uncommon to hear\npersons, when Quakers are the subject of conversation, talking of the\nmysteries of their education, or wondering how it happens, that they\nshould be able to produce in their members such a calmness and quietness\nof character.\n\nThere will be no difficulty in substantiating this second trait.\n\nThere are circumstances, in the first place, in the constitution of the\nQuaker system, which, as it must have already appeared, must be\ngenerative of quiet personal habits. Among these may be reckoned their\neducation. They are taught, in early youth, to rise in the morning in\nquietness, to go about their ordinary occupations in quietness, and to\nretire in quietness to their beds. We may reckon also their discipline.\nThey are accustomed by means of this, when young, to attend the monthly\nand quarterly meetings, which are often of long continuance. Here they\nare obliged to sit patiently. Here they hear the grown up members of the\nsociety speak in order, and without any interruption of one another. We\nmay reckon again their public worship. Here they are accustomed\noccasionally to silent meetings, or to sit quietly for a length of time,\nwhen not a word is spoken.\n\nThere are circumstances again in the constitution of the Quakers, which\nare either preventive of mental activity, and excitement of passion, or\nproductive of a quiet habitude of mind. Forbidden the use of cards, and\nof music, and of dancing, and of the theatre, and of novels, it must be\nobvious, that they cannot experience the same excitement of the\npassions, as they who are permitted the use of these common amusements\nof the world. In consequence of an obligation to have recourse to\narbitration, as the established mode of decision in the case of\ndifferences with one another, they learn to conduct themselves with\ntemper and decorum in exasperating cases. They avoid, in consequence,\nthe frenzy of him who has recourse to violence, and the turbid state of\nmind of him who engages in suits at law. It may be observed also, that\nif, in early youth, their evil passions are called forth by other\ncauses, it is considered as a duty to quell them. The early subjugation\nof the will is insisted upon in all genuine Quaker families. The\nchildren of Quakers are rebuked, as I have had occasion to observe, for\nall expressions of anger, as tending to raise those feelings, which\nought to be suppressed. A raising even of their voice is discouraged, as\nleading to the disturbance of their minds. This is done to make them\ncalm and passive, that they may be in a state to receive the influence\nof the pure principle. It may be observed again, that in their meetings\nfor worship, whether silent or vocal, they endeavour to avoid all\nactivity of the mind for the same reason.\n\nThese different circumstances then, by producing quiet personal habits\non the one hand, and quiet mental ones on the other, concur in producing\na complacency of mind and manner, so that a Quaker is daily as it were\nat school, as far as relates to the formation of a quiet character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_Third trait is, that they do not temporize, or do that which they\nbelieve to be improper as a body of Christians--Subjects, in which this\ntrait is conspicuous--Civil oaths--Holy or consecrated days--War--Tithes\n--Language--Address--Public illuminations--Utility of this trait to the\nQuaker character._\n\n\nIt is a third trait in the character of the Quakers, that they refuse to\ndo whatever as a religious body they believe to be wrong.\n\nI shall have no occasion to state any of the remarks of the world to\nshew their belief of the existence of this trait, nor to apply to\ncircumstances within the Quaker constitution to confirm it. The trait is\nalmost daily conspicuous in some subject or another. It is kept alive by\ntheir discipline. It is known to all who know Quakers. I shall satisfy\nmyself therefore with a plain historical relation concerning it.\n\nIt has been an established rule with the Quakers, from the formation of\ntheir society, not to temporize, or to violate their consciences, or, in\nother words, not to do that which as a body of Christians they believe\nto be wrong, though the usages of the world, or the government of the\ncountry under which they live, should require it, but rather to submit\nto the frowns and indignation of the one, and the legal penalties\nannexed to their disobedience by the other. This suffering in preference\nof the violation of their consciences, is what the Quakers call \"the\nbearing of their testimony,\" or a demonstration to the world, by the\n\"testimony of their own example,\" that they consider it to be the duty\nof Christians rather to suffer, than to have any concern with that which\nthey conceive to be evil.\n\nThe Quakers, in putting this principle into practice, stand, I believe,\nalone. For I know of no other Christians, who as a body[34] pay this\nhomage to their scruples, or who determine upon an ordeal of suffering\nin preference of a compromise with their ease and safety.\n\n[Footnote 34: The Moravians, I believe, protest against war upon\nscriptural grounds. But how far in this, or in any other case, they bear\na testimony, like the Quakers, by suffering, I do not know.]\n\nThe subjects, in which this trait is conspicuous, are of two kinds,\nfirst as they relate to things enjoined by the government, and secondly\nas they relate to things enjoined by the customs or fashions of the\nworld.\n\nIn the first case there was formerly much more suffering than there is\nat present, though the Quakers still refuse a compliance with as many\ninjunctions of the law as they did in their early times.\n\nIt has been already stated that they refused, from the very institution\nof their society, to take a civil oath. The sufferings, which they\nunderwent in consequence, have been explained also. But happily, by the\nindulgence of the legislature, they are no longer persecuted for this\nscruple, though they still persevere in it, their affirmation having\nbeen made equal to an oath in civil cases.\n\nIt has been stated again, that they protested against the religious\nobservance of many of those days, which the government of the country\nfor various considerations had ordered to be kept as holy. In\nconsequence of this they were grievously oppressed in the early times of\ntheir history. For when their shops were found open on Christmas day,\nand on Good Friday, and on the different fast-days which had been\nappointed, they were taken up and punished by the magistrates on the one\nhand, and insulted and beaten by the people on the other. But,\nnotwithstanding this ill usage, they persevered as rigidly in the\nnon-observance of particular days and times, as in their non-compliance\nwith oaths, and they still persevere in it. It does not appear, however,\nthat their bearing of their testimony in this case is any longer a\nsource of much vexation or trouble to them: for though the government of\nthe country still sanctions the consecration of particular days, and,\nthe great majority of the people join in it, there seems, to have been a\nprogressive knowledge or civilization in both, which has occasioned them\nto become tender on account of this singular deviation from their own\npractice.\n\nBut though the Quakers have been thus relieved by the legislature, and\nby the more mild and liberal disposition of the people, from so much\nsuffering in bearing their testimony on the two occasions which have\nbeen mentioned, yet there are others, where the laws of government are\nconcerned, on which they find themselves involved in a struggle between\nthe violation of their consciences and a state of suffering, and where\nunfortunately there is no remedy at hand, without the manifestation of\ngreater partiality towards them, than it may be supposed an equal\nadministration of justice to all would warrant.\n\nHie first of these occasions is when military service, is enjoined. The\nQuakers, when drawn for the militia, refuse either to serve, or to\nfurnish substitutes. For this refusal they come under the cognizance of\nthe laws. Their property, where they have any, is of course distrained\nupon, and a great part of a little substance is sometimes taken from\nthem on, this account. Where they have not distrainable property, which\nis occasionally the case, they never fly, but submit to the known\npunishment, and go patiently to prison. The legislature, however, has\nnot been inattentive to the Quakers even upon this occasion; for it has\nlimited their confinement to three months. The government also of the\ncountry afforded lately, in a case in which the Quakers were concerned,\nan example of attention to religious scruples upon this subject. In the\nlate bill for arming the country _en masse_, both the Quakers and the\nMoravians were exempted from military service. This homage to religious\nprinciple did the authors of these exemptions the highest honour. And it\ncertainly becomes the Quakers to be grateful for this unsolicited\nfavour; and as it was bestowed upon them upon the full belief that they\nwere the people they professed themselves, they should be particularly\ncareful that they do not, by any inconsistency of conduct, tarnish the\nhigh reputation, which has been attached to them by the government under\nwhich they live.\n\nThe second occasion is, when tithes or other dues are demanded by the\nchurch. The Quakers refuse the payment of these upon principles, which\nhave been already explained. They come of course again under the\ncognizance of the laws. Their property is annually distrained upon by\nwarrant from justices of the peace, where the demand does not exceed the\nvalue of ten pounds, and this is their usual suffering in this case. But\nthere have not been wanting instances where an unusual hardness, of\nheart has suggested a process, still allowable by the law, which has\ndeprived them of all their property, and consigned them for life to the\nhabitation of a prison.[35]\n\n[Footnote 35: One died, not a great while ago, in York Castle, and\nothers, who were confined with him, would have shared his fate, but for\nthe interference of the king.\n\nIt is surprising, that the clergy should not unite in promoting a bill\nin parliament, to extend the authority of the justices to grant warrants\nof distraint for tithes to more than the value of ten pounds, and to any\namount, as this is the most cheap and expeditious way for themselves. If\nthey apply to the ecclesiastical courts, they can enforce no payment of\ntheir tithes then. They can put the poor Quaker into prison, but they\ncannot obtain their debt. If they apply to the exchequer, they may find\nthemselves, at the conclusion of their suit, and this after a delay of\nthree years, liable to the payment of extra costs, to the amount of\nforty or fifty pounds, with which they cannot charge the Quaker, though\nthey may confine him for life. Some, to my knowledge, have been glad to\nabandon these suits, and put up with the costs, incurred in them; rather\nthan continue them. Recourse to such courts occasion the clergy\nfrequently to be charged with cruelty, when, if they had only understood\ntheir own interests better, they would have avoided them.]\n\nBut it is not only in cases, of which the laws of the land take\ncognizance, that the Quakers prefer suffering to doing that which their\nconsciences disapprove. There are other cases, connected, as I observed\nbefore, with the opinion of the world, where they exhibit a similar\nexample. If they believe any custom or fashion of the world to be evil\nin itself, or to be attended with evil, neither popular applause nor\npopular fury can make them follow it, but they think it right to bear\ntheir testimony against it by its disuse, and to run the hazard of all\nthe ridicule, censure, or persecution, which may await them for so\ndoing.\n\nIn these cases, as in the former, it must be observed, that the\nsufferings of the Quakers have been much diminished, though they still\nrefuse a compliance in as many instances as formerly, with the fashions\nof the world.\n\nIt was stated in the first volume, that they substituted the word Thou\nfor You, in order that they might avoid by their words, as well as by\ntheir actions, any appearance of flattery to men. It was stated also,\nthat they suffered on this account; that many magistrates, before whom\nthey were carried in the early times of their institution, occasioned\ntheir punishment to be more severe, and that they were often abused and\nbeaten by others, and put in danger of their lives. This persecution,\nhowever, for this singularity in their language, has long ceased; and\nthe substitution of Thou for You is now only considered as an innocent\ndistinction between Quakers and other people.\n\nIt was stated again in the same volume, that the Quakers abstained from\nthe usual address of the world, such as from pulling off their hats, and\nfrom bowing the body, and from their ceremonious usages. It was\nexplained also, that they did this upon two principles. First, because,\nas such ceremonies were no real marks of obeisance, friendship or\nrespect, they ought to be discouraged by a people, whose religion\nrequired that no image should be held out, which was not a faithful\npicture of its original, and that no action should be resorted to, which\nwas not correspondent with the feelings of the heart. Secondly, because\nall such ceremonies were of a complimentary or flattering nature, and\nwere expressly forbidden by Jesus Christ. It was stated also, that, on\naccount of their rejection of such outward usages, their hats were\nforcibly taken from their heads and thrown away; that they were beaten\nand imprisoned on this sole account; and that the world refused to deal\nwith them as tradesmen, in consequence of which many could scarcely\nsupply their families with bread. But this deviation from the general\npractice, though it still characterizes the members of this society, is\nno longer a source of suffering. Magistrates sometimes take care that\ntheir hats shall be taken gently from their heads on public occasions,\nand private persons expect now no such homage from Quakers, when they\nmeet them.\n\nThere is, however, a custom, against which the Quakers anciently bore\ntheir testimony, and against which they continue to bear it, which\nsubjects them occasionally to considerable inconvenience and loss. In\nthe case of a general illumination, they never light up their houses,\nbut have the courage to be singular in this respect, whatever may be the\ntemper of the mob.\n\nThey believe that the practice of general illuminations cannot be\nadopted consistently by persons, who are lovers of the truth. They\nconsider it as no certain criterion of joy. For, in the first place, how\nmany light up their houses, whose hearts are overwhelmed with sorrow?\nAnd, in the second place, the event which is celebrated, may not always\nbe a matter of joy to good minds. The birth-day of a prince, for\nexample, may be ushered in as welcome, and the celebration of it may\ncall his actions to mind, upon which a reflection may produce pleasure,\nbut the celebration of the slaughter or devastation of mankind can\nafford no happiness to the Christian.\n\nThey consider the practice again, accompanied as it is with all its\nfiery instruments, as dangerous and cruel. For how many accidents have\nhappened, and how many lives have been lost upon such occasions?\n\nThey consider it again as replete with evil. The wild uproar which it\ncreates, the mad and riotous joy which it produces, the licentiousness\nwhich it favours, the invidious comparisons which it occasions, the\npartial favour which it fixes on individuals who have probably no moral\nmerit, the false joys which it holds out, and the enmity which it has on\nsome occasions a tendency to perpetuate; are so many additional\narguments against it in the opinion of the Quakers.\n\nFor these and other reasons they choose not to submit to the custom, but\nto bear their testimony against it, and to run the hazard of having\ntheir windows broken, or their houses pillaged, as the populace may\ndictate: And in the same manner, if there be any other practice, in\nwhich the world may expect them to coincide, they reject it, fearless of\nthe consequences, if they believe it to be productive of evil.\n\nThis noble practice of bearing testimony, by which a few individuals\nattempt to stem the torrent of immorality by opposing themselves to its\nstream, and which may be considered as a living martyrdom, does, in a\nmoral point of view, a great deal of good to those, who conscientiously\nadopt it. It recalls first principles to their minds. It keeps in their\nremembrance the religious rights of man. It teaches them to reason upon\nprinciple, and to make their estimates by a moral standard. It is\nproductive both of patience and of courage. It occasions them to be kind\nand attentive, and merciful to those who are persecuted and oppressed.\nIt throws them into the presence of the Divinity when they are\npersecuted themselves. In short, it warms their moral feelings, and\nelevates their religious thoughts. Like oil, it keeps them from rusting.\nLike a whetstone, it gives them a new edge. Take away this practice from\nthe constitution of the Quakers, and you pull down a considerable\nsupport of their moral character. It is a great pity that, as professing\nChristians, we should not, more of us, incorporate this noble principle\nindividually into our religion. We concur unquestionably in customs,\nthrough the fear of being reputed singular, of which our hearts do not\nalways approve, though nothing is more true, than that a Christian is\nexpected to be singular with respect to the corruptions of the world.\nWhat an immensity of good would be done, if cases of persons, choosing\nrather to suffer than to temporize, were so numerous as to attract the\ngeneral notice of men! Would not every case of suffering operate as one\nof the most forcible lessons that could be given to those who should see\nit? And how long would that infamous system have to live, which makes a\ndistinction between political expediency and moral right?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_A fourth trait is, that, in political affairs, they reason upon\nprinciple, and not from consequences--This mode of reasoning insures the\nadoption of the maxim of not doing evil that good may come--Had Quakers\nbeen legislators, many public evils had been avoided, which are now\nknown in the world--Existence of this trait probable from the influence\nof the former trait--and from the influence of the peculiar customs of\nthe Quakers--and from the influence of their system of discipline upon\ntheir minds._\n\n\nThe next trait, which I shall lay open to the world as belonging to the\nQuaker character, is, that in all those cases, which may be called\npolitical, the Quakers generally reason upon principle, and but seldom\nupon consequences.\n\nI do not know of any trait, which ever impressed me more than this in\nall my intercourse with the members of this society. It was one of those\nwhich obtruded itself to my notice on my first acquaintance with them,\nand it has continued equally conspicuous to the present time.\n\nIf an impartial philosopher, from some unknown land, and to whom our\nmanners, and opinions, and history, were unknown, were introduced\nsuddenly into our metropolis, and were to converse with the Quakers\nthere on a given political subject, and to be directly afterwards\nconveyed to the west end of the town, and there to converse with\npoliticians, or men of fashion, or men of the world, upon the same, he\ncould not fail to be greatly surprised. If he thought the former wise,\nor virtuous, or great, he would unavoidably consider the latter as\nfoolish, or vicious, or little. Two such opposite conclusions, as he\nwould hear deduced from the reasonings of each, would impress him with\nan idea, that he had been taken to a country inhabited by two different\nraces of men. He would never conceive, that they had been educated in\nthe same country, or under the same government. If left to himself, he\nwould probably imagine, that they had embraced two different religions.\nBut if he were told that they professed the same, he would then say,\nthat the precepts of this religion had been expressed in such doubtful\nlanguage, that they led to two sets of principles contradictory to one\nanother. I need scarcely inform the reader, that I allude to the two\nopposite conclusions, which will almost always be drawn, where men\nreason from motives of policy or from moral right.\n\nIf it be true that the Quakers reason upon principle in political\naffairs, and not upon consequences, it will follow as a direct\ninference, that they will adopt the Christian maxim, that men ought not\nto do evil that good may come. And this is indeed the maxim, which you\nfind them adopting in the course of their conversation on such subjects,\nand which I believe they would have uniformly adopted, if they had been\nplaced in political situations in life. Had the Quakers been the\nlegislators of the world, we should never have seen many of the public\nevils that have appeared in it. It was thought formerly, for example, a\nglorious thing to attempt to drive Paganism from the Holy Land, but\nQuakers would never have joined in any of the crusades for its\nexpulsion. It has been long esteemed, again, a desideratum in politics,\nthat among nations, differing in strength and resources, a kind of\nbalance of power should be kept up, but Quakers would never have engaged\nin any one war to preserve it. It has been thought again, that it would\ncontribute to the happiness of the natives of India, if the blessings of\nthe British constitution could be given them instead of their own. But\nQuakers would never have taken possession of their territories for, the\naccomplishment of such a good. It has been long thought again a matter\nof great political importance, that our West-Indian settlements should\nbe cultivated by African labourers. But Quakers would never have\nallowed a slave-trade for such a purpose. It has been thought again, and\nit is still thought, a desirable thing, that our property should be\nsecured from the petty depredations of individuals. But Quakers would\nnever have consented to capital punishments for such an end. In short,\nfew public evils would have arisen among mankind, if statesmen had\nadopted the system, upon which the Quakers reason in political affairs,\nor if they had concurred with an ancient Grecian philosopher in\ncondemning to detestation the memory of the man, who first made a\ndistinction between expediency and moral right.\n\n[36]That this trait of reasoning upon principle, regardless of the\nconsequences, is likely to be a feature in the character of the Quakers,\nwe are warranted in pronouncing, when we discover no less than three\ncircumstances in the constitution of the Quakers, which may be causes in\nproducing it.\n\n[Footnote 36: The Sierra Leone Company, which was founded for laudable\npurposes, ought have been filled by Quakers; but when they understood\nthat there was to be a fort and depot of arms in the settlement, they\ndeclined becoming proprietors.]\n\nThis trait seems, in the first place, to be the direct and legitimate\noffspring of the trait explained in the last chapter. For every time a\nQuaker is called upon to bear his testimony by suffering, whether in the\ncase of a refusal to comply with the laws, or with the customs and\nfashions of the land, he is called upon to refer to his own conscience,\nagainst his own temporal interest, and against the opinion of the world.\nThe moment he gives up principle for policy in the course of his\nreasoning upon such occasions, then he does as many others do, that is,\nhe submits to the less inconvenience, and then he ceases to be a Quaker.\nBut while he continues to bear his testimony, it is a proof that he\nmakes expediency give way to what he imagines to be right. The bearing\ntherefore of testimony, where it is conscientiously done, is the parent,\nas it is also the bulwark and guardian of reasoning upon principle. It\nthrows out a memento whenever it is practised, and habituates the\nsubject of it to reason in this manner. But this trait is nourished and\nsupported again by other causes, and first by the influence, which the\npeculiar customs of the Quakers must occasionally have upon their minds.\nA Quaker cannot go out of doors, but he is reminded of his own\nsingularity, or of his difference in a variety of respects from his\nfellow-citizens. Now every custom, in which he is singular, whether it\nbe that of dress or of language, or of address, or any other, is\nfounded, in his own mind, on moral principle, and in direct opposition\nto popular opinion and applause. He is therefore perpetually reminded,\nin almost all his daily habits, of the two opposite systems of\nreasoning, and is perpetually called upon as it were to refer to the\nprinciples, which originally made the difference between him and another\ncitizen of the world.\n\nNeither has the discipline of the Quakers a less tendency to the\nproduction of the trait in question. For the business, which is\ntransacted in the monthly and quarterly and yearly meetings, is\ntransacted under the deliberations of grave and serious men, who\nconsider themselves as frequently under the divine influence, or as\nspiritually guided on such occasions. In such assemblies it would be\nthought strange if any sentiment were uttered, which savoured of\nexpediency in opposition to moral right. The youth therefore, who are\npresent, see no other determination of any question than by a religious\nstandard. Hence these meetings operate as schools, in which they are\nhabituated to reason upon principle, and to the exclusion of all worldly\nconsiderations, which may suggest themselves in the discussion of any\npoint.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n_A fifth trait is, that they have an extraordinary independence of\nmind--This probable, because the result of the farmer trait--because\nlikely to be produced by their discipline--by their peculiar custom--and\nby their opinions on the supposed dignity of situations in life--because\nagain, they are not vulnerable by the seduction of governments--or by\nthe dominion of the church--or by the power of fashion and of the\nopinion of the world._\n\n\nThe next trait, conspicuous in the character of the Quakers, and which\nis nearly allied to the former, is that of independence of mind.\n\nThis trait is of long standing, having been coeval with the society\nitself. It was observed by Cromwell, that \"he could neither win the\nQuakers by money, nor by honours, nor by places, as he could other\npeople.\" A similar opinion is entertained of them at the present day.\nFor of all people it is generally supposed that they are the least\neasily worked upon, or the least liable to be made tools or instruments\nin the bands of others. Who, for example, could say, on any\nelectioneering occasion, whatever his riches might be, that he could\ncommand their votes?\n\nThere will be no difficulty in believing this to be a real feature in\nthe character of the Quakers. For when men are accustomed to refer\nmatters to their reason, and to reason upon principle, they will always\nhave an independence of mind, from a belief that they are right. And\nwherever it be a maxim with them not to do evil that good may come, they\nwill have a similar independence from a consciousness, that they have\nnever put themselves into the power of the world. Hence this\nindependence of mind must be a result of the trait explained in the\nformer chapter.\n\nBut in looking into the constitution of the Quakers, we shall find it\nfull of materials for the production of this noble trait.\n\nTheir discipline has an immediate tendency to produce it. For in no\ncommunity does a man feel himself so independent as a man. A Quaker is\ncalled upon in his own society to the discharge of important offices. He\nsits as a representative, a legislator, and a judge. In looking round\nhim, he finds all equal in privileges, but none superior, to himself.\n\nTheir peculiar customs have the same tendency, for they teach them to\nvalue others, who are not of the society, by no higher standard than\nthat by which they estimate themselves. They neither pull off their\nhats, nor bow, nor scrape. In their speech they abstain from the use of\nflattering words and of titles. In their letters, they never subscribe\nthemselves the humble servants of any one. They never use, in short, any\naction or signature, which, serving as a mark of elevation to others,\nhas any influence towards the degradation of themselves.\n\nTheir opinions also upon the supposed dignity of situations in life\ncontribute towards the promotion of this independence of their minds.\n\nThey value no man, in the first place, on account of his earthly title.\nThey pay respect to magistrates, and to all the nobility of the land, in\ntheir capacity of legislators, whom the chief magistrate has appointed;\nbut they believe that the mere letters in a schedule of parchment can\ngive no more intrinsic worth to a person, than they possess themselves,\nand they think with Juvenal, that \"the only true nobility is virtue.\"\nHence titles, in the glare of which some people lose the dignity of\ntheir vision, have no magical effect upon Quakers.\n\nThey value no man again on account of the antiquity of his family\nexploits. They believe, that there are people now living in low and\nobscure situations, whose ancestors performed in the childhood of\nhistory, when it was ignorant and incapable of perpetuating traditions,\nas great feats as those, which in its greater maturity it has recorded.\nAnd as far as these exploits of antiquity may be such as were performed\nin wars, they would not be valued by them as ornaments to men, of whose\nworth they can only judge by their virtuous or their Christian\ncharacter.\n\nThey value no man again on account of the antiquity of his ancestry.\nBelieving revelation to contain the best account of the rise of man,\nthey consider all families as equally old in their origin, because they\nbelieve them to have sprung from the same two parents, as their common\nsource.\n\nBut this independence of mind, which is said to belong to the Quakers,\nmay be fostered again by other circumstances, some of which are peculiar\nto themselves.\n\nMany men allow the independence of their minds to be broken by an\nacceptance of the honours offered to them by the governments, under\nwhich they live; but no Quaker could accept of any of the honours of the\nworld.\n\nOthers allow the independence of their minds to be invaded by the\nacceptance of places and pensions from the same quarter. But Quakers,\ngenerally speaking, are in a situation too independent in consequence\nof their industry, to need any support of this kind; and no Quaker could\naccept it on the terms on which it is usually given.\n\nOthers again suffer their opinions to be fettered by the authority of\necclesiastical dominion, but the Quakers have broken all such chains.\nThey depend upon no minister of the Gospel for their religion, nor do\nthey consider the priesthood, as others do, as a distinct order of men.\n\nOthers again come under the dominion of fashion and of popular opinion,\nso that they dare only do that which they see others do, or are hurried\nfrom one folly to another, without having the courage to try to resist\nthe stream. But the life of a Quaker is a continual state of\nindependence in this respect, being a continual protest against many of\nthe customs and opinions of the world.\n\nI shall now only observe upon this subject, that this trait of\nindependence of mind, which is likely to be generated by some, and which\nis preserved by other of the causes which have been mentioned, is not\nconfined to a few members, but runs through the society. It belongs to\nthe poor as well as to the rich, and to the servants of a family as well\nas to those who live in poverty by themselves. If a poor Quaker were to\nbe introduced to a man of rank, he would neither degrade himself by\nflattery on the one hand, nor by any unbecoming submission on the\nother. He would neither be seduced into that which was wrong, nor\nintimidated from doing that which was right, by the splendour or\nauthority of appearances about him. He would still preserve the\nindependence of his mind, though he would behave with respect. You would\nnever be able to convince him, that he had been talking with a person,\nwho had been fashioned differently from himself. This trait of\nindependence cannot but extend itself to the poor. For having the same\nrights and privileges in the discipline, and the same peculiar customs,\nand the same views of men and manners as the rest of the society, a\nsimilar disposition must be found in these, unless it be counteracted by\nother causes. But as Quaker servants, who live in genuine Quaker\nfamilies, wear no liveries, nor any badges of poverty or servitude,\nthere is nothing in the opposite scale to produce an opposite feature in\ntheir character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_A sixth trait is that of courage--This includes, first, courage in\nlife--Courage not confined to military exploits--Quakers seldom\nintimidated or abashed--dare to say what they think--and to do what\nthey believe to be right--This trait may arise from that of bearing\ntheir testimony--and from those circumstances which produced\nindependence of mind--and from the peculiar customs of the society_.\n\n\nAnother trait in the character of the Quakers, which is nearly allied to\nindependence of mind, is courage. This courage is conspicuous both in\nlife and in the hour of death. That, which belongs to the former\ninstance, I shall consider first.\n\nIf courage in life were confined solely to military exploits, the\nQuakers would have no pretensions to this character. But courage\nconsists of presence of mind in many situations of peril different from\nthose in war. It consists often in refusing to do that which is wrong,\nin spite of popular opinion. Hence the man, who refuses a challenge, and\nwhom men of honour would brand with cowardice on that account, may have\nmore real courage in so doing, and would have it in the estimation of\nmoral men, than the person who sends it. It may consist also in an\ninflexible perseverance in doing that which is right, when persecution\nis to follow. Such was the courage of martyrdom. As courage then may\nconsist in qualities different from that of heroism, we shall see what\nkind of courage it is that has been assigned to the Quakers, and how far\nthey may be expected to be entitled to such a trait.\n\nThere is no question, in the first place, that Quakers have great\npresence of mind on difficult and trying occasions. To frighten or to\nput them off their guard would be no easy task. Few people have ever\nseen an innocent Quaker disconcerted or abashed.\n\nThey have the courage also to dare to say, at all times and in all\nplaces, what they believe to be right.\n\nI might appeal for the truth of this, as far as the early Quakers are\nconcerned, to the different conversations which George Fox had with\nOliver Cromwell, or to the different letters which be wrote to him as\nprotector, or to those which he afterwards wrote to king Charles the\nsecond.\n\nI might appeal again to the address of Edward Burroughs to the same\nmonarch.\n\nI might appeal again to the bold but respectful language, which the\nearly Quakers used to the magistrates, when they were carried before\nthem, and to the intrepid and dignified manner in which they spoke to\ntheir judges, in the coarse of the numerous trials to which they were\nbrought in those early times.\n\nI might appeal also to Barclay's address to the king, which stands at\nthe head of his Apology.\n\n\"As it is inconsistent, says Barclay to king Charles the second, with\nthe truth I bear, so it is far from me to use this letter as an engine\nto flatter thee, the usual design of such works, and therefore I can\nneither dedicate it to thee, nor crave thy patronage, as if thereby I\nmight have more confidence to present it to the world, or be more\nhopeful of its success. To God alone I owe what I have, and that more\nimmediately in matters spiritual, and therefore to him alone, and the\nservice of his truth, I dedicate whatever work he may bring forth in me,\nto whom only the praise and honour appertain, whose truth needs not the\npatronage of worldly princes; his arm and power being that alone by\nwhich it is propagated, established, and confirmed.\"\n\nAnd farther on, he says, \"Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity;\nthou knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to be\noverruled, as well as to rule, and to sit upon the throne; and, being\noppressed, thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppression is both\nto God and man. If, after all these warnings and advertisements, thou\ndost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who\nremembered thee in distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and\nvanity; surely great will be thy condemnation.\"\n\nAnd this courage to dare to say what they believe to be right, as it was\nan eminent feature in the character of the primitive, so it is\nunquestionably a trait in that of the modern Quakers. They use no\nflattery even in the presence of the king; and when the nation has\naddressed him in favour of new wars, the Quakers have sometimes had the\ncourage to oppose the national voice on such an occasion, and to go\nbefore the same great personage, and in a respectful and dignified\nmanner, to deliver a religious petition against the shedding of human\nblood.\n\nThey have the courage also to dare to do as well as to say what they\nconsider to be right.\n\nIt is recorded of the early Quakers, that, in the times of the hottest\npersecution, they stood to their testimony in the places appointed for\ntheir worship. They never assembled in private rooms, or held private\nconventicles, employing persons to watch at the doors, to keep out spies\nand informers, or to prevent surprise from the magistrates. But they\nworshipped always in public, and with their doors open. Nor, when armed\nmen were sent to dissolve their meetings, did they ever fly, but, on\nthe summons to break up and depart, they sat motionless, and, regardless\nof threats and blows, never left their devotions, but were obliged to be\ndragged out, one by one, from their places. And even when their\nmeeting-houses were totally destroyed by the magistrates, they sometimes\nmet the next meeting-day, and worshipped publicly on the ruins,\nnotwithstanding, they knew that they were subject by so doing, to fines,\nand scourges, and confinements, and banishment, and that, like many\nothers of their members who had been persecuted, they might die in\nprison.\n\nThis courage of the early Quakers has descended as far as circumstances\nwill allow us to judge, to their posterity, or to those who profess the\nsame faith. For happily, on account of the superior knowledge which has\nbeen diffused among us since those times, and on account of the progress\nof the benign influence of Christianity, both of which may be supposed\nto have produced among the members of our legislature a spirit of\nliberality in religion, neither the same trials; nor the same number of\nthem, can be afforded for the courage of the modern Quakers, as were\nafforded for that of the Quakers of former days. But as far as there are\ntrials, the former exhibit courage proportioned to their weight. This\nhas been already conspicuous in the bearing of their testimony, either\nin those cases where they run the hazard of suffering by opposing the\ncustoms of the world, or where, by refusing a compliance with legal\ndemands which they believe to be antichristian, they actually suffer.\nNor are these sufferings often slight, when we consider that they may be\nmade, even in these days of toleration, to consist of confinement, as\nthe law now stands, for years, and it may happen even for life, in\nprison.\n\nThis trait of courage in life, which has been attached to the character\nof the Quakers, is the genuine offspring of the trait of \"the bearing of\ntheir testimony.\" For by their testimony it becomes their religion to\nsuffer, rather than comply with many of the laws and customs of the\nland. But every time they get through their sufferings, if they suffer\nconscientiously, they gain a victory, which gives them courage to look\nother sufferings in the face, and to bid defiance to other persecutions.\n\nThis trait is generated again by all those circumstances which have been\nenumerated, as producing the quality of independence of mind, and it is\npromoted again by the peculiar customs of the society. For a Quaker is a\nsingular object among his countrymen. His dress, his language, and his\ncustoms mark him. One person looks at him. Another perhaps derides him.\nHe must summon resolution, or he cannot stir out of doors and be\ncomfortable. Resolution, once summoned, begets resolution again, till at\nlength he acquires habits superior to the looks and frowns, and\nridicule, of the world.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_The trait of courage includes also courage in death--This trait\nprobably--from the lives which the Quakers lead--and from circumstances\nconnected with their religious faith_.\n\n\nThe trait of courage includes also courage in death, or it belongs to\nthe character of the Quakers, that they shew great indifference with\nrespect to death, or that they possess great intrepidity, when sensible\nof the approach of it.\n\nI shall do no more on this subject, than state what may be the causes of\nthis trait.\n\nThe dissolution of all our vital organs, and of the cessation to be, so\nthat we move no longer upon the face of the earth, and that our places\nknow us no more, or the idea of being swept away suddenly into eternal\noblivion, and of being as though we had never been, cannot fail of\nitself of producing awful sensations upon our minds. But still more\nawful will these be, where men believe in a future state, and where,\nbelieving in future rewards and punishments, they contemplate what may\nbe their allotment in eternity. There are considerations, however, which\nhave been found to support men, even under these awful reflections, and\nto enable them to meet with intrepidity their approaching end.\n\nIt may certainly be admitted, that, in proportion as we cling to the\nthings of the world, we shall be less willing to leave them, which may\ninduce an appearance of fear with respect to departing out of life; and\nthat, in proportion as we deny the world and its pleasures, or mortify\nthe affections of the flesh, we shall be more willing to exchange our\nearthly for spiritual enjoyments, which may induce an appearance of\ncourage with respect to death.\n\nIt may be admitted again, that, in proportion as we have filled our\nmoral stations in life, that is, as we have done justly, and loved\nmercy, and this not only with respect to our fellow-creature man, but to\nthe different creatures of God, there will be a conscious rectitude\nwithin us, which will supply us with courage, when we believe ourselves\ncalled upon to leave them.\n\nIt may be admitted again, that, in proportion as we have endeavoured to\nfollow the divine commands, as contained in the sacred writings, and as\nwe have followed these through faith, fearless of the opinions and\npersecutions of men, so as to have become sufferers for the truth, we\nshall have less fear or more courage, when we suppose the hour of our\ndissolution to be approaching.\n\nNow, without making any inviduous comparisons, I think it will follow\nfrom hence, when we consider the Quakers to be persons of acknowledged\nmoral character, when we know that they deny themselves for the sake of\nbecoming purer beings, the ordinary pleasures and gratifications of the\nworld, and when almost daily experience testifies to us, that they\nprefer bearing their testimony, or suffering as a Christian body, to a\ncompliance with customs, which they conceive the Christian religion to\ndisapprove, that they will have as fair pretensions to courage in the\nhour of death, as any other people, as a body, from the same causes.\n\nThere are other circumstances, however, which may be taken into\nconsideration in this account, and, in looking over these, I find none\nof more importance than those which relate to the religious creeds which\nmay be professed by individuals or communities of men.\n\nMuch, in the first place, will depend upon the circumstance, how far men\nare doubtful and wavering in their creeds, or how far they depend upon\nothers for their faith, or how far, in consequence of reasoning or\nfeeling, they depend upon themselves. If their creeds are not in their\nown power, they will be liable to be troubled with every wind of\ndoctrine that blows, and to be unhappy, when the thought of their\ndissolution is brought before them. But the Quakers, having broken the\npower or dominion of the priesthood, what terrors can fanaticism hold\nout to them, which shall appal their courage in their later hours?\n\nIt is also of great importance to men what may be the nature of their\ncreeds. Some creeds are unquestionably more comfortable to the mind than\nothers. To those, who believe in the doctrine of election and\nreprobation, and imagine themselves to be of the elect, no creed can\ngive greater courage in the hour of death; and to those who either doubt\nor despair of their election, none can inspire more fear. But the\nQuakers, on the other hand, encourage the doctrine of perfection, or\nthat all may do the will of God, if they attend to the monitions of his\ngrace. They believe that God is good, and just, and merciful; that he\nvisits all with a view to this perfection without exception of persons;\nthat he enables all, through the sacrifice of Christ, to be saved; and\nthat he will make an allowance for all according to his attributes; for\nthat he is not willing that any should perish, but that all should\ninherit eternal life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n_Last good trait is that of punctuality to words and engagements--This\nprobable from the operation of all those principles, which have produced\nfor the Quakers the character of a moral people--and from the operation\nof their discipline._\n\n\nThe last good trait, which I shall notice in the character of the\nQuakers, is that of punctuality to their words and engagements.\n\nThis is a very ancient trait. Judge Forster entertained this opinion of\nGeorge Fox, that if he would consent to give his word for his\nappearance, he would keep it. Trusted to go at large without any bail,\nand solely on his bare word, that he would be forth coming on a given\nday, he never violated his promise. And he was known also to carry his\nown commitment himself. In those days also, it was not unusual for\nQuakers to carry their own warrants, unaccompanied by constables or\nothers, which were to consign them to a prison.\n\nBut it was not only in matters which related to the laws of the land,\nwhere the early Quakers held their words and engagements sacred. This\ntrait was remarked to be true of them in their concerns in trade. On\ntheir first appearance as a society, they suffered as tradesmen,\nbecause others, displeased with the peculiarity of their manners,\nwithdrew their custom from their shops. But in a little time, the great\noutcry against them was, that they got the trade of the country into\ntheir hands. This outcry arose in part from a strict execution of all\ncommercial appointments and agreements between them and others, and\nbecause they never asked two prices for the commodities which they sold.\nAnd the same character attaches to them as a commercial body, though\nthere may be individual exceptions, at the present day.\n\nNeither has this trait been confined to them as the inhabitants of their\nown country. They have carried it with them wherever they have gone. The\ntreaty of William Penn was never violated. And the estimation, which the\nIndians put upon the word of this great man and his companions,\ncontinues to be put by them upon that of the modern Quakers in America,\nso that they now come in deputations, out of their own settlements, to\nconsult them on important occasions.\n\nThe existence of this trait is probable both from general and from\nparticular considerations.\n\nIf, for example, any number of principles should have acted so forcibly\nand in such a manner upon individuals, as to have procured for them as a\nbody the reputation of a moral people, they must have produced in them a\ndisposition to keep their faith.[37]\n\n[Footnote 37: This character was given by Pliny to the first Christians.\nThey were to avoid fraud, theft, and adultery. They were never to deny\nany trust, when required to deliver it up, nor to falsify their word on\nany occasion.]\n\nBut the discipline of the Quakers has a direct tendency to produce this\nfeature in their character, and to make it an appendage of Quakerism.\nFor punctuality to words and engagements is a subject of one of the\nperiodical enquiries. It is therefore publicly handed to the notice of\nthe members, as a Christian virtue, that is expected of them, in their\npublic meetings for discipline. And any violation in this respect would\nbe deemed a breach, and cognizable as such, of the Quaker laws.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n_Imperfect traits in the Quaker character--Some of these may be called\nintellectually defective traits--First imputation of this kind is, that\nthe Quakers are deficient in learning compared with other people--This\ntrait not improbable on account of their devotion to trade--and on\naccount of their controversies and notions about human learning--and of\nother causes._\n\n\nThe world, while it has given to the Quakers as a body, as it will have\nnow appeared, a more than ordinary share of virtue, has not been without\nthe belief that there are blemishes in their character. What these\ntraits or blemishes are, may be collected partly from books, partly from\nconversation, and partly from vulgar sayings. They are divisible into\ntwo kinds, into intellectually defective, and into morally defective\ntraits; the former relating to the understanding, the latter to the\nheart.\n\nThe first of the intellectually defective traits consists in the\nimputation, that the Quakers are deficient in the cultivation of the\nintellect of their children, or that, when they grow up in life, they\nare found to have less knowledge than others in the higher branches of\nlearning. By this I mean, that they are understood to have but a\nmoderate classical education, to know but little of the different\nbranches of philosophy, and to have, upon the whole, less variety of\nknowledge than others of their countrymen in the corresponding stations\nof life.\n\nThis trait seems to have originated with the world in two supposed\nfacts. The first is, that there has never been any literary writer of\neminence born in the society, Penn, Barclay and others having come into\nit by convincement, and brought their learning with them. The second is,\nthat the society has never yet furnished a philosopher, or produced any\nmaterial discovery. It is rather a common remark, that if the education\nof others had been as limited as that of the Quaker, we should have been\nprobably at this day without a Newton, and might have been strangers to\nthose great discoveries, whether of the art of navigation, or of the\ncirculation of the blood, or of any other kind, which have proved so\neminently useful to the comfort, health, and safety of many of the human\nrace.\n\nThis trait will be true, or it will be false, as it is applied to the\ndifferent classes, which may be found in the society of the Quakers. The\npoor, who belong to it, are all taught to read, and are therefore better\neducated than the poor belonging to other bodies of men. They who\nspring from parents whose situation does not entitle them to rank with\nthe middle class, but yet keeps them out of the former, are generally\neducated, by the help of a[38] subscription, at Ackworth school, and may\nbe said to have more school learning than others in a similar situation\nin life. The rest, whatever may be their situation, are educated wholly\nat the expence of their parents, who send them either to private Quaker\nseminaries, or to schools in the neighbourhood, as they judge it to be\nconvenient or proper. It is upon this body of the Quakers that the\nimputation can only fall; and as far as these are concerned, I think it\nmay be said with truth, that they possess a less portion of what is\nusually called liberal knowledge than others in a corresponding station\nin life. There may be here and there a good classical, or a good\nmathematical scholar. But in general there are but few Quakers, who\nexcel in these branches of learning. I ought, however, to add, that this\ncharacter is not likely to remain long with the society. For the young\nQuakers of the present day seem to me to be sensible of the inferiority\nof their own education, and to be making an attempt towards the\nimprovement of their minds, by engaging in those, which are the most\nentertaining, instructive, and useful, I mean, philosophical pursuits.\n\n[Footnote 38: Their parents pay a small annual sum towards their board\nand clothing. The rest is made up by a subscription among the society,\nand by the funds of the school.]\n\nThat deficiency in literature and science is likely to be a trait in the\ncharacter of the Quakers, we may pronounce, if we take into\nconsideration circumstances which have happened, and notions which have\nprevailed, in this society.\n\nThe Quakers, like the Jews of old, whether they be rich or poor, are\nbrought up, in obedience to their own laws, to some employment. They are\ncalled of course at an early age from their books. It cannot therefore\nbe expected of them, that they should possess the same literary\ncharacter as those who spend years at our universities, or whose time is\nnot taken up by the concerns of trade.\n\nIt happens also in this society, that persons of the poor and middle\nclasses are frequently through industry becoming rich. While these were\ngaining but a moderate support, they gave their children but a moderate\neducation. But when they came into possession of a greater substance,\ntheir children had finished their education, having grown up to men.\n\nThe ancient controversy too, relative to the necessity of human learning\nas a qualification for ministers of the Gospel, has been detrimental to\nthe promotion of literature and science among the Quakers. This\ncontroversy was maintained with great warmth and obstinacy on both\nsides, that is, by the early Quakers, who were men of learning, on the\none hand, and by the divines of our universities on the other. The less\nlearned in the society, who read this controversy, did not make the\nproper distinction concerning it. They were so interested in keeping up\nthe doctrine, that learning was not necessary for the priesthood, that\nthey seemed to have forgotten that it was necessary at all. Hence\nknowledge began to be cried down in the society; and though the\nproposition was always meant to be true with respect to the priesthood\nonly, yet many mistook or confounded its meaning, so that they gave\ntheir children but a limited education on that account.\n\nThe opinions also of the Quakers relative to classical authors, have\nbeen another cause of impeding in some degree their progress in\nlearning, that is, in the classical part of it. They believe these to\nhave inculcated a system of morality frequently repugnant to that of the\nChristian religion. And the Heathen mythology, which is connected with\ntheir writings, and which is fabulous throughout, they conceive to have\ndisseminated romantic notions among youth, and to have made them\nfamiliar with fictions, to the prejudice of an unshaken devotedness to\nthe love of truth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n_Second trait is, that they are a superstitious people--Circumstances\nthat have given birth to this trait--Quakerism, where it is understood,\nis seldom chargeable with superstition--Where it is misunderstood, it\nleads to it--Subjects in which it may be misunderstood are those of the\nprovince of the Spirit--and of dress and language--Evils to be\nmisapprehended from a misunderstanding of the former subject._\n\n\nIt may seem wonderful at first sight, that persons, who have discarded\nan undue veneration for the saints, and the saints days, and the relics\nof the Roman Catholic religion, who have had the resolution to reject\nthe ceremonials of Protestants, such as baptism and the sacrament of the\nsupper, and who have broken the terrors of the dominion of the\npriesthood, should, of all others, be chargeable with superstition. But\nso it is. The world has certainly fixed upon them the character of a\nsuperstitious people. Under this epithet much is included. It is\nunderstood that Quakers are more ready than others to receive mystical\ndoctrines, more apt to believe in marvellous appearances more willing to\nplace virtue in circumstances, where many would place imposition; and\nthat, independently of all this, they are more scrupulous with respect\nto the propriety of their ordinary movements, waiting for religious\nimpulses, when no such impulses are expected by other religious people.\n\nThis trait of superstition is an ancient trait in the character of the\nQuakers, and has arisen from the following causes.\n\nIt has been long imagined, that where a people devote themselves so\nexclusively to the influence of the Spirit as the Quakers appear to do,\nthey will not be sufficiently on their guard to make the proper\ndistinctions between imagination and revelation, and that they will be\napt to confound impressions, and to bring the divine Spirit out of its\nproper sphere into the ordinary occurrences of their lives. And in this\nopinion the world considers itself to have been confirmed by an\nexpression said to have been long in use among Quakers, which is, \"that\nthey will do such and such things if they have liberty to do them.\" Now\nby this expression the Quakers may mean only, that all human things are\nso uncertain, and so many unforeseen events may happen, that they dare\nmake no promises, but they will do the things in question if no obstacle\nshould arise to prevent them. And this caution in language runs through\nthe whole society; for they seldom promise but provisionally in any\ncase. But the world has interpreted the expression differently, and\nmaintains that the Quakers mean by it, that they will do such and such\nthings, if they feel that they have liberty or permission from the\nSpirit of God.\n\nTwo other circumstances, which have given birth to this trait in the\ncharacter of the Quakers, are the singularities of their dress and\nlanguage. For when they are spoken of by the world, they are usually\nmentioned under the name of the idolatry or superstition of the Quaker\nlanguage, or the idolatry or superstition of the Quaker dress.\n\nNow this trait, which has originated in the three causes that have been\nmentioned, is considered by the world to have been still more confirmed\nby a circumstance which happened but a few years ago, namely, that when\nanimal magnetism was in fashion, there were more of this society worked\nupon by these delusions, than of any other.\n\nWith respect to the truth of this trait, I believe it cannot easily be\nmade out, as for as animal magnetism is concerned. For though\nundoubtedly there were Quakers so superstitious as to be led away on\nthis occasion, yet they were very few in number, and not more in\nproportion than others of other religious denominations. The conduct of\nthese was also considered as reprehensible by the society at large, and\nsome pains were taken to convince them of their error, and of the\nunsuitableness of such doctrines with the religion they professed.\n\nWith respect to the truth of this trait, as it may have existed on other\noccasions, it may be laid down as a position generally true, that where\nQuakers understand their own constitution, it can have no place among\nthem. But where they do not understand it, there are few people among\nwhom it is more likely to exist, as we may see from the following\naccount.\n\nIt is the doctrine of Quakerism on the subject of the Spirit, that it is\nan infallible guide to men in their spiritual concerns. But I do not see\nwhere it is asserted by any of the Quaker writers, that it is to be a\nguide to man in all the temporal concerns of his life, or that he is to\ndepreciate the value of human reason. George Fox was very apprehensive\nthat even in matters of religion, which constitute the immediate\nprovince of the divine Spirit, men might mistake their own enthusiastic\nfeelings for revelation; and he censured some, to use his own\nexpression, \"for having gone out into imaginations.\" The society also\nhave been apprehensive of the same consequences. Hence one among other\nreasons for the institution of the office of elders. It is the duty of\nthese to watch over the doctrine of the ministers to see that they\npreach soundly, and that they do not mistake their own imaginations for\nthe Spirit of God, and mix his wisdom with the waywardness of their own\nwills. They therefore, who believe in the doctrine of the agency of the\nSpirit, and at the same time in the necessity of great caution and\nwatchfulness that they may not confound its operations with that of\ntheir own fancies, will never incur the charge, which has been brought\nagainst the body at large. But if there are others, on the other hand,\nwho give themselves up to this agency without the necessary caution,\nthey will gradually mix their impressions, and will, in time, refer most\nof them to the same source. They will bring the Divine Being by degrees\nout of his spiritual province, and introduce him into all the trivial\nand worthless concerns of their lives. Hence a belief will arise, which\ncannot fail of binding their minds in the chains of delusion and\nsuperstition.\n\nIt is the doctrine of Quakerism again on the subject of dress, that\nplainness and simplicity are required of those who profess the Christian\ncharacter; that any deviation from these is unwarrantable, if it be made\non the plea of conformity to the fashions of the world; that such\ndeviation bespeaks the beginning of an unstable mind; and, if not\nnoticed, may lead into many evils. They therefore, who consider dress in\nthis point of view, will never fall into any errors of mind in their\ncontemplation of this subject. But if there are members, on the other\nhand, who place virtue in the colour and shape of their cloathing, as\nsome of the Jews did in the broad phylacteries on their garments, they\nwill place it in lifeless appearances and forms, and bring their minds\nunder vassalage to a false religion. And in the same manner it may be\nobserved with respect to language, that if persons in the society lay an\nundue stress upon it, that is, if they believe truth or falsehood to\nexist inherently in lifeless words, and this contrary to the sense in\nwhich they know they will be understood by the world, so that they dare\nnot pronounce them for religion's sake, they will be in danger of\nplacing religion where it is not, and of falling into errors concerning\nit, which will be denominated superstition by the world.\n\nAs I am now on the subject of superstition, as capable of arising from\nthe three causes that have been mentioned, I shall dwell for a short\ntime on some of the evils which may arise from one of them, or from a\nmisunderstanding of the doctrine of the agency of the Spirit.\n\nI believe it possible, in the first place, for those who receive this\ndoctrine without the proper limitations, that is, for those who\nattribute every thing exclusively to the Spirit of God, and who draw no\nline between revelation and the suggestions of their own will, to be\nguilty of evil actions and to make the Divine Being the author of them\nall.\n\nI have no doubt, for example, that many of those, who engaged in the\ncrusades, considered themselves as led into them by the Spirit of God.\nBut what true Quaker, in these days, would wish to make the Almighty the\nauthor of all the bloodshed in the wars that were undertaken on this\naccount?\n\nThe same may be said with respect to martyrdoms. For there is reason to\nbelieve, that many who were instrumental in shedding the blood of their\nfellow-creatures, because they happened to differ from them in religious\nopinion, conceived that they were actuated by the divine Spirit, and\nthat they were doing God service, and aiding the cause of religion by\ntheir conduct on such occasions. But what true Quaker would believe that\nthe Father of justice and mercy was the author of these bloody\npersecutions, or that, if men were now to feel an impulse in their own\nminds to any particular action, they ought to obey it, if it were to\nlead them to do evil that good might come?\n\nThe same may be said with respect to many of the bad laws, which are to\nbe found in the codes of the different nations of the world. Legislators\nno doubt have often thought themselves spiritually guided when they made\nthem. And judges, who have been remarkable for appealing to the divine\nSpirit in the course of their lives, have made no hesitation to execute\nthem. This was particularly the case with Sir Matthew Hale. If there be\nany one, whose writings speak a more than ordinary belief in the agency\nof the Spirit of God, it is this great and estimable man. This spirit he\nconsulted not only in the spiritual, but in the temporal concerns, of\nhis life. And yet he sentenced to death a number of persons, because\nthey were reputed to be witches. But what true Quaker believes in\nwitchcraft? or does he not rather believe, that the Spirit of God, it\nrightly understood, would have protested against condemnation for a\ncrime, which does not exist?\n\nBut the mischief, if a proper distinction be not made between the agency\nof the Spirit and that of the will of man, may spread farther, and may\nreach the man himself, and become injurious both to his health, his\nintellect, and his usefulness, and the Divine Being may be made again\nthe author of it all.\n\nMany, we all know, notwithstanding their care and attention, have found\nthat they have gone wrong in their affairs in various instances of their\nlives, that is, events have shewn that they have taken a wrong course.\nBut if there be those who suppose themselves in these instances to have\nbeen acted upon by the Spirit or God, what is more likely than that they\nmay imagine that they have lost his favour, and that looking upon\nthemselves as driven by him into the wrong road, they may fall into the\nbelief, that they are among the condemned reprobate, and pine away,\ndeprived of their senses, in a state of irretrievable misery and\ndespair?\n\nOthers again may injure their health, and diminish their comfort and\ntheir utility in another way. And here I may remark, that if I have seen\nwhat the world would call superstition among the Quakers, it has been\nconfined principally to a few females, upon whose constitution, more\ndelicate than that of men, an attention to undistinguished impressions,\nbrought on in a course of time by a gradual depreciation of human\nreason, has acted with considerable force. I fear that some of these, in\nthe upright intention of their hearts to consult the Almighty on all\noccasions as the sole arbiter of every thing that is good, have fostered\ntheir own infirmities, and gone into retirements so frequent, as to have\noccasioned these to interfere with the duties of domestic comfort and\nsocial good, and that they have been at last so perplexed with doubts\nand an increasing multitude of scruples, that they have been afraid of\ndoing many things, because they have not had a revelation for them. The\nstate of such worthy persons is much to be pitied. What must be their\nfeelings under such a conflict, when they are deserted by human reason?\nWhat an effect will not such religious doubts and perplexities have\nupon their health? What impediments do they not throw in the way of\ntheir own utility?\n\nI should be sorry if by any observations, such as the preceding, I\nshould be thought to censure any one for the morality of his feelings.\nAnd still more sorry should I be, if I were to be thought to have any\nintention of derogating from the character of the Supreme Being. I am\nfar from denying his omniscience, for I believe that he sees every\nsparrow that falls to the ground, and even more, that he knows the\ninnermost thoughts of men. I deny not his omnipresence, for I believe\nthat he may be seen in all his works. I deny neither his general nor his\nparticular providence, nor his hearing of our prayers, nor his right\ndirection in our spiritual concerns, nor his making of all things work\ntogether for good to those who love him. Neither do I refuse to admit\nhim either into our journies, or into our walks, or into our chambers,\nfor he can make all the things we see subservient to our moral\ninstruction, and his own glory. But I should be sorry to have him\nconsidered as a clock, that is to inform us about the times of our\nordinary movements, or to make him a prompter in all our worldly\nconcerns, or to oblige him to take his seat in animal magnetism, or to\nreside in the midst marvellous delusions. Why should we expect a\nrevelation in the most trivial concerns of our lives, where our reason\nwill inform us? Why, like the waggoner, apply to Jupiter, when we may\nremove the difficulty by putting our own shoulders to the wheels? If we\nare reasonable creatures, we can generally tell, whether we ought to go\nforwards or backwards, or to begin, or to postpone, whether our actions\nare likely to be innocent or hurtful, or whether we are going on an\nerrand of benevolence or of evil. In fact, there can be no necessity for\nthis constant appeal to the Spirit in all our worldly concerns, while we\npossess our reason as men. And unless some distinction be made between\nthe real agency of God and our own volitions, which distinction true\nQuakerism suggests, we shall be liable to be tossed to and fro by every\nwind that blows, and to become the creatures of a superstition, that may\nlead us into great public evils, while it may be injurious to our health\nand intellect, and to the happiness and utility of our lives.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n_Morally defective traits--First of these is that of obstinacy--This\nwas attached also to the early Christians--No just foundation for the\nexistence of this trait._\n\n\nI come now to the consideration of those which I have denominated\nmorally defective traits.\n\nThe first trait of this kind, which is attached to the character of the\nQuakers, is that of an obstinate spirit.\n\nThis trait is a very ancient one. It was observed in the time of George\nFox, of the members of this society, that they were as \"stiff as trees,\"\nand this idea concerning them has come down to the present day.\n\nThe origin of this trait must be obvious to all. The Quakers, as we have\nseen, will neither pay tithes, nor perform military service, nor\nilluminate their houses, like other people, though they are sure of\nsuffering by their refusal to comply with custom in these cases. Now,\nwhen individuals, few in number, become singular, and differ from the\nworld at large, it is generally considered that the majority are in the\nright, and that the minority are in the wrong. But obstinacy may be\ndefined to be a perseverance in that which is generally considered to be\nwrong.\n\nThis epithet has attached, and will attach to those who resist the\npopular opinion, till men are better educated, or till they lose their\nprejudices, or have more correct and liberal notions on religion. The\nearly Christians were themselves accused of obstinacy, and this even by\nthe enlightened Pliny. He tells, us, that they would not use wine and\nfrankincense before the statues of the emperors; and that \"there was no\nquestion that for such obstinacy they deserved punishment.\"[39]\n\n[Footnote 39: \"Pervicaciam certe et inflexibitem obstinationem debere\npuniri.\"]\n\nIn judging of the truth of this trait, two queries will arise. First,\nwhether the Quakers, in adhering rigidly to those singularities which\nhave produced it, are really wrong as a body of Christians? And,\nsecondly, whether they do not conscientiously believe themselves to be\nright?\n\nIn the case of the early Christians, which has been mentioned, we, who\nlive at this day, have no doubt that Pliny put a false estimate on their\ncharacter. We believe them to have done their duty, and we believe also\nthat they considered themselves as doing it, when they refused divine\nhonours to the emperors. And the action, therefore, which Pliny\ndenominated obstinacy, would, if it had been left to us to name it, have\nbeen called inflexible virtue, as arising out of a sense of the\nobligations imposed upon them by the Christian religion.\n\nIn the same manner we may argue with respect to the Quakers. Who, for\nexample, if he will try to divest himself of the prejudices of custom,\nand of the policy of the world, feels such a consciousness of his own\npowers as positively to pronounce, that the notions of the Quakers are\nutterly false, as to the illicitness of wars under the Christian system?\nThe arguments of the Quakers on this subject are quite as good, in my\napprehension, as any that I have heard advanced on the other side of the\nquestion. These arguments too are unquestionably much more honourable to\nChristianity, and much more consistent with the nature and design of the\nGospel dispensation. They are supported also by the belief and the\npractice of the earliest Christians. They are arguments again, which\nhave suggested themselves to many good men, who were not Quakers, and\nwhich have occasioned doubts in some instances, and conviction in\nothers, against the prejudice of education and the dominion of custom.\nAnd if the event should ever come to pass, which most Christians expect,\nthat men will one day or other turn their swords and their spears into\nploughshares and pruning-hooks, they, who live in that day, will applaud\nthe perseverance of the Quakers in this case, and weep over the\nobstinacy and inconsistency of those who combated their opinions.\n\nBut the great question after all is, whether the Quakers believe\nthemselves in this or in any other of their religious scruples, to be\nright, as a Christian body? If there are those among them who do not,\nthey give into the customs of the world, and either leave the society\nthemselves, or become disowned. It is therefore only a fair and a just\npresumption, that all those who continue in the society, and who keep up\nto these scruples to the detriment of their worldly interest, believe\nthemselves to be right. But this belief of their own rectitude, even if\nthey should happen to be wrong, is religion to them, and ought to be\nestimated so by us in matters in which an interpretation of Gospel\nprinciples is concerned. This is but an homage due to conscience, after\nall the blood that has been shed in the course of Christian\npersecutions, and after all the religious light that has been diffused\namong us since the reformation of our religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Next trait is that of a money-getting spirit--Probability of the truth\nof this trait examined--An undue eagerness after money not unlikely to\nbe often the result of the frugal and commercial habits of the\nsociety--but not to the extent, as insisted on by the world--This\neagerness, wherever it exists, seldom chargeable with avarice._\n\n\nThe next trait in the character of the Quakers is that of a\nmoney-getting spirit, or of a devotedness to the acquisition of money in\ntheir several callings and concerns.\n\nThis character is considered as belonging so generally to the\nindividuals of this society, that it is held by the world to be almost\ninseparable from Quakerism. A certain writer has remarked, that they\nfollow their concerns in pursuit of riches, \"with a step as steady as\ntime, and with an appetite as keen as death.\"\n\nI do not know what circumstances have given birth to this trait. That\nthe Quakers are a thriving body we know. That they may also appear, when\nknown to be a domestic people, and to have discarded the amusements of\nthe world, to be more in their shops and counting-houses than others,\nis probable. And it is not unlikely, that, in consequence of this\nappearance, connected with this worldly prosperity, they may be thought\nto be more intent than others upon the promotion of their pecuniary\nconcerns. There are circumstances, however, belonging to the character\nand customs of the society, which would lead to an opposite conclusion.\nThe Quakers, in the first place, are acknowledged to be a charitable\npeople. But if so, they ought not to be charged, at least, with that\nspecies of the money-getting spirit, which amounts to avarice. It is\nalso an undoubted fact, that they give up no small portion of their\ntime, and put themselves to no small expence, on account of their\nreligion. In country places they allot one morning in the week, and in\nthe towns generally two, besides the Sunday, to their religious worship.\nThey have also their monthly meetings, and after these their quarterly,\nto attend, on account of their discipline. And this they do frequently\nat a great distance, and after a considerable absence as tradesmen, from\ntheir homes. I do not mean to insinuate by this latter instance, that\nmen become pious, and therefore proof against the influence of money,\nexactly in proportion as they attend their religious meetings, but that,\nwhere they are voraciously intent upon the getting of money, they could\nhardly be expected to make such a sacrifice of their time.\n\nBut whatever may be the appearance on either side, the question is,\nwhether the imputation of the trait, which is now under our\nconsideration, be founded in fact. What circumstances make in favour of\nit? What circumstances make against it? And which of these preponderate\non the whole?\n\nWe may say then, at the first sight, that the precepts of Quakerism make\ndecidedly against it. And we may say again, that it ought to be\nexpected, that all those principles and circumstances, which have an\ninfluence in the production of moral character, or of such a character\nas belongs to the Quakers as a body, should work together either towards\nits prevention or its cure.\n\nOn the other hand, if we examine the situation of the society, we shall\nfind circumstances, the operation of which is directly in favour of such\na trait.\n\nAnd first, in looking into the human heart, we seem to discover a\ncircumstance, which, on account of the situation alluded to, may operate\nas a spring in producing it. Men, generally speaking, love consequence.\nNow the Quakers, though they have consequence in their own society, have\nnone in the world. They can be neither legislators nor magistrates. They\ncan take no titles to distinguish them. They pass therefore in the\nworld, like the common and undistinguished herd, except from the\ncircumstances of their dress. But riches give all men consequence. And\nit is not clear to me, but that this circumstance may have its operation\non the minds of some who are called Quakers, in contributing to the\nproduction of the money-getting spirit, inasmuch as it may procure them\na portion of estimation, which they cannot otherwise have, while they\nremain in their own body.\n\nIn looking again into the human heart, we find another, and this a\npowerful spring, connected with the situation of the society, for the\nproduction of such a trait.\n\nThe Quakers, as I have observed before, are mostly in trade. Now they\nare generally a sedate, thoughtful, sober, diligent, and honest people.\nIt is not then too much to say, with these qualifications, that they\nwill be as successful in trade as others. Hence their incomes will be as\ngreat, in proportion to their capitals, as those of others, from the\nsame source.\n\nBut let us look for a moment at their outgoings. They neither spend nor\nlose their money at cards, or at horse-races, or by any other species of\ngaming. They do not waste their substance either in drinking at taverns\nor at home. Not having, in general, an enlarged education, or a taste\nfor literature, they have no expensive libraries. They buy no costly\npaintings. They neither powder their hair, nor dress in a splendid\nmanner. They use no extravagant furniture. They keep no packs of hounds\nfor their diversion. They are never seen at the theatres. They have\nneither routes, balls, nor music meetings. They have neither expensive\nliveries nor equipages. Hence it must follow, that their outgoings, as\nfar as their living is concerned, cannot in general be as great as those\nof others in a similar condition of life. But if their inlets are\ngreater than their outlets of money, when compared with those of other\npersons, a greater overplus of money beyond the expences of living, will\nbe the constant result, or there will be a greater increasing\naccumulation of money, upon the whole, than falls within the possession\nof others. Now a question arises here, founded on a knowledge of the\ninfirmity of our nature. Are men likely, in general, constituted as they\nare, to see the golden idol constantly rising in dimensions before them,\nand to refrain front worshipping it, or, are they likely to see it\nwithout a corruption of their moral vision? It is observed[40] by one of\nthe scriptural writers, \"A merchant shall hardly keep himself from doing\nwrong, and a huckster shall not be free from sin.\" And where is it, that\nthis old saying, except the mind be strongly fortified by religion, will\nnot be found equally true in the present, as in former times? The truth\nis, that the old maxim, Creseit amor nummi quantum ipsa pecunia\ncreseit, is a just one. That is, it is true, \"that the coming in of\nmoney in an undue proportion begets the love of it\", that the love of\nmoney again leads to the getting of more; that the getting of more again\ngenerally increases the former love. And hence a round is kept up of\ncircumstances and feelings, till a money-getting spirit creeps into the\ncharacter of him, who is placed in a situation so unfortunate for the\npurity of his heart.\n\n[Footnote 40: Ecclesiasticus xxvi. 29.]\n\nThese then are the acting and the counteracting circumstances on both\nsides. Which of the two are likely to be predominant, we must\nconjecture. When men have become full grown Quakers, the latter will\nlose their power. But where they have not (and it is to be presumed that\nthere are many in the society who have not reached this stature, and\nmany again who bear only the name of their profession) they will\nfrequently prevail. I own I fear that precepts, though there may be a\ngeneral moral bias, will not always be found successful against those,\nwhich are considered to be the most powerful of the temptations, to\nwhich our nature is exposed. I own, when I consider that the Quakers, in\nconsequence of their commercial and frugal habits, have greater\npecuniary accumulations before their eyes than others in a similar\ncondition of life, when I consider how few are able to bear these\naccumulations without moral injury to themselves, and that even the\nearly Christians began to relax in their character when they begun to\nbe prosperous, I am of opinion, that there is some foundation far the\nexistence of such a spirit, though not to the extent, as insisted on by\nthe world; or, that there is in the society, notwithstanding the many\nbright and amiable exceptions that are to be found in it, greater\neagerness after wealth than is consistent with its religious profession.\nAnd to this opinion I am inclined from another consideration, which\ncannot be overlooked in the present case. The book of Extracts itself\nacknowledges the existence of such a spirit, for it characterises it\nunder the name of \"hastening to be rich,\" and it calls it \"a growing\nevil.\"\n\nBut when I say that I so for accede to the opinion of the world, as to\nallow that the money-getting spirit may be fixed upon a part of the\nsociety, I feel that I ought to make a proper distinction concerning it.\nI must observe, that the money-getting spirit, wherever it may be\nchargeable upon Quakers, seldom belongs to that species which is called\navarice. It is by no means incongruous to suppose, that there may be in\nthe same person an unreasonable love of money, and yet a shew of\nbenevolence. The money-getting spirit will have a different effect, as\nit operates upon different persons. Upon those, who have been brought up\nin an ignorant and unfeeling manner, it will operate to make them hoard\ntheir substance, and to keep it exclusively to themselves. But it will\nnot always hinder those who have been humanely educated, though it may\nlead them to unreasonable accumulations, from dispensing a portion of\ntheir gains. In the first instance it is highly criminal, because it\nkeeps the whole of its talent in a napkin. In the second, though less\ncriminal, it is greatly to be deplored, but more particularly in a\nQuaker, who, making a higher profession of Christianity than many\nothers, ought to give to the world the example of a purer mind.\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Farther observations on the subject of the former trait--Practicable\nmethods suggested for its extirpation--These methods not destructive,\nbut promotive, of the temporal interests of the members of this society,\nand consistent with the religion they profess._\n\n\nAs the Quakers appear to me, in consequence of their commercial and\nfrugal habits, to be in danger of contracting a money-getting spirit,\nand as this spirit is the worst feature that can exist in the Quaker\ncharacter, I shall allot a few pages to the farther consideration of the\nsubject, with a view of the prevention of such an evil.\n\nThat it is the worst feature that can exist in the character of the\nsociety, I repeat. It is worse than a want of knowledge, or than\nsuperstition, because these relate to the understanding, while this is\nconfined to the heart. It renders the system of the moral education of\nthe Quakers almost nugatory. For what is the use of keeping the mind in\na state of spiritual purity by means of prohibitions, or by attempting\nto shut it out from the knowledge of corruptive amusements, if it be\nafterwards to be rendered impure by the love of money? It occasions them\nagain to bear their testimony as it were against their own religion. For\na Quaker is not in the situation of on ordinary person. He looks upon\nhimself as a highly professing Christian; as one, who is not to conform\nto the fashions of the world; as one, who is to lead a life of\nself-denial; as one, who is to go forward in virtue, his belief being\nthat of a possibility of perfection even in the present life. He\nconsiders himself too as a representative of the early Christians, and\nholds himself ready to follow them by the bearing of his testimony, into\nsuffering, and even unto death. But what Christian can harbour a\nmoney-getting spirit, or be concerned in an extensive accumulation of\nwealth? If a Quaker therefore should go into the common road, and fall\ndown before the idol mammon, like any other ordinary person, how can the\nworld give him any pretension but to an ordinary religion?\n\nMy object in the present consideration of the subject, will be to shew\nthe Quakers in general, and those in particular who may need it, some\npractical cure for this evil, and to convince them, that the mode of\neffecting it will not be detrimental to the temporal interests of their\nfamilies, but promotive of their spiritual, and consistent with the\nreligion they profess.\n\nThe first method, which I would recommend to those who are in trade, and\nwho know their own habits of life, and the extent of their families,\nwould be to fix upon a certain sum, which they may think sufficient for\na future decent and moderate competency, and to leave off business, as\nsoon as this should be obtained. Such a step would be useful. It would\nbe making room for others to live as well as themselves. It would be\nhonourable, for it would be generous. And it would operate as a certain\npreventive of the money-getting spirit, as well as of the imputation of\nit. For if such a retreat from trade, were laid down and known as a\ngeneral custom of the society, the Quakers might bid their hearts rise\nin defiance against the corruptions of money, and their reputation\nagainst the clamours of the world.\n\nThis step, hard and difficult as it may appear to those who are thriving\nin the world, is, notwithstanding, not a novel one, if we may judge\neither by the example of many of the pure minded Christians of other\ndenominations, or by that of many estimable persons in this society.\nJohn Woolman, among many others, was uneasy on account of his business\n\"growing cumbersome,\" for so he expresses it, lest it should hurt the\npurity of his mind. And he contracted it, leaving himself only enough of\nit, and this by the labour of his own hands, for a decent support. And\nhere I might mention other individuals of this society, if I had no\nobjection to offend the living by praise, who, following his example,\nhave retired upon only a moderate competency, though in the way of\ngreat accumulations, for no other reason than because they were afraid,\nlest such accumulations should interfere with their duty, or injure\ntheir character, as Christians.\n\nBut if this measure should not be approved of under an idea that men\nought to have employments for their time, or that in these days of\nincreasing taxes and of progressively expensive living, they cannot\nspecify the sum that may be sufficient for their future wants, I have\nanother to propose, in consequence of which they may still follow their\ncommercial pursuits, and avoid the imputation in question. I mean that\nthe Quakers ought to make it a rule, after the annual expences of living\nhave been settled, to lay by but small savings. They ought never to\naccustom their eyes to behold an undue accumulation of money, but\nliberally to deal it out in charity to the poor and afflicted in\nproportion to their gains, thus making their occupations a blessing to\nmankind. No other measure will be effectual but this, if the former be\nnot resolved upon, while they continue in trade. Their ordinary charity,\nit is clear, will not do. Large as it may have been, it has not been\nfound large enough to prove a corrective of this spirit in the opinion\nof the world. Indeed, it matters not how large a charitable donation may\nseem, if we view it either as a check upon this spirit, or as an act of\nmerit, but how large it is, when compared with the bulk of the savings\nthat are left. A hundred pounds, given away annually in benevolence, may\nappear something, and may sound handsomely in the ears of the public.\nBut if this sum be taken from the savings of two thousand, it will be\nlittle less than a reproach to the donor as a Christian. In short, no\nother way than the estimation of the gift by the surplus-saving will do\nin the case in question. But this would certainly be effectual to the\nend proposed. It would entirely keep down the money-getting spirit. It\nwould also do away the imputation of it in the public mind. For it is\nimpossible in this case, that the word Quakerism should not become\nsynonimous with charity, as it ought to be, if Quakerism be a more than\nordinary profession of the Christian religion.\n\nNow these methods are not chimerical, but practicable. There can be no\nreasonable objection against them, because they allow of the acquisition\nof a decent and moderate competency. The only one that can be started\nwill be, that Quakers may injure the temporal interests of their\nchildren, or that they cannot, upon this plan, leave them independent at\ntheir deaths ...\n\nThat independence for children is the general aim of the world, I know\nwell. But I know also, in reply to this objection, that Christianity has\nno such word as independence in her book. For of what do people wish to\nmake their children independent? Certainly not of Providence, for that\nwould be insanity indeed. Of the poor then shall I say? That is\nimpossible, for how could they get their daily bread? Of the rich, then,\nlike themselves? That would be folly, for where would they form their\nfriendships or their connubial connections, in which they must place a\nportion of the happiness of their lives? Do they wish then to make them\nindependent of society at large, so as not to do it good? That is\nagainst all religion. In short it is impossible, while we exist in this\nlife, to be independent one of another. We are bound by Christianity in\none great chain, every link of which is to support the next; or the band\nis broken. But if they mean by independence such a moneyed situation as\nshall place their children out of the reach of the frowns, and crosses,\nand vicissitudes of the world, so that no thought or care shall be\nnecessary for the means of their own livelihood, I fear they are\nprocuring a situation for them, which will be injurious even to their\ntemporal interests as men.\n\nThe matter then seems to me to be brought to this question, whether it\nis better, I mean as a general proposition, to bring up children with\nthe expectation of such a moderate portion of wealth, that they shall\nsee the necessity of relying upon their own honest endeavours and the\nDivine support, or to bring them up with such notions of independence,\nthat, in the pride and exultation of their hearts, they may be induced\nto count themselves mighty, and to lose sight of the power and\nprovidence of God?\n\nIf we were to look into the world for an answer to this question, we\nshould find no greater calamity than that of leaving to children an\naffluent independence. Such persons, when grown up, instead of becoming\na blessing, are generally less useful than others. They are frequently\nproud and haughty, fancying themselves omnipotent, they bid defiance to\nthe opinions of the virtuous part of the community. To the laws of\nhonour and fashion they pay a precise obedience, but trample under foot,\nas of little consequence, the precepts of the Christian religion. Having\nsensual gratifications in their power, they indulge to excess. By\ndegrees they ruin their health and fortunes, and get wisdom by\nexperience, when it is too late to use it. How many young persons have I\nknown, and I wish I could make a different statement, whose ruin\noriginated wholly in a sense of their own independence of the world!\n\nNeither, if we look into the society of the Quakers, shall we find a\ndifferent account. It is undoubtedly true, though there are many amiable\nexceptions, that the worst examples in it are generally among the\nchildren of the rich. These presently take wings, and fly away, so that,\nfalling into the corruptive and destructive fashions of the times, their\nparents have only been heaping up riches; not knowing who were to gather\nthem. And here it may be remarked, that the Quaker education, by means\nof its prohibitions, greatly disqualifies its young members, who may\ndesert from the society, from acting prudently afterwards. They will be,\nin general, but children, and novices in the world. Kept within bounds\ntill this period, what is more probable than that, when they break out\nof them, they will bunch-into excess. A great river may be kept in its\ncourse by paying attention to its banks, but if you make a breach in\nthese restrictive walls, you let it loose, and it deluges the plains\nbelow.\n\nIn short, whether we turn our eyes to the Quaker society, or to the\nworld at large, we cannot consider an affluent independence as among the\ntemporal advantages of youth. And as they, who only leave their children\na moderate portion of substance, so that they shall see the necessity of\nrelying upon their own honest endeavours, and the Divine support, act\nwisely in their own generation, so they act only consistently with the\nreligion they profess. For what does the religion of the Quakers hold\nout to them as the best attainment in life? Is it not spiritual\nknowledge? Is it not that knowledge, which shall fit them best for the\nservice of their Maker? But such knowledge is utterly unattainable while\na money-getting spirit exists; for it has been declared by the highest\nauthority, that we cannot serve God and mammon.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIV.\n\n_Another trait is that of a want of animation or affection--This an\nappearance only, and not a reality, arising from a proper subjugation of\nthe passions--from the prohibitions relative to dress--and address--and\nthe amusements of the world._\n\n\nIt is said next of the Quakers, that they are a cold and inanimate\npeople; and that they have neither the ordinary affection, nor the\ngradation of affection, of other people.\n\nI may immediately pronounce upon this trait, that it is merely an\noutward appearance. The Quakers have as warm feelings as the rest of\ntheir countrymen. Their love of their fellow-creatures, more conspicuous\nin them than in many others, as has been amply shewn, gives them a claim\nto the possession of warm and affectionate feeling. The Quakers too have\nthe character of a domestic people; but surely, if they do not possess\naffection, and this in a very high degree, they must have miserable\nhomes. There is indeed a want of gradation in their affections, which\nmay be traced upon some occasions. In making their wills, for example,\nthey are not apt to raise up an eldest son to the detriment of the rest\nof their offspring. And this certainly is a proof, that they do not\npossess the gradation of affection of many other people! Happy is it\nfor their own comfort and the welfare of their families, that they give\nthis proof to the world of this equal affection for their children.\n\nThat this trait is only an appearance, and not a reality, I shall shew,\nby staring many outward circumstances, in the Quaker constitution, which\nmay be preventive of apparent animation, but which can have no influence\non the heart.\n\nWe must all of us be sensible, that both opinions and customs have an\ninfluence on the warmth or coldness of our characters. Who would expect,\nif two faithful portraits could have been handed down to us from\nantiquity, to find the same gravity or coldness of countenance and\nmanners in an Athenian, as in a Spartan? And in the same manner who can\nexpect, that there will not be a difference in the appearance of Quakers\nand other people?\n\nThe truth is, that the discipline and education of the Quakers produce\nan appearance of a want of animation, and this outward appearance the\nworld has falsely taken as a symbol of the character of the heart. Can\nwe expect that a due subjugation of the passions, which is insisted upon\nin true Quaker families, will give either warmth to the countenance, or\nspirit to the outward manners? Do not the passions animate, and give a\ntone to the characters of men? Can we see then the same variety of\nexpression in the faces of the Quakers as in those of others on this\naccount? The actions of men, again, enliven their outward appearances,\nbut Quakers, being forbidden to use the address of the world, can assume\nno variety of action in their intercourse with others. The amusements,\nagain, of the world, such as of music and the theatre, reach the mind,\nand, animating it, give a greater expression to the countenance, on\nwhich the contemplation afterwards produces a similar though a slighter\neffect. But in what Quakers can you see sensibility from the same cause?\nThe dress too, of the members of this society gives them an appearance\nof gravity and dulness. It makes them also shy of their fellow citizens.\nBut gravity, and dulness, and shyness, have generally, each of them, the\nappearance of coldness of manners.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XV.\n\n_Another trait is that of evasiveness in speech--This an appearance\nonly, arising from a peculiar regard to truth--and from a caution about\nthe proper use of words, induced by circumstances in the discipline, and\nby the peculiarities in the Quaker language._\n\n\nIt is alleged against the Quakers, as another bad trait in their\ncharacter, that they are not plain and direct, but that they are evasive\nin their answers to any questions that may be asked them.\n\nThere is no doubt but that the world, who know scarcely any thing about\nthe Quakers, will have some reason, if they judge from their outward\nmanner of expression, to come to such a conclusion. There is often a\nsort of hesitation in their speech, which has the appearance of\nevasiveness. But though there may be such an appearance, their answers\nto questions are full and accurate when finally given; and\nunquestionably there is no intention in them either to hold back any\nthing, or to deceive.\n\nThis outward appearance, strange to relate, arises in part from an\namiable trait in the character of the Quakers!! Their great desire to\nspeak the truth, and not to exceed it, occasions often a sort of\ndoubtfulness of speech. It occasions them also, instead of answering a\nquestion immediately, to ask other questions, that they may see the true\nbearings of the thing intended to be known. The same appearance of\ndoubt runs also through the whole society in all those words which\nrelate to promises, from the same cause. For the Quakers, knowing the\nuncertainty of all human things, and the impossibility of fulfilling but\nprovisionally, seldom, as I have observed before, promise any thing\npositively, that they may not come short of the truth. The desire\ntherefore of uttering the truth has in part brought this accusation upon\ntheir heads.\n\nOther circumstances also to be found within the Quaker constitution have\na tendency to produce the same effect.\n\nIn their monthly and quarterly and annual meetings for discipline, they\nare taught by custom to watch the propriety of the expressions that are\nused in the wording of their minutes, that these may accurately\nrepresent the sense of the persons present. And this habit of caution\nabout the use of words in the affairs of their own society naturally\nbegets a caution concerning it also in their intercourse with the world.\n\nThe peculiarities of their language produce also a similar\ncircumspection. For where people are restrained from the use of\nexpressions which are gene rally adopted by others, and this in the\nbelief that, as a highly professing people, they ought to be watchful\nover their words as well as their actions, a sort of hesitation will\naccompany them, or a sort of pause will be perceptible, while they are\nchoosing as it were the proper words for a reply to any of the questions\nthat may be asked them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVI.\n\n_Another trait is that of shyness--This an appearance only, arising from\nthe former trait--and from that of coldness of manners--and from the\ngreat sobriety of the Quaker character._\n\n\nAnother bad trait, which the world has fixed upon the Quakers, is that\nof being a sly people. This trait has been long given them. We find it\nnoticed by Pope:\n\n   \"The Quaker sly, the Presbyterian sour.\"\n\nThis charge is grounded on appearances. It arises in part from the last\nmentioned trait in their character; for if men be thought cautious in\nthe use of their words, and evasive in their answers, whether they be\nso or not, they will be marked as sly.\n\nIt arises again from the trait of want of animation or of coldness of\nmanners. For if men of good understanding, in consequence of the\nsubjugation of their passions, appear always to be cool, they will have\nan appearance of wariness.\n\nIt arises again from the great sobriety of the Quakers. For where men\nare always sober, they appear to be always on their guard, and men, who\nare always on their guard, are reputed cunning.\n\nThese circumstances of coolness and sobriety, when called into action,\nwill only confirm the world in the opinion of the existence of the trait\nin question. For it will not be easy to deceive a man of but moderate\nunderstanding, who never loses his senses either by intoxication or by\npassion. And what man, in such habits, will not make a better bargain\nthan one who is hot in his temper, or who is accustomed to be\nintoxicated?\n\nHence the trait arises from appearances, which are the result of\ncircumstances, favourable to the morality of the Quaker character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVII.\n\n_Last bad trait is a disregard of truth--Apparent rise of this\ntrait--Falsehood of it probable from considerations on the language of\nthe Quakers--from their prohibition of detraction--their rejection of\nromantic books--their punctuality to words and engagements--and their\nideas with respect to the unlawfulness of civil oaths._\n\n\n\nThe last charge against the Quakers will be seen in a vulgar expression,\nwhich should have had no place in this book, if it had not been a\nsaying in almost every body's mouth. The expression, is, \"Though they\nwill not swear, they will lie.\"\n\nThis trait has arisen in part from those different circumstances, which\nhave produced the appearance of evasiveness. For if people are thought\nevasive, they will always be thought liars. Evasiveness and lying are\nalmost synonimous terms. It is not impossible also, if Quakers should\nappear to give a doubtful answer, that persons may draw false\nconclusions from thence, and therefore may suppose them to have spoken\nfalsely. These two circumstances of an apparent evasiveness, and\nprobably of a deduction of conclusions from doubtful or imaginary\npremises, have, I apprehend, produced an appearance, which the world has\ninterpreted into evil.\n\nNo trait, however, can be more false than this. I know of no people, who\nregard truth more than the Quakers. Their whole system bends and directs\nto truth. One of the peculiarities of their language, or their rejection\nof many of the words which other people use, because they consider them\nas not religiously appropriate to the objects of which they are the\nsymbols, serves as a constant admonition to them to speak the truth.\n\nTheir prohibition of all slanderous reports, as mentioned in a former\nvolume, has a tendency to produce the same effect; for detraction is\nforbidden partly on the idea, that all such rumours on character may be\nfalse.\n\nThey reject also the reading of plays and novels, partly under a notion,\nthat the subjects and circumstances in these are fictitious, and that a\ntaste therefore, for the reading, of these, if acquired, might\nfamiliarize their youth with fictions, and produce in them a romantic\nand lying spirit.\n\nIt is a trait, again, in the character of the Quakers, as we have seen,\nthat they are remarkable for their punctuality in the performance of\ntheir words and engagements. But such punctuality implies neither more\nnor less, than that the words spoken by Quakers are generally fulfilled;\nand, if they are generally fulfilled, then the inference is, that all\nsuch words have been generally truths.\n\nTo this I may add, that the notions of the Quakers on the subject of\noaths, and their ideas of the character which it becomes them to sustain\nin life, must have a powerful effect upon them in inducing an attention\nto the truth; for they consider Jesus Christ to have abolished civil\noaths, because he wished to introduce a more excellent system than that\nof old, that is, because he meant it to be understood by his disciples,\nthat he laid such an eternal obligation upon them to speak truth, that\noaths were to be rendered unnecessary, where persons make a profession\nof his religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVIII.\n\n\nSECT. I.\n\n_Character of the Quaker women--This differs a little from that of the\nmen--Women share in the virtues of the former--but do not always partake\nof all their reputed imperfections--are not chargeable with a want of\nknowledge--nor with the money-getting spirit--Modesty a feature in their\ncharacter._\n\n\n\nHaving now amply enquired into the character of the men, I shall say a\nfew words on the subject of that of the women of this society. For\nthough it might be supposed at the first sight (the Quakers being cast\nas it were in one mould) that the same character would attach to both,\nyet it must be obvious, on farther consideration, that it cannot be\nwholly applicable to the female sex.\n\nIt may be laid down as a position, that the women of this society share\nin the virtues of the men. They possess their benevolence, their\nindependence of mind, and the other good traits in their moral\ncharacter. But they do not always partake of all their reputed\nimperfections.\n\nThe want of knowledge, which was reckoned among the failings of the\nmen, can have no room as a charge against the women.\n\nFor, first, let us compare the Quaker women with the Quaker men. Now it\ngenerally happens in the world, that men have more literary knowledge\nthan women, but this is not so generally the case in this society. As\nthe women here are not taken from their books, like the men, at an early\nage, and put into trade, they have no bar, like these, to the farther\nimprovement of their minds. They advance often in the acquisition of\nknowledge, while the latter, in consequence of their attention to\nbusiness, are kept stationary. Hence it almost uniformly happens, that\nthey are quite as well informed, and that they have as great a variety\nof knowledge as these, so that they suffer no disparagement, as the women\nof the world do, by a comparison with the other sex.\n\nNeither will the Quaker women be considered as deficient in knowledge,\nif compared with women of other religious denominations. It is too much\nthe practice, but particularly in the higher circles, to educate females\nfor shew. We too seldom see a knowledge of the domestic duties. To dance\nwell, to sing well, and to play well, these are the usual\naccomplishments that are insisted on, and they are insisted upon with an\nearnestness, as if they included all the valuable purposes of life. Thus\nthe best part of youth is spent in the acquirement of trivial things:\nor rather the acquirement of such things takes up so much time, as to\nleave but little for the moral and intellectual improvement of the mind.\nThe great object, on the other hand, of the education of the Quaker\nfemales, is utility and not shew. They are taught domestic economy, or\nthe cares and employments of a house. They are taught to become good\nwives and good mothers. Prohibited the attainments of music and dancing,\nand many of the corruptive amusements of the world, they have ample time\nfor the improvement of the understanding. Thus they have in general as\ngood an education as other females, as far as literary acquirements are\nconcerned; so that, whether they are compared with Quaker men, or with\nthe other women of the island, they will not incur the imputation of a\ndeficiency of knowledge.\n\nIt must be obvious too, that the money-getting spirit, which the world\nhas fixed upon as a trait in the character of some of the men, can\nseldom be a trait in that of the women of this society. For men are the\nprincipals in trade. They lay their plans for the getting of money. They\nsee the accumulating surplus rise. They handle it. They count it. They\nremember it. The women, on the other hand, see it only in the\ndisposition of their husbands or parents, who make probably a larger\nallowance for domestic wants or gratifications than before. Hence a\ncharge cannot be so frequently brought against them of a want of that\nspiritual mindedness, which is the great characteristic of Quakerism, as\nthey have but little to do with the mammon of the world.\n\nTo these exceptions in Quaker women from the reputed imperfections of\nQuaker men, I cannot help adding in this place, that the females of this\nsociety are peculiarly distinguishable for that which has been at all\ntimes considered as one of the brightest ornaments of their sex. Modesty\nis particularly conspicuous in their looks and in their whole outward\ndemeanour. It is conspicuous in their conversation. It is conspicuous\nalso in their dress. And here it may not be improper to observe, that,\nwhatever objections may be made to the Quaker apparel, it is estimable,\nas far as it gives this appearance of modesty to the females who wear\nit, or rather as far as it hinders them from wearing the loose and\nindelicate garments, which are frequently worn, without any scruple, by\nmany of the females of the world.\n\n\n\nSECT. II.\n\n_Quaker women, besides their private, have a public character--Low\nlight in which women have been held--Importance given them by\nchivalry--and by the revival of learning in Europe--and by the\nintroduction of Christianity--but still held in an inferior\nlight--Quakers have given them their due importance in society--Influence\nof their public character on their minds._\n\n\nThe Quaker women, independently of their private, have that which no\nother body of women have, a public character. This is a new era in\nfemale history. I shall therefore make a few observations on this,\nbefore I proceed to another subject.\n\nIt is melancholy, when we look into the history of women, to see the low\nestimation in which they have been held from the earliest times. It is\npossible, because they have not possessed the strength of constitution,\nthat they may have been thought not to have had the intellect of men. It\nis possible, because domestic cares and the rearing of children have\nbeen consigned to them, that other occupations may not have been\nconsidered as falling within the province of their stations. But\nwhatever may have been the causes, polygamy or concubinage has\nunquestionably been the greatest, in hindering women from occupying an\nuseful, dignified, and important station in society. This custom has\nheld them up as little better than slaves, or than living toys or\nplay-things. And this custom has prevailed over a great portion of the\nglobe from times of the earliest antiquity to the present day.\n\nAmong the many circumstances which contributed to give importance to\nwomen in Europe, we may reckon the introduction of chivalry. Honour and\nhumanity were the characteristics of this institution. Hence weakness\nwas to be protected by it. And as weakness was more particularly the lot\nof women, so these became more peculiarly the objects of its care. Hence\nwomen began to feel a consequence, which had been hitherto denied them.\nThey were treated with politeness and tenderness by all, and men began\nto be even solicitous of their applause. But though this was the case,\nchivalry did not elevate them beyond a certain height. It rendered a\npolite attention to them essential. But this attention was an homage to\nthe weakness of females, and not to their intellect. It presupposed no\ncapacity of usefulness in them, for every thing, in fact, was to be done\nfor them, and they were to do but little for themselves.\n\nThe revival of learning in the twelfth century was another cause of\nadding to the importance of women. As men became more learned, they\nbegan to respect the power of the human understanding. They began to be\nacquainted, by means of history, with the talents of women in former\nages. They began to give a better education to their families. These\ncircumstances produced a more enlarged opinion of female genius. Hence\nlearning became an instrument of giving new consequence to women. But it\ngave it to them on a principle different from that of chivalry: for\nwhereas chivalry insisted upon a polite attention to them on account of\nthe weakness of their constitutions, learning insisted upon it on\naccount of the strength of their understanding, or because they were\nintellectual and reasonable beings. But that which contributed most to\nmake women important in society, was the introduction of the Christian\nreligion. By the mild spirit which it diffused, it produced a certain\nsuavity of behaviour towards them. By the abolition of polygamy it\nallowed of no division of a man's love among many women, but limited it\nto one. Thus it made one woman dearer than another, and of course every\nindividual woman of consequence. By the abolition of polygamy, it added\nto their consequence again, by raising them from the rank of slaves to\nthat of the companions of men. This importance it increased again by the\ninculcation of specific duties towards them, and by the doctrine, that,\nas all, without exception, were equally accountable for their actions,\nand the Divine Being was no respecter of persons, so all, whether men or\nwomen, were of equal importance in his sight.\n\nBut though Christianity has operated, as it always will, where it is\nfelt in the heart, to the production of a tender attention to women, and\nto the procuring of an honourable station for them in society, we have\nyet to lament, that this operation has not been more general,\nconsidering our public profession of this religion, than we find it at\nthe present day. Women are still seldom appreciated as they ought to be.\nThey are still weighed in a different scale from men. Their education is\nstill limited, as if their understandings, notwithstanding the\nhonourable testimony which history has borne concerning them, were\nincapable of high attainments. If homage be paid to their beauty, very\nlittle is paid to their opinions. Limits also are assigned to the sphere\nof their utility. To engage in other pursuits than they do would be\nthought strange. In short, the education they receive marks the inferior\nsituation for which they are considered to be designed. Its tendency is\nmostly to outward shew. Formed like dolls or play-things, which are\ngiven to children to captivate by outside appearances, they are\ngenerally rendered incapable of exhibiting great talents, or of\noccupying an important station in life.\n\nBut it seems to have been reserved for the Quakers us a religious body,\nto insist upon that full practical treatment and estimation of women,\nwhich ought to take place wherever Christianity is professed. They have\naccordingly given to the females of their own society their proper\nweight in the scale of created beings. Believing them to have adequate\ncapacities, and to be capable of great usefulness, they have admitted\nthem to a share in the administration of almost all the offices which\nbelong to their religious discipline, so that, independently of their\nprivate, they have a public character, like the men.\n\nIn the first volume, I had occasion to observe, when treating on the\nsubject of the discipline, that representatives were chosen by the men\nout of their own body to the different meetings which were then named.\nJust so it is with the Quaker women. Representatives are appointed out\nof these by the other women on similar occasions. I stated also that, at\ncertain times, the men assembled by themselves; that they discussed the\nbusiness that came before them; that they replied to those who supported\nopposite opinions to their own; and that the young men were present\nduring these discussions. So it is with the women. They sit in council\nby themselves. They argue and reply in like manner. The young females\nare also present. I stated also, that during these meetings of the men,\none of them held the office of drawing up and recording the minutes of\nthe proceedings or resolutions that had taken place. The women also\nappoint one of their own body to the same office. I stated again, that,\nin these meetings of the men, some were chosen as a committee to act in\nparticular cases. So also are women chosen to act as a committee by\ntheir own meetings. I explained the nature of the office of overseer,\nand I observed that there were overseers among the men. There are also\noverseers among the women. I explained the nature of the office of\nelder, and I observed that there were elders among the men. The women\nhave their elders likewise. The men were said to preach as in other\nsocieties. The women are permitted to preach also. In short, if the men\nconsider themselves to be qualified for any office belonging their\nreligious discipline, they believe their women to be equally capable of\nholding the same. No distinction is made as to the powers of usefulness\nbetween the men and the women of this society. There are few offices\nheld by men, but there is a corresponding one for those of the other\nsex.[41]\n\n[Footnote 41: The principal exceptions are, that they are not\ncorrespondents, arbitrators, legislators, or on committees of appeal.]\n\nThe execution of these and other, public offices, by which the Quaker\nwomen have an important station allotted them in society, cannot but\nhave an important influence on their minds. It gives them, in fact, a\nnew cast of character. It imparts to them, in the first place, a\nconsiderable knowledge of human nature. It produces in them thought, and\nforesight, and judgment. It creates in them a care and concern for the\ndistressed. It elevates their ideas. It raises in them a sense of their\nown dignity and importance as human beings, which sets them above every\nthing that is little and trifling, and above all idle parade and shew.\nFond as they are of the animal creation, you do not see them lavishing\ntheir caresses on lap-dogs, to the contempt of the poor and miserable of\ntheir own species. You never see them driving from shop to shop to make\nup a morning's amusement, by examining and throwing out of order the\nvarious articles of tradesmen, giving them great trouble, and buying\nnothing in return. You never find them calling upon those whom they know\nto be absent from their homes, thus making their mimic visits, and\nleaving their useless cards. Nothing, in short, so ridiculous or\ndegrading, is known among them. Their pursuits are rational, useful, and\ndignified. And they may be said in general to exhibit a model for the\nemployment of time, worthy of the character they profess.\n\n\n\n\nMISCELLANEOUS PARTICULARS\nRELATIVE TO THE\nQUAKERS\n\n\n_Quakers a happy people--Subordinate causes of this happiness--namely,\ntheir comfortable situation--their attachment to domestic life--their\nalmost constant employment--this happiness not broken like that of\nothers, by an interruption of the routine of constituted pleasures--or\nby anger and other passions or by particular enquiries and notions about\nreligion._\n\n\n\n\nIf a person were to judge of the Quakers by the general gravity of\ntheir countenances, and were to take into consideration, at the same\ntime, the circumstance, that they never partook of the amusements of the\nworld, in which he placed a part of his own pleasures, he would be\ninduced to conclude, that they had dull and gloomy minds, and that they\ncould not be upon the whole a happy people. Such a conclusion, however,\nwould be contrary to the fact. On my first acquaintance with them I was\nsurprised, seeing the little variety of their pursuits, at the happiness\nwhich they appeared to enjoy, but as I came to a knowledge of the\nconstitution and state of the society, the solution of the problem\nbecame easy.\n\nIt will not be difficult to develope the subordinate causes of this\nhappiness.[42] To shew the first of these, I shall view the society in\nthe three classes of the rich, the middle, and the poor. Of the rich, I\nmay observe, that they are not so affluent in general as the rich of\nother bodies. Of the middle, that they are upon the whole in better\ncircumstances than others of the same class in life. Of the poor, that\nthey are not so poor as others in a similar condition. Now the rich in\nthe Quaker society have of course as many of the comforts of life in\ntheir power as they desire. The middle classes in this society have more\nof these than the middle classes of other denominations. The poor in the\nsame society have also more of these, in consequence of the handsome\nprovision which is made for them, than others in a similar situation\nwith themselves. There is therefore upon the whole a greater\ndistribution of the comforts of life, among all the ranks of this\nsociety, than is to be found in any other community, in proportion to\ntheir numbers. But this superior state, in point of comfortable\ncircumstances, ought to be undoubtedly a source of superior happiness.\nFor where the comforts of life are wanting, it is in vain to suppose men\ncan be happy, unless their minds are more than usually comforted by\ntheir religion.\n\n[Footnote 42: Religion, which includes positive virtues, and an absence\nfrom vices, joined to a peaceful conscience and a well grounded hope of\na better life, is the first and greatest cause of happiness, and may\nbelong to all. But I confine myself, in this chapter, to such causes\nonly as may be called subordinate, and in which the Quakers are more\nparticularly concerned.]\n\nAnother source of their happiness may be found in their domestic\nsituation. The Quakers, as I have observed before, in consequence of\ndenying themselves the pleasures of the world, have been obliged to\ncherish those which are found in domestic life. In the fashionable\nworld, men and their wives seldom follow their pleasures together. They\nresemble the little wooden figures of the man and the woman, which, by\nmoving backwards and forwards in a small painted house, denote the\nchanges of the weather. While one of these is within, the other is out\nof doors. But this is not the case with the Quakers. The husband and\nwife are not so easily separable. They visit generally together. They\nare remarked as affectionate. You never hear of intrigues among them.\nThey are long in each others society at a time, and they are more at\nhome than almost any other people. For neither the same pleasures, nor\nthe same occupations, separate these as others. The husband is never\nseen at a play, nor at a tavern, nor at a dance. Neither the naval nor\nthe military profession summons him abroad. He is seldom concerned in\nvoyages as a mariner. Hence he must of necessity be much at home. Add to\nthis, that the Quakers have generally families, with the power of\nproviding for them. But these circumstances render their homes agreeable\nto them, and increase their domestic delights.\n\nA third source of the happiness of the Quakers arises from the\ncircumstance of their being almost constantly employed. Few are so\nmiserable as those who have nothing to do, or who, unable to find\nemployment, feel a dull vacuum in their time. And the converse of this\nproposition is equally true, that the time of those flies pleasantly\naway, who can employ it rationally. But there is rarely such a being\namong the Quakers as a lazy person, gaping about for amusement. Their\ntrades or callings occupy the greater portion of their time. Their\nmeetings of discipline, as has been already shewn, occupy their time\nagain. The execution of the various offices to which they may be\nappointed, such as of overseers, or elders, or committee-men, or\narbitrators in disputes, occupies more. Few Quakers, but particularly\nthe more respectable, have many vacant hours. And here it may not be\nimproper to remark, that the discipline of the society, organized as it\nis, is productive of a cheerful and friendly intercourse of the\nmembers, or of a sociable manner of spending their time, one with\nanother. The monthly meetings usually bring two or three particular\nmeetings together. The members of these, when they have dispatched their\nbusiness, retire to the houses of their friends, where they take their\nrefreshment, and indulge in the pleasures of conversation. The quarterly\nmeetings again bring the monthly meetings of the county into one. Here\nagain, when the business is over, they partake of a similar repast.\nHence a renewal of conversation and of friendship. The yearly meeting\nagain brings many, from the quarterly together. And here the Quakers\nfrom all parts of the kingdom have an opportunity of seeing and\nconversing with one another. I may add too, that many individuals in the\ninterim, who travel, whether on business or on pleasure, or on religious\nerrands, enlarge this friendly intercourse; for few Quakers pass through\nthe towns where Quakers live, without calling upon these, so that there\nare many sources within the customs and constitution of the society,\nthat are productive of cheerful hours.[43]\n\n[Footnote 43: It may be mentioned here, that the Quakers acknowledge\ntheir relations to a much farther degree of consanguinity, than other\npeople. This relationship, where it can be distinctly traced, is\ncommemorated by the appellation of cousin. This custom therefore is a\ncause of endearment when they meet, and of course of additional\npleasure.]\n\nBut here it will probably be said, that these sources of happiness,\nwhich have been hitherto described, are common to many others. I grant\nthey are to individuals, but not to communities at large. No society has\nprobably so many of the comforts of life in its power, number for\nnumber, and rank for rank, as that of the Quakers. None probably so\nwholly domestic. None, where the members of it have such frequent\nintercourse with each other, or where they are so connected in the bonds\nof brotherly love, and none, as far as I know men, who have such\nconstant employment for their time.\n\nHaving explained some of those, which may be considered as positive\nsources of happiness to the Quakers, I shall now shew what may be causes\nof unhappiness to others, and that the Quakers seldom partake of these.\nSuch an exposition, however strange it may appear at the first sight,\nwill be materially to the point. For though an exemption from the causes\nof the uneasiness of others can never be admitted as a proof of the\nexistence of positive enjoyment among the Quakers, yet if the latter\nhave solid sources of happiness of their own, and these are not in any\nmaterial degree diminished by the causes of the uneasiness of the\nformer, there will be left to them, because there will be no drawback, a\ncertain portion of happiness with less alloy. And here it is obvious at\nthe first sight, that the Quakers have not the same, nor so many wants\nas others, with respect to their pleasures, and that they do not admit\nthe same things to be component parts of them. Hence they have not the\nsame causes of uneasiness from the chance of interruption. Hence also\ntheir happiness is more in their own power. What individual can\nannihilate the comforts which arise from their own industry, or their\ndomestic enjoyments, or their friendly intercourse with each other, or\ntheir employments, which arise from their discipline, and from their\ntrade and callings? But how easily are many of the reputed enjoyments of\nthe world to be broken? Some people place their happiness in a routine\nof constituted pleasures. In proportion as these have been frequently\nresorted to, they will have got into the habit as the necessary\nenjoyments of life. Take away then from persons in such habits the power\nof these their ordinary gratifications, and you will make them languid,\nand even wretched. There will be a wide chasm, which they will not know\nhow to fill up; a dull vacuum of time, which will make their existence\ninsipid; a disappointment, which will carry with it a lacerating sting.\nIn some of the higher circles of life, accustomed to such rounds of\npleasure, who does not know that the Sunday is lamented as the most\ncruel interrupter of their enjoyments?--No shopping in the morning--no\ntheatre or route in the evening--Nothing but dull heavy church stares\nthem in the face. But I will not carry this picture to the length to\nwhich I am capable. I shall only observe that, where persons adopt a\nroutine of constituted pleasures, they are creating fictitious wants for\nthemselves, and making their own happiness subject to interruption, and\nputting it into the power of others. The Quakers, however, by the total\nrejection of all the amusements included in the routine alluded to, know\nnothing of the drawbacks or disadvantages described.\n\nThe Quakers again are exempt from several of the causes of uneasiness,\nwhich attach to the world at large. Some go to the gaming-table, and\nruin themselves and their families, and destroy the peace of their\nminds. But the Quakers are never found injuring their fortunes or their\nhappiness by such disreputable means.\n\nOthers disturb the harmony of their lives by intemperate sallies of\npassion. It has been well observed, that, whatever may be the duration\nof a man's anger, so much time he loses of the enjoyment of his life.\nThe Quakers, however, have but few miserable moments on this account. A\ndue subjugation of the passions has been generally instilled into them\nfrom early youth. Provocation seldom produces in them any intemperate\nwarmth, or takes away, in any material degree, from the apparent\ncomposure of their minds.\n\nOthers again, by indulging their anger, are often hurried into actions\nof which the consequences vex and torment them, and of which they often\nbitterly repent. But the Quakers endeavour to avoid quarrelling, and\ntherefore they often steer clear of the party and family feuds of\nothers. They avoid also, as much as possible, the law, so that they have\nseldom any of the lawsuits to harass and disturb them, which interrupt\nthe tranquillity of others by the heavy expence, and by the lasting\nenmities they occasion.\n\nThe Quakers again are exempt from many of the other passions which\ncontribute to the unhappiness of the world at large. Some men have an\nalmost boundless ambition. They are desirous of worldly honours, or of\neminent stations, or of a public name, and pursue these objects in their\npassage through life with an avidity which disturbs the repose of their\nminds. But the Quakers scarcely know any such feeling as that of\nambition, and of course scarcely any of the torments that belong to it.\nThey are less captivated by the splendour of honours than any other\npeople, and they had rather live in the memory of a few valuable\nfriends, than be handed down to posterity for those deeds, which\ngenerally constitute the basis of public character.\n\nOthers again, who cannot obtain these honourable distractions, envy\nthose who possess them. They envy the very coronet upon the coach, as it\npasses by. But the Quakers can have no such feelings as these. They pass\nin their pilgrimage through life regardless of such distinctions, or\nthey estimate them but as the baubles of the, day. It would be folly\ntherefore to suppose, that they could be envious of that which they do\nnot covet.\n\nThe Quakers again are exempt from some of the occasions of uneasiness\nwhich arise to others from considerations on the subject of religion.\nSome people, for example, pry into what are denominated mysteries. The\nmore they look into these, the less they understand them, or rather, the\nmore they are perplexed and confounded. Such an enquiry too, while it\nbewilders the understanding, generally affects the mind. But the Quakers\navoid all such curious enquiries as these, and therefore they suffer no\ninterruption of their enjoyment from this source. Others again, by the\nadoption of gloomy creeds, give rise frequently to melancholy, and thus\nlay in for themselves a store of fuel for the torment of their own\nminds. But the Quakers espouse no doctrines, which, while they conduct\nthemselves uprightly, can interrupt the tranquillity of their lives. It\nis possible there may be here and mere an instance where their feelings\nmay be unduly affected, in consequence of having carried the doctrine of\nthe influence of the Spirit, as far as it relates to their own\ncondition, beyond its proper bounds. But individuals, who may fell into\nerrors of this nature, are, it is to be hoped, but few; because any\nmelancholy, which may arise from these causes, must be the effect, not\nof genuine Quakerism, but of a degenerate superstition.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n_Good, which the Quakers have done as a society upon earth--by their\ngeneral good example--by shewing that persecution for religion is\nineffectual--by shewing the practicability of the subjugation of the\nwill of man--the influence of Christianity on character--the inefficacy\nof capital punishments--the best object of punishment--the\npracticability of living, either in a private or a public capacity, in\nharmony and peace--the superiority of the policy of the Gospel over the\npolicy of the world._\n\n\nWhen we consider man as distinguished from other animals by the rational\nand spiritual faculties which he possesses, we cannot but conceive it to\nbe a reproach to his nature, if he does not distinguish himself from\nthese, or, if he does not leave some trace behind him, that he has\nexisted rationally and profitably both to himself and others. But if\nthis be expected of man, considered abstractedly as man, much more will\nit be expected of him, if he has had the advantages of knowing the\ndoctrines of Christianity, and the sublime example of the great Author\nof that religion. And the same observation, I apprehend, will hold true\nwith respect to societies of men. For if they have done no good during\ntheir existence, we cannot see how they can escape censure, or that it\nwould not have been better that they had not existed at all. This\nconsideration leads me to enquire, what good the Quakers have done since\ntheir institution, as a society, upon earth.\n\nIt was said of the Quakers in George Fox's time, after their character\nhad been established, that, \"if they did not stand, the nation would run\ninto debauchery.\" By this I apprehend it was meant, that it was a\ndesirable thing to have a people to look up to, who, residing in the\n'midst of a vicious community, professed to be followers of that which\nwas right, and to resist the current of bad example in their own times;\nor that such a people might be considered as a leaven, that might leaven\nthe whole lump, but that, if this leaven were lost, the community might\nlose one of its visible incitements to virtue. Now in this way the\nQuakers have had a certain general usefulness in the world. They have\nkept more, I apprehend, to first principles, than any other people. They\nhave afforded a moral example. This example ought to have been useful to\nothers. To those who were well inclined, it should have been as a torch\nto have lighted up their virtue, and it should have been a perpetual\nmonument for reproof to others, who were entering upon a career of vice.\n\nThe first particular good, after the general one now stated, which the\nQuakers have done, has been, that they have shewn to those who have been\nspectators of their conduct, that all persecution for matters of\nreligion, as it is highly criminal in the eyes of the Supreme Being, so\nit is inadequate to the end proposed. This proposition, indeed, seems to\nbe tolerably Well understood at the present day. At least they whose\nminds have been well informed, acknowledge it. The history of martyrdom,\nby which we learn how religion soars above all suffering, how the\ntorments inflicted on the body are unable to reach the mind, how the\nmoral Governor of the world reigns triumphant upon earth, how tyranny\nand oppression fall prostrate before virtue, losing their malignant aim,\nhas been one, among other causes, of this knowledge. But as history is\nknown but to few, and is not remembered by all, the Quakers are\nparticularly useful by holding up the truth of the proposition to our\ndaily sight, that is, by the example they continue to afford us of\nbearing their testimony in all cases where the civil magistrate is\nconcerned on the one hand, and their consciences on the other.\n\nA second good, which the Quakers have done, is by shewing, as a whole\nbody, the power of Christianity in the subjugation of the will of men,\nand its influence on their character.\n\nThey are living proofs, in the first instance, that human nature is not\nthe stubborn thing, which many have imagined it to be; that, however it\nmay be depraved, it is still corrigible; and that this correction is\nuniversally practicable, for that there are as various dispositions in\nthis society as in any other in proportion to its numbers. They shew,\nthat Christianity can alter the temper, that it can level enmities, and\nthat there is no just occasion for any to despair. And they are living\nproofs, in the second, as to what kind of character Christianity, where\nit is rightly received, will produce; They are living proofs, that it\ncan produce sobriety, inoffensiveness, simplicity, charity, peace, and\nthe domestic and other virtues. Now though every private Christian can\nshew in himself an example of these effects, yet the Quakers shew it,\nnot by producing solitary instances, but as a body; the temper of the\ngreat mass of their members being apparently cast in the same mould, and\ntheir character, as a society, being acknowledged to be that of a moral\npeople.\n\nAnd here I cannot but stop for a moment to pay a just tribute to the\nQuaker system, as one of the best modes of the Christian Religion; for\nwhether the doctrines which belong to it, or whether the discipline\nwhich it promotes, or whether both of them conjointly, produce the\neffects which have been just related, certain it is, that they are\nproduced.[44] But that system of religion is surely the most excellent,\nwhich produces, first, the greatest, and, secondly, the most universal\neffect upon those who profess it. For what is the use of any particular\ncreed, or where is the advantage of any one creed above another, if it\ncannot give the great characteristic marks of a Christian, a subjugated\nmind and a moral character? What signifies the creed of any particular\ndescription of Christian professors, if it has no influence on the\nheart, or if we see professors among these giving way to their passions,\nor affording an inconsistent example to the world.\n\n[Footnote 44: Many of the Quakers in America, influenced by custom,\nAdopted the practice of holding slaves. But on a due recurrence to their\nprinciples they gave freedom to these unconditionally, thus doing\nanother public good in the world, and giving another example of the\npower of religion on the mind.]\n\nThe Quakers have given, again, in the reforms, which, in the first\nvolume, I described them to have introduced into legislation, a\nbeautiful and practical lesson of jurisprudence to the governors of all\nnations. They have shewn the inefficacy of capital punishments; that the\nbest object in the punishment of offenders is their reformation; that\nthis accords best with the genius and spirit of the Christian Religion;\nand that while such a system, when followed, restores the abandoned to\nusefulness in society, it diminishes the number of crimes.[45]\n\n[Footnote 45: See Vol. I, Sect. 4, p. 198.]\n\nThey have shewn again, by their own example, that it is not so difficult\nfor men to live peaceably together, as has been usually believed; and\nthey have exhibited the means by which they have effected this desirable\nend in life. And as they have proved, that this is practicable in\nprivate, so they have proved, as has appeared in this volume, that it is\npracticable in public life, or, which is the same thing, they have\nshewn, that in the intercourse which exists between nations, there is no\nnecessity for wars.\n\nThey have shewn and established again by the two latter instances, both\nof which relate to government, a proposition which seems scarcely to be\nbelieved, if we judge by the practice of statesmen, but the truth of\nwhich ought for ever to be insisted upon, that the policy of the Gospel\nis superior to the policy of the world.\n\nThis is a portion of the good which the Quakers have done since their\nappearance as a society in the world. What other good they have done it\nis not necessary to specify. And as to what they would do, if they were\npermitted to become universal legislators, it may be a pleasing subject\nfor contemplation, but it does not fall within the limits of the present\nchapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n_General opinion, that the Quakers are on the decline as a\nsociety--Observations upon this subject--Opinion believed, upon the\nwhole, to be true--Causes of this supposed declension--Mixed\nmarriages--Tithes--Pursuit of trade, as connected with the peculiar\nhabits of the society, and a residence in the towns--Education._\n\n\nI have often heard it suggested as matter for conversation, whether the\nQuakers were increasing or decreasing in their number, and the result\nhas always been an opinion, that they were a declining body.\n\nWhen we consider the simplicity and even philosophy of the Quaker\nreligion, the preservation it affords against the follies and\ndifficulties of life, and the happiness to which it ultimately leads, we\nshall wonder that the progress of the society, in point of number, has\nnot been greater than we find it. And when we consider, on the other\nhand, how difficult it is to be a Quaker, how much it is against the\ntemper and disposition of man to be singular, or to resist the tide of\ncustom and fashion, and to undergo an ordeal of suffering on these\naccounts, we shall wonder that it has not been long ago extinct.\n\nThat many are disowned by the society, in consequence of which its\nnumbers are diminished, is true. That others come into it from other\nquarters, by which an increase is given to it, independently of its own\nnatural population, is true also. But whether the new members exceed the\ndisowned, or the disowned the new, is the question to be resolved. Now\nno people have had better opportunities of ascertaining this point,\nthan the Quakers themselves. By means of their monthly meetings they\nmight with ease have instituted a census on a given day. They might have\nrenewed such a census. They might have compared the returns in every\ncase. But as no such census has ever been made, the Quakers themselves,\nthough they have their ideas, cannot speak with particular accuracy, on\nthis subject.\n\nThe general opinion, however, is, and the Quakers, I apprehend, will not\ndeny but lament it, that those who go out of the society are upon the\nwhole more numerous than those who come into it by convincement, and\ntherefore that there is, upon the whole, a decrease among them.\n\nOf the truth of this opinion, some have adduced as a proof, that the\nquarterly meetings have been reduced to three fourths of their original\nnumber. But this is not to be considered as a certain criterion of the\nfact. For it is by no means uncommon to find, if the Quakers decrease in\none county, that they increase in another. It has also been adduced,\nthat many particular meetings have been broken up, or that\nmeeting-houses in the country are standing deserted, or without Quakers\nto worship in them. But neither can this be considered as any\ninfallible proof of the point. For it frequently happens, that if the\nQuakers become less numerous in any particular village, they become more\nso in some of the towns of the same county. Thus no true judgment can be\nformed upon these principles. The Quaker population, in this respect, on\naccount of its movements, resembles the sea, which, while it loses on\none part of its shores or boundaries, gains upon another.\n\nThere are, however, considerations, which may be more decisive of the\nfact.\n\nIn the time of George Fox the number of those converted to his\nprinciples was immense.[46] This number, if we consult all the facts\nthat might be adduced on the occasion, continued to be large in after\ntimes. Now it must be observed, that the Quakers are a sober and\ntemperate people, that they generally marry at a proper age, and that\nthey have large families. It is therefore impossible, if the descendants\nof the early Quakers had continued in the society, that their number\nshould not have been much larger than we find it at the present day,\nand, if so, there must have been a secession or an expulsion, amounting,\nnotwithstanding all influx by conversion, to a decrease.\n\n[Footnote 46: Although the remark may be just, that in the time of\nGeorge Fox \"a great number were converted to his principles,\" yet a\nsmall portion of those were actually received into membership, and the\nsame remark may correctly be made even in the present day: as it is\nbelieved that immense numbers are convinced of the truth as held by the\nQuakers, but owing to their \"not being willing to undergo an ordeal of\nsuffering on account of their principles,\" a small portion of those\napply to be admitted into the society. AMERICAN EDITOR.]\n\nIt is obvious again that the Quakers, in consequence of their industry\nand their frugal habits, must almost unavoidably grow rich. Now if the\ndescendants of the early Quakers had remained in the society, we should\nhave seen more overgrown fortunes in it, than among others in proportion\nto their numbers. But this is contrary to the fact. The very richest, as\nthe world now goes, would not be considered to be particularly rich; and\nit is a truth that those who are affluent among them have generally been\nthe founders, by means of their industry and integrity, of their own\nfortunes.\n\nIt is, again, a matter of observation among the Quakers, now grown into\na truth, that if men grow rich in the society, their grand-children\ngenerally leave it. But surely this amounts to a confession, that in a\nparticular part of the society there are the seeds of a regular and\nsuccessive decrease.\n\nThat the Quakers then upon the whole are a declining body, there can be\nno doubt.[47] While I state it, I lament it. I lament that there should\nbe any diminution of number among those who have done so much good in\nthe world, and who have so justly obtained the reputation of a moral\npeople. This consideration will lead me to enquire into the causes of\nthis decline. It will impel me also to enquire into the means of remedy.\nHow far I may be successful in the latter attempt, I am unable to say.\nBut it will always be a pleasing consideration to me, to have tried to\nprevent the decrease of a virtuous people.\n\n[Footnote 47: Against this decrease we cannot set off any great increase\nby admission into membership. The dress, the language, the fear of being\nsingular, the discipline with its various restraints, the unwillingness\nof men to suffer where suffering can be avoided, these and other\ncircumstances are great impediments in the way of an entrance into this\nsociety; and to this I may add, that applications for admission into it\nare not always complied with.]\n\nWith respect then to the causes of this decline, to which I shall\nconfine myself in this chapter, they will be found in the causes of\ndisownment. Now of these, some may be called original and immediate, and\nothers original and remote.\n\nOf original and immediate, the first is what the Quakers call mixed\nmarriage. It has been before stated, that those who marry out of the\nsociety are disowned, and the reasons for such disownments have been\ngiven.\n\nA second will be found in tithes. They who pay these are ultimately\ndisowned. And they are disowned as well for the payment of lay-tithes,\nas of those which are ecclesiastical.\n\nOf the original and remote, a very prolific cause is the pursuit of\ntrade, connected as it is with the peculiar habits of the society, and a\nresidence in the towns.[48]\n\n[Footnote 48: Owing perhaps to the causes alleged by the author, the\nsociety may have decreased in England, yet it is certain that in this\ncountry the number of Quakers has very considerably increased. AMERICAN\nEDITOR.]\n\nTo shew this I must observe, first, that the poor, comparatively\nspeaking, are seldom disowned, for they know that they[49] shall never\nbe so well provided for in any other society. I must observe again, that\nthe members of the middle classes are also, comparatively speaking, but\nseldom disowned. These must live by trade, but if so, they cannot be\nbetter off than as Quakers. The direct conclusion then, from these\nobservations, will be, that the greater number of those who are\ndisowned, will be found among the rich, or among such as are growing\nrich. Hence it appears, that, as far as this original and remote cause\nis concerned, my enquiry must be, how it happens, that members of this\nparticular class should be excluded from membership more than those of\nany other.\n\n[Footnote 49: I by no means intend to say, that the poor do not remain\nin the society from an attachment to its principles, but that this may\nbe a political motive also.]\n\nIn answer to this enquiry I must say, as I have observed before, that\nQuakers in trade, having as good abilities, and as much diligence and\nintegrity as others, will succeed as well as others in it, but that,\nhaving less sources of outgoings, their savings will be generally\ngreater. Hence they will have before their eyes the sight of a greater\naccumulation of wealth. But in proportion as such accumulation of\nsubstance is beheld, the love of it increases. Now while this love\nincreases, or while their hearts are unduly fixed on the mammon of the\nworld, they allow many little inconsistencies in their children to\nescape their reproof. But, besides this, as the religion and the love of\nthe mammon of the world are at variance, they have a less spiritual\ndiscernment than before. Hence they do not see the same irregularities\nin the same light. From this omission to check these irregularities on\nthe one hand, and from this decay of their spiritual vision on the\nother, their children have greater liberties allowed them than others in\nthe same society. But as these experience this indulgence, or as these\nadmit the customs and fashions of the world, they grow more fond of\nthem. Now, as they live in towns, the spark that is excited is soon\nfanned into a flame. Fashions and fashionable things, which they cannot\nbut see daily before their eyes, begin to get the dominion. When they\nare visited by wholesome advisers, they dislike the interference. They\nknow they shall be rich. They begin to think the discipline of the\nsociety a cruel restraint. They begin to dislike the society itself,\nand, committing irregularities, they are sometimes in consequence\ndisowned. But, if they should escape disownment themselves, they entail\nit generally upon their children. These are brought up in a still looser\nmanner than themselves. The same process goes on with these as with\ntheir parents, but in a still higher degree, till a conduct utterly\ninconsistent with the principles of the society occasions them to be\nseparated from it. Thus in the same manner, as war, according to the old\nsaying, begets poverty, and poverty peace, so the pursuit of trade, with\nthe peculiar habits of the society, leads to riches, riches to fashion\nand licentiousness, and fashion and licentiousness to disownment, so\nthat many Quakers educate their children as if there were to be no\nQuakers in the second generation from themselves. And thus, though,\nstrictly speaking, irregularities are the immediate occasion of these\ndisownments, they are ultimately to be attributed to the original and\nremote cause as now described.[50]\n\n[Footnote 50: I hope I shall not be understood as involving the rich in\na promiscuous censure. I know as amiable examples among these and among\ntheir children, as among others of the society. But we must naturally\nexpect more deviations among the rich, number for number, than among\nothers.]\n\nThat this is by no means an unreasonable account, I shall shew in some\nmeasure by an appeal to facts. The American Quakers sprang from the\nEnglish. The English, though drained in consequence, were still\nconsiderable, when compared with the former. But it is remarkable, that\nthe American Quakers exceed the English by at least five times their\nnumber at the present day. Now it must undoubtedly be confessed, that\nthe Americans have advantages, as far as this fact is concerned, which\nthe English have not. They have no tithes as a cause of disownment.\nTheir families also, I believe, increase more rapidly. Many persons\nalso, as will be the case in a country that is not fully settled, live\nin the neighbourhoods of the Quakers, but at a distance from those of\nother religious denominations, and therefore, wishing to worship\nsomewhere, seek membership with them. But I apprehend that a great cause\nof this disparity of number lies in this difference of the situation of\nthe two, that whereas the great Quaker population in England is in the\ntowns with but a remnant in the country, the great Quaker population in\nAmerica is in the country with but a remnant in the towns.[51] And that\nthe Americans themselves believe, that the place of the residence of\ntheir members is connected in some measure with the increase and\ndecrease of their society, it is fair to presume, from this\ncircumstance, that, in several of the quarterly meetings in America,\nadvice has been given to parents to bring up their children in the\ncountry, and, as little as possible, in the towns.\n\n[Footnote 51: The number of the Quakers is undoubtedly great in one or\ntwo of the cities in America, but the whole town-population is not\ngreat, when compared with the whole country-population there.]\n\nAnother of the original and remote causes is education. This, as it\nbecomes promotive of the diminution of the society, is of two kinds. The\nfirst may be called alien. The second is such as is afforded in the\nsociety itself.\n\nSome parents, growing rich, and wishing to give their children a better\neducation, than they can get in their own schools, send them to others\nto be instructed. Now the result has not been desirable, where it has\nbeen designed, that such children should be continued Quakers. For how\nis a poor solitary Quaker boy to retain the peculiarities belonging to\nhis religious profession, in the face of the whole school? Will not his\nopinions and manners be drowned as it were in the torrent of the\nopinions and manners of the rest? How can he get out of this whirlpool\npure? How, on his return, will he harmonize with his own society? Will\nnot either he, or his descendants, leave it? Such an education may make\nhim undoubtedly both a good and an enlightened man, and so far one of\nthe most desirable objects in life will have been accomplished, but it\ncertainly tends to destroy the peculiar institution of Quakerism.\n\nThe education, which is afforded in the society itself, is divisible\nagain into two kinds, into that which is moral or religious, and into\nthat which is literary or philosophical.\n\nIt must undoubtedly be confessed, in looking into that which is moral or\nreligious, that sufficient care is not always taken with regard to\nyouth. We sometimes see fathers and sons, and mothers and daughters, so\ndifferent in their appearance and deportment, that we should scarcely\nhave imagined them to be of the same family. I am not now speaking of\nthose parents, who may live in the towns, and who may be more than\nordinarily devoted to the mammon of the world, but of some who, living\nboth in town and country, give an example of a liberal and amiable\nspirit, and of a blameless conduct to the world. That the former should\nneglect and lose sight of their offspring, when their moral vision is\nclouded by an undue eagerness after money, is not to be wondered at, but\nthat the latter should do it, is surprising. It is certainly true that\nsome of these are too indulgent in their families, contrary to the plan\nand manner of their own education, or that they do not endeavour to nip\nall rising inconsistencies in the bud. The consequence is, that their\nchildren get beyond control in time, when they lament in vain their\ndeparture from the simplicity of the society. Hence the real cause of\ntheir disownment, which occasionally follows, is not in the children\nrunning out of bounds, but in the parents running out of bounds in the\nmanners of their children. And here I may add, that some parents,\ndwelling too much on the disuse of forms in religion, because such\ndisuse is inculcated by their own doctrines, run into the opposite\nextreme, and bring up their children in too much ignorance of the\ngeneral plan of Christianity, as it is laid down in the letter of the\nscriptures.\n\nWith respect to education, as for it is literary or philosophical, it is\nfrequently sufficient for those upon whom it is bestowed. But it does\nnot appear to me to be carried to its proper extent, in the case of the\nchildren of the rich, when I consider how friendly it might be made\ntowards the promotion of virtue. Some, we know, growing wealthy, have\nhad children when they were poorer, and, when in this poorer state, they\nhave given them an education which has been suitable to it, not\ncalculating upon their future rise in life. But their children, having\nhad such a limited education, have not had that which has been proper\nfor their subsequent station in life. Others again, who have been born\nin better circumstances, have, on account of an undue depreciation of\nhuman knowledge, educated their children as improperly for their\nstation as the former. The children then, in both these cases, have not\nhad an education sufficient, with the prospect of riches before them, to\nkeep them out of the way of harm. They have not had, in addition to any\nreligious instruction, that taste given them for sublime pursuits, which\nshould make them despise those which were frivolous. Thus many of the\ncorruptive opinions, fashions, and amusements of the world have charmed\nthem. Giving way to these, they have been overcome. When overcome, they\nhave run into excesses, and for these excesses they have been disowned.\nBut surely, with a better education, they would have thought all such\ncorruptive opinions, fashions, and amusements, as below their notice,\nand unworthy of their countenance and support.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Supposed remedies for the diminution of some of these\ncauses--Regulations in the case of mixed marriages--Measures to be\nadopted in the pursuit of trade--Education, as it is moral or\nreligious, to be more strictly enforced in some families--as it is\nliterary or philosophical, to be carried to a greater extent among the\nchildren of the rich--Object of this latter education--Nature of it as\nconsisting both knowledge and prohibitions--How it would operate against\nthe fascinating allurements of the world, or to the end proposal._\n\n\nI Purpose now to suggest, as briefly as I can, such opinions, as, if\nadopted, might possibly operate as remedies to some of the evils which\nhave been described. In doing this I am aware of the difficulties that\nawait me. I am sensible that I ought not to be too sanguine as to the\nresult of all my observations upon this subject and yet, I cannot but\nthink, that I may be successful in some of them. Arduous, however, as\nthe task, and dubious as my success may be, I am encouraged, on the\nprospect of being but partially useful, to undertake it.\n\nOn the first of the original and immediate causes which have been\nmentioned, I mean mixed marriages, I shall have but little to say. I do\nnot see how it is possible, while the society means to keep up a due\nsubordination among its members, not to disown such as may marry out of\nit. In mixed families, such as these marriages produce, it is in vain to\nexpect that the discipline can be carried on, as has been shewn in the\nsecond volume. And, without this discipline, the society would hardly\nkeep up, in the extensive manner it does, the character of a moral\npeople. I think, however, that some good might be done by regulations to\nbe universally observed. Thus they, who are deputed to inform the\ndisowned of their exclusion from membership, should be of the most\namiable temper and conciliatory manners. Every unqualified person should\nbe excluded from these missions. Permission should be solicited for both\nthe married persons to be present on such occasions. It is difficult to\nestimate the good effect which the deputed, if of sweet and tender\ndispositions, or the bad effects which the deputed, if of cold and\naustere manners, might have upon those they visited, or what bias it\nmight give the one in particular, who had never been in membership, for\nor against the society. Permission also might be solicited, even when\nthe mission was over for future friendly opportunities or visits, which\nwould shew in the society itself a tender regard and solicitude for the\nwelfare of its former members. It is not at all improbable, from the\nimpression which such apparent regard and solicitude might occasion,\nthat the children of the visited, though not members, might be brought\nup in the rules of membership. And finally it appears to me to be\ndesirable, that the disowned, if they should give proof by their own\nlives and the education of their children, of their attachment to the\nprinciples of the society, and should solicit restoration to membership,\nshould be admitted into it again without any acknowledgment of past\nerrors, and wholly as new and convinced members.\n\nWith respect to the second of the immediate and original causes, which\nis to be found in tithes, I may observe that it is, as for as I can\ncollect, but a small and an inferior one, few being disowned on this\naccount, and still fewer now than formerly. It would be desirable,\nhowever, few as these instances may be, to prevent them. But I fear that\nno remedy can be pointed out, in which the Quakers would acquiesce,\nexcept it could be shewn, that a distinction might be made between the\npayment of ecclesiastical and lay-tithes, which would not interfere with\nthe great tenets of the society on this subject.\n\nA third cause of disownment, but this belongs to the original and\nremote, was shewn to be the pursuit of trade, connected as it is with\nthe peculiar habits of the society and a residence in the towns. I may\npropose as remedies for this, first, that parents should be careful to\nexhibit a good example to their children. Secondly, as I have before\nobserved, that they should prescribe to themselves moderation in the\nacquisition of wealth, either by relinquishing trade at a given time, or\nby dealing out the profits of it more liberally than common in the way\nof benevolence, so that their children, in each case, may never have the\nmisfortune of the prospect of a large moneyed independence before their\neyes. Or lastly, that they should give them a better education than\nthey do at present, on which subject, according to the prescribed order\nof things, I am now to speak.\n\nA fourth cause then, but this belongs also to the original and remote,\nwas shewn to exist in education. And education, as it was promotive of\nthe diminution of the society, was of two kinds.\n\nWith respect to that part of it which is alien, the remedy is easy.\nThere has been great difficulty in procuring proper schoolmasters, I\nmean such as have been Quakers. Two reasons may be given for this. The\nfirst is, that the society having been backward in affording due\nencouragement to learning, few of any great literary acquisitions have\nbeen brought up in it. The second is, that persons have found, that they\ncould make much less of their time in such a line of employment than in\nthe way of trade. But surely the Quakers, as a body in comfortable and\nindependent circumstances, might easily remedy the evil. Does not a man,\nwho devotes his time to the instruction of youth, deserve to be made as\ncomfortable as the man who sells silver utensils, or bracelets, or\near-rings, or other articles of trade? Is there any comparison between\nthe moral usefulness of these? Is there any profession more useful than\nthat which forms the youthful mind? or rather, is it not the most\nimportant profession in the state?[52]\n\n[Footnote 52: It is but justice to the Quakers to observe, that they are\ntaking more pains than formerly in the promotion of this object. I am\ntold that there are more private seminaries now kept by Quakers for the\neducation of the youth of their own society, than even before the\ninstitution of Ackworth school.]\n\nWith respect to the education which is acquired in the society itself,\nthe remedy is not difficult. This education was shewn to be of two\nkinds.\n\nOn that part of it, which is moral or religious, I may observe, that the\nremedy is in the parents themselves. The first thing to be recommended\nis an universal vigilance over the disposition and manners of children,\nso that no censurable appearance, whether in temper or in conduct, may\nbe allowed to pass without suitable notice or reproof, or that the bud,\nwhich promises to be corruptive of morals, should no sooner make its\nappearance, than it should be cut off. In cases of so much importance,\nas where the happiness both of parents and children is concerned, the\nformer should be peculiarly circumspect. They should not talk about\nthings, but insist upon them, on all proper occasions. They should not\npoint out, but redress. They should not lop off the branches, but lay\nthe axe to the root. And surely youth is the best season for such\nwholesome interference. It is, in the first place, the season in which\na remedy is practicable; for we are assured, \"if we train up a child in\nthe way he should go, that, when he is old, he will not depart from it.\"\nIt is, secondly, the season in which it is most practicable; for can we\nhope to bend the tree so easily to our form, as the sapling from whence\nit came? and, thirdly, it is the season in which it is practicable only,\nfor will not a small irregularity grow, if uncontrolled, to a greater?\nWill not one irregularity also, if not properly checked, give birth to\nothers? And may not these be so incorporated into the inner man in a\ncourse of time, that it may be as difficult for parents to eradicate\nthem, as for the Ethiopian to change his colour, or the leopard his\nspots? But surely the Quakers ought to know the impropriety of undue\nindulgences in their families, as well as any other people? Is not the\nearly subjugation of the will a doctrine more particularly adopted by\nthem as a society? Without such a subjugation do they not conceive the\nmind to be in an unfit state to receive the admonitions of the pure\nprinciple, and of course to make a true proficiency in religion? Do they\nnot consider themselves also as a highly professing people, and do they\nnot know that the world expects more from them than from others? But how\ncan their children ever perpetuate this extraordinary character after\nthem, or shew that their parents possessed it, unless they are brought\nup in a peculiarly guarded manner? In addition to these observations it\nmay be recommended, that parents should be careful to give their\nchildren what may be called a literal instruction in Christianity, in\ncontradistinction to pure theism, or to those doctrines which they\nconceive may come from the teachings of the Holy Spirit, so that they\nmay have a more intimate knowledge of all their principles, as a\nChristian body.\n\nWith respect to that part of education which may consist of knowledge\nas it is literary or philosophical, I conceive it might be attended with\nadvantage to carry it to a greater extent than has hitherto been\npractised in the society, but particularly the latter. Nothing is so\ndelightful to youth as experimental philosophy, by which they see the\ncauses of things unfolded to their view. No science takes their\nattention more, or inclines them, in the farther pursuit of it, to be\nsatisfied with home. And yet I doubt whether this branch of learning be\nnot almost wholly neglected in the Quaker schools. The education which\nis received in the society, as it consists of the two kinds of knowledge\ndescribed, is not, in my apprehension, carried far enough, so as to suit\nthe peculiar situation of the children of the rich. These are they, who\nare most in danger. These are they, who, having the prospect of wealth\nbefore them, have the prospect of being able to procure destructive\npleasures. These are they, who, having the prospect of independence, do\nnot fear the opinion of the world or the loss of reputation in it, like\nthose, who have their livelihood to obtain by their own industry. Now it\nshould be the particular object of the education of these, as indeed it\nshould be of all rich persons, so to instruct them, that, while they are\nobliged to live in the world, they may be enabled to live out of it, or\ndeny it; so that, when seated amidst its corrupt opinions, amusements,\nand fashions, they should estimate them as below their notice, and as\nutterly unworthy of their countenance and support.\n\nI should be sorry if, in holding up this species of education to a\nfarther encouragement, as a preservative of the morals of the children\nof rich parents amidst the various temptations of life, I were to be\nthought to endeavour to take away in any degree the necessity of the\ninfluence of the Holy Spirit on the mind of man, or to deny that this\nSpirit ought not to be resorted to as the first and best guide, both by\nrich and poor, during their pilgrimage upon earth. For who can teach us\nbest to deny the world? Who can teach us best to estimate its pursuits?\nWho can instruct us best to resist its temptations? To the Divine Being\nthen we are first to look up, as to him who can be the best author of\nall our good, and the surest averter of all our evils, who can apply the\nbest remedy to the imperfections of our nature, and who, while he leads\nus in safety, can lead us into the way of truth. But when we consider\nhow many are inattentive, on account of the cares, and pleasures, and\nfashions, and prejudices, and customs of the world, to the secret\nnotices of his grace, I cannot help considering that we may be allowed\nto have secondary and subordinate helps to our virtue. As the discipline\nof the Quaker society may produce and preserve a certain purity of life,\nso may a literary and philosophical education operate to the same end.\nSuch an education is in its general tendency a friend to the promotion\nof virtue and to the discouragement of vice. It sets us often\nunquestionably above many of the corruptive opinions and customs in the\nmidst of which we live. It leads us also frequently to the contemplation\nof the Divine Being in all the variety of his works. It gives us\namiable, awful, and sublime conceptions of him. As far, therefore, as it\nis capable of doing this, it is a useful, though it be only a\nsubordinate source of our purity, and we may therefore adopt it\ninnocently. But we are never to forget, at the same time, that, though\nit may help us occasionally to resist corrupt temptations, and to\nencourage desirable propensities, yet it cannot do every thing for us\nthat is necessary, and that we are never to overlook, on this account,\nthe necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit.\n\nTo shew in what the education, which under these limitations I am going\nto propose, may consist, I shall revive the controversy between the\nphilosophical moralists and the Quakers, as described in the eighth\nchapter of the first volume. The philosophical moralists contended, that\nknowledge was to be preferred, as being more to be relied upon than\nprohibitions: that prohibitions were often causes of greater evils than\nthey were intended to prevent; that they themselves were friends to\noccasional indulgencies; that they saw nothing necessarily or inherently\nmischievous in the amusements of the world; that it was not wise to\nanticipate danger by looking to distant prospects, where the things were\ninnocent in themselves; that ignorance of vice was no guardian of\nmorals; that causes, and not sub-causes, were to be contended against;\nand that there was no certain security but in knowledge and in a love of\nvirtue. To this the Quakers replied, that prohibitions were sanctioned\nby divine authority; that as far as they related to the corrupt\namusements of the world, they were implied in the spirit of\nChristianity; that the knowledge, which should be promotive of virtue,\ncould not be inculcated without them; that knowledge again, if it were\nto be acquired by the permission of occasional indulgences, or by being\nallowed to pass through scenes which might be dangerous to virtue,\nwould be more ruinous than ignorance by a prohibition of vice; that\nignorance of vice was an essential in Christian morals; and that\nprohibitions therefore were indispensably necessary, and better to be\nrelied upon, than any corrupt knowledge, which might arise from an\nacquaintance with the customs of the world.\n\nThis then was the state of the controversy, as described in the first\nvolume. And in this state it was left. But, to explain the education\nwhich I have in view, I shall now bring it to a conclusion.\n\nI must observe then, that the philosophical moralists had the advantage\nof the Quakers in this controversy, inasmuch as they supposed that\nknowledge was a better safeguard to morals than a mere ignorance of\nvice; but they failed in this, that they permitted this knowledge to be\nacquired by passing through scenes which might not be friendly to\nvirtue. Now this latter permission is inadmissible in a Christian\neducation; for no Christian youth ought to be permitted to see or to\nhear that which ought not to be uttered or exhibited by a Christian. The\nQuakers, on the other hand, had the advantage of the philosophical\nmoralists, inasmuch as they considered ignorance to be better than\ncorrupted knowledge; but they failed in this, that they seemed to rely\nupon ignorance of vice as a safeguard against it, without a proper\nportion of knowledge. The education then, to which I allude, ought to\nembrace the most valuable positions of both. It should consist of\nknowledge, and it should consist of wise prohibitions also. Knowledge\nand prohibitions are inseparable. While the mind is gaining knowledge,\nit should be kept innocent. And while it is kept innocent, it should be\ngaining knowledge. Youth should have that kind of knowledge instilled\ninto them, by which they should discern the value of the prohibitions\nwhich are enjoined them. They should have such and so much knowledge,\nthat if they were accidentally placed in the way of the things\nprohibited, they should be able to look them in the face, and pass\nthrough them without injury. This is that education, which, without\nsuperseding the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit, has a\ntendency to enable persons, while they live in the world, to live out of\nit or deny it.\n\nBut lest I should not be clearly understood upon this subject, I will\nexemplify how such an education would act or operate to the end\nproposed.\n\nAnd, first of all, knowledge may be acquired by reading. Now there are\ntwo kinds of reading, the one useful, the other dangerous. By the\npremises, I am to adopt the first, and to prohibit the last. If then I\naccustom my child to the best and purest models of ancient and modern\nliterature, I give him a certain taste for composition. If I accustom\nhim to the purest and most amiable sentiments, as contained in these, I\ngive him a love of virtue. If I heighten these sentiments by beautiful\nselections from the more pure and amiable sentiments of Christianity, I\nincrease that love. If I give him in my own conduct an example, he sees\nme practise that which I recommend. I give him then a taste for the\npurest reading, and the choicest compositions, and I offer to his\nnotice, at the same time, a certain system of morality, which he cannot\nbut gradually adopt as his own. Now I would ask, what influence could a\nnovel have upon a mind formed in this manner, if thrown accidentally in\nhis way. If its composition were but moderate, as is the case with most\nof them, it would not suit the taste of my child. If its sentiments were\nimpure, it would disgust him. These would be so contrary to the taste\nand to the feelings he had acquired, that the poison in such a book,\nlike a ball, fired at a globular surface, would slide off without\ndetriment to the morals of my child.\n\nKnowledge again may be acquired in the course of amusements, and of such\nas may be resorted to within doors. Now of these again there are two\nkinds, the innocent and the corruptive. By the premises I am to be\nconcerned with the first only. If then I accustom my child to\nmathematical and philosophical pursuits, if I incite him to experiments\nin these, if I assist him in measuring the motions of the heavenly\nbodies, and in discovering the wisdom and power of Omnipotence as\ndisplayed in these, if I occasion him to be interested in, the\ncontemplation of such subjects, what have I done for my child? Have I\nnot called out his intellectual faculties? Have I not laid in him the\nfoundation of a serious and a thoughtful mind? Have I not accustomed him\nto solid things, in opposition to those that are light, and to sublime\nthings, in opposition to those that are frivolous? Have I not inculcated\nin him a love for science? But take my child, after he has been\naccustomed to such thoughts and such subjects, to the theatre. Let the\npantomime display its various attracting scenes to his view. And will he\nnot think his entertainment low and superficial, in comparison of that\nwhich he left at home.\n\nKnowledge again may be acquired by amusements which are out of doors.\nThese again may be innocent or exceptionable. As before, I have nothing\nto do but with the former. If then I accustom my child to range the\nfields, as an employment promotive of his health, and connect this\nhealthy exercise with the entertainment of botanical pursuits, do I\nnot, in examining with him the shape, the colour, and the mechanism of\nplants and flowers, confirm in him his former love of the works of\nnature? Do I not confirm his former notion of the wisdom and power of\nomnipotence? Do I not teach him by these, and the other pursuits which\nhave been mentioned, that all recreations should be innocent, and that\ntime should be wisely employed? But hark! another amusement, and one of\nthose which are followed out of doors, is at hand. The hounds are in\nview, and fast approaching. My son is accidentally solicited to join\nthem. He would ask my permission, but I am absent. At length he goes. He\nfollows them in wild tumult and uproar for an hour. He sees some\ngalloping over hedges and ditches like madmen, and hazarding their\npersons in a presumptuous manner. He sees others ride over the\ncultivated fields of their neighbours, and injure the rising corn. He\nfinds that all this noise and tumult, all this danger and injury, are\noccasioned by the pursuit of a little hare, whose pain is in proportion\nto the joy of those who follow it. Now can this diversion, educated as\nmy child has been, fascinate him? Will he not question its innocence?\nAnd will he not question its consistency as a natural pursuit, or as an\nemployment for his time?\n\nIt is thus then that knowledge will be found to operate as an artificial\nand innocent preservative against the destructive pleasures of the\nworld. But prohibitions without knowledge will be but of little avail,\nwhere there is a prospect of riches, and the power of gratifying any\nimproper appetites as they may arise. But by knowledge we shall be able\nto discover the beauty of things, so that their opposites, or the things\nprohibited, will cease to charm us. By knowledge we shall be able to\ndiscern the ugliness of the things prohibited, so that we shall be\nenabled to loathe them, if they should come into our way. And thus an\neducation, conducted upon the principles of knowledge, may operate to\nthe end proposed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n_Education continued, as consisting of knowledge and prohibitions--Good,\nwhich the Quakers have done by prohibitions, without any considerable\nknowledge--Greater good, which they would do with it--Knowledge then a\ngreat desideratum in the Quaker education--Favourable state of the\nsociety for the communication of it with purity, or without detriment to\nmorals--In what this knowledge should consist--General advantages of\nit--Peculiar advantages, which it would bring to the society._\n\n\nWhen we consider that men have all the same moral nature, we wonder, at\nthe first sight, at the great difference of conduct which they exhibit\nupon earth. But when we consider the power of education upon the mind,\nwe seem to lose our surprize. If men in all countries were educated\nalike, we should find a greater resemblance in their character. It is,\nin short, education, which makes the man. And as education appears to me\nto be of so much importance in life, I shall make it the subject of this\nand the succeeding chapter.\n\nAll education should have two objects in view, the opening of the\nunderstanding and the improvement of the heart. Of the two, the latter\nis most important. There cannot be a question, whether the person of the\nmost desirable character be the virtuous or the learned man. Without\nvirtue knowledge loses half its value. Wisdom, without virtue, may be\nsaid to be merely political; and such wisdom, whenever it belongs to a\nman, is little better than the cunning or craftiness of a fox. A man of\na cultivated mind, without an unshaken love of virtue, is but a dwarf of\na man. His food has done him no good, as it has not contributed to his\ngrowth. And it would have been better, for the honour of literature, if\nhe had never been educated at all. The talents of man, indeed,\nconsidering him as a moral being, ought always to be subservient to\nreligion. \"All philosophy, says the learned Cudworth, to a wise man, to\na truly sanctified mind, as he in Plutarch speaketh, is but matter for\ndivinity to work upon. Religion is the queen of all those inward\nendowments of the soul: and all pure natural knowledge, all virgin and\nundeflowered arts and sciences, are her handmaids, that rise up and call\nher blessed.\"\n\nNow if the opening of the understanding, and the improvement of the\nheart, be the great objects to be attained, it will follow, that both\nknowledge and wise prohibitions should always be component parts of the\neducation of youth. The latter the Quakers have adopted ever since the\ninstitution of their society. The former they have been generally\nbackward to promote, at least to any considerable extent. That they have\ndone good, however, by their prohibitions, though unaccompanied by any\nconsiderable knowledge, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge. But\nthis goad has been chiefly confined to the children of those who have\noccupied middle stations in the society. Such children have undoubtedly\narrived at the true wisdom of life at an early age, as I described in\nthe first volume, and have done honour to the religion they professed.\nBut prohibitions, without knowledge, have not been found to answer so\nwell among the children of those who have had the prospect of a large\nmoneyed independence before them, and who have not been afraid either of\nthe bad opinion of their own society, or of the bad opinion of the\nworld. It has been shewn, however, that knowledge with prohibitions\nwould, in all probability, be useful to these; that it would have a\ntendency to enable them, in the perilous situation in which they are\nplaced, to stand against the corrupt opinions and fashions, and while\nthey were living in the world, to live out of it, or to deny it.\n\nPeculiarly situated as the Quakers are, they have opportunities, beyond\nany other people, of ingrafting knowledge into their system of education\nwithout danger, or, in other words, of giving knowledge to their\nchildren with the purity which Christianity would prescribe. The great\nmisfortune in the world is, that a learned education is frequently\nthought more of than a virtuous one; that youth, while they are\nobtaining knowledge, are not properly watched and checked; and that they\nare suffered to roam at large in the pursuit of science, and to\ncultivate or not, at their own option, the science, if I may so call it,\nof religion. Hence it will happen, that, where we see learned men, we\nshall not always see these of the most exemplary character. But the\nQuakers have long ago adopted a system of prohibitions, as so many\nbarriers against vice, or preservatives of virtue. Their constitution\nforbids all indulgences that appear unfriendly to morals. The Quakers\ntherefore, while they retain the prohibitions which belong to their\nconstitution, may give encouragement to knowledge, without a fear that\nit will be converted to the purposes of vice.\n\nThe Quakers, again, have opportunities or advantages, which others have\nnot, in another point of view. In the great public seminary at Ackworth,\nwhich belongs to them, and which is principally for those who are of the\npoor and middle classes, every thing is under the inspection and\nguidance of committees, which can watch and enforce an observance of any\nrules that may be prescribed. Why then, if public seminaries were\ninstituted for the reception of the children of the rich, or if the rich\nwere to give encouragement to large private seminaries for the same\npurposes, should they not be placed under the visiting discipline of the\nsociety? Why should they not be placed under the care of committees\nalso? Why should not these committees see that the two great objects of\nthe education proposed were going on at the same time, or that, while\nknowledge was obtaining, discipline had not been relaxed. Why should not\nsuch seminaries produce future Penns, and Barclays, and others, who,\nwhile they were men capable of deep literary researches, should be\nexemplary for their virtue?\n\nAs knowledge then ought to form a part of the proposed education, on a\nmuch larger scale than has been hitherto encouraged, I shall say a few\nwords as to the component parts of it, and as to the general advantages\nof these, and I shall afterwards speak to the advantages which the\nsociety in particular would derive from such a change.\n\nIn the education I propose, I do not mean, in the slightest manner, to\nbreak in upon the moral system of the Quakers, as described in the first\nvolume. I do not propose to them the polite arts. I do not recommend\nthem to make children musicians, or that they should learn, under the\ndancing-master, to step gracefully. I advise only such knowledge as will\nbe strictly innocent and useful.\n\nIn the first place, I recommend a better classical education. Classical\nknowledge gives the foundation both of particular and universal grammar.\nWhile it gives the acquisition of the dead languages, it is the root,\nand thereforce facilitates the acquisition of many of the living. As\nmost of the technical terms in the professions and sciences are borrowed\nfrom these languages, it renders them easily understood. The study of\nthe structure and combination of words and sentences calls forth the\nreflecting powers of youth, and expands their genius. It leads to\npenetration and judgement. It induces habits of diligence and patience.\nBy means of this knowledge we have access to the sacred writings in the\nlanguages in which they were written, and we are therefore not liable to\nbe imposed upon, for the sense of them, by others. We become acquainted\nalso, by means of it, with the sentiments and knowledge of the ancients.\nWe see their thoughts and expressions. We acquire a literary taste.\n\nA knowledge of ancient history is necessarily conpected with the former.\nTo this, however, should be added that of the modern. History, while it\nentertains us, instructs us morally. We cannot see the rise and fall of\nempires, or the causes of their formation and dissolution, or read the\nhistories of good and bad men, without impressions of moral importance\nto ourselves.\n\nA philosophical education is peculiarly important. By this I mean, a\ngeneral knowledge of the mathematics, of mechanics, optics,\nhydrostatics, astronomy, chemistry, botany, and the like. The teaching\nof these should be accompanied by experiments. Experimental philosophy,\nas I observed before, is peculiarly interesting to youth. Such knowledge\nteaches us the causes of things. Mysteries, hitherto hidden both in the\ngarden and in the field, and in the heaven and in the air, lie unfolded\nto our view. Every walk we take, while the surface of the earth remains\nas it is, and the canopy of the firmament is spread over us, gives its\nthe opportunity, in all the innumerable objects presented to our view,\nof almost endless investigation and delight. And the deeper we go into\nthe hidden things of nature, and the more we unfold them, have we not a\nbetter belief of the existence of the Creator, and grander notions of\nthe symmetry, order, beauty, and wisdom of his works? Such knowledge\nleads also, as it has always done, to discoveries, by which we may make\nourselves useful to mankind. And, besides the utility, of which it may\nmake us capable, can discoveries of the principles of nature lessen oar\nlove and admiration of the first great Cause?\n\nTo philosophical knowledge should be added general reading. Such reading\nshould be of the purest kind. Of knowledge, acquired in this manner, it\nmaybe said, that it opens new sources of right views and sentiments, and\nthis even independently of Christianity, from which our most valuable\ninformation is derived. Thus at a time, when as a nation we professed to\nbe Christians, we shed the blood of the martyrs. Thus when even such men\nas the great Sir Matthew Hale, one of the brightest Christian patterns\nin our country, were at the head of it, we condemned persons to death\nfor witchcraft. But knowledge superior to that of those times, has\ntaught us better things. By means of it we perceive, that persecution\ndoes not destroy, but that it propagates opinions, and that the belief\nof the existence of witchcraft is absurd.\n\nThese then appear to me to be the general advantages, or such as are\ninseparable from education when composed of the various branches of\nknowledge which have been described. I shall now endeavour to shew the\npeculiar advantages, which the Quakers would derive from it.\n\nIt will appear then, if we look back into the character of the Quakers,\nas described in this volume, that the world charges them, I mean the\nmore affluent part of them, with having less learning, than others in a\nsimilar rank of life. But surely the education I propose would remove\nthis intellectual defect.\n\nThe world again, as we have seen, has fixed another intellectual blemish\nupon them by the imputation of superstition. But how does superstition\nenter, but where there is a want of knowledge? Does not all history bear\ntestimony, that in proportion as men have been more or less enlightened,\nthey have been less or more liable to this charge? It is knowledge then,\nwhich must banish this frightful companion of the mind. Wherever\nindividuals acknowledge, in a more extensive degree than others, the\ninfluence of the Divine Spirit in man, these, of all other people, will\nfind the advantages of it. Knowledge leads to a solution of things, as\nthey are connected with philosophy, or the theory of the human mind. It\nenables men to know their first and their second causes, so as to\ndistinguish between causes and occasions. It fixes the nature of action\nand of thought; and, by referring effects to their causes, it often\nenables men to draw the line between the probability of fancy and\ninspiration. How many good men are there, who, adopting a similar creed\nwith that of the Quakers on this subject, make themselves uneasy, by\nbringing down the Divine Being, promiscuously and without due\ndiscrimination, into the varied concerns of their lives? How many are\nthere, who attribute to him that which is easily explained by the\nknowledge of common causes? Thus, for instance, there are appearances in\nnature, which a person of an uninformed mind, but who should adopt the\ndoctrine of the influence of the Spirit, would place among signs, and\nwonders, and divine notices, which others, acquainted with the\nphilosophy of nature, would almost instantly solve. Thus again there may\nbe occasions, which persons, carrying the same doctrine to an undue\nextent, might interpret into warning or prophetic voices, but which a\ndue exercise of the intellect, where such exercise has been properly\nencouraged, would easily explain. This reminds me of a singular\noccurrence: A friend of mine was lately walking in a beautiful vale. In\napproaching a slate-quarry he heard an explosion, and a mass of stone,\nwhich had been severed by gunpowder, fell near him as he walked along.\nHe went immediately to the persons employed. He represented the\nimpropriety of their conduct in not having given proper notice to such\nas were passing by, and concluded by declaring emphatically, that they\nthemselves would be soon destroyed. It happened, but six weeks\nafterwards, that two of these men were blown to pieces. The words then\nof my friend were verified. Now I have no doubt that ignorant persons,\nin the habit of referring every thing promiscuously to the Divine\ninterference, would consider my friend as a prophet, and his words as a\ndivinely forewarning voice. But what did my friend mean? or where did he\nget his foresight on this occasion? The answer is, that my friend, being\naccustomed to the exercise of his rational faculties, concluded, that if\nthe people in question were so careless with respect to those who should\nbe passing by in such times of danger, they would by custom become\ncareless with respect to themselves, and that ultimately some mischief\nwould befal them. It is knowledge, then, acquired by a due exercise of\nthe intellectual powers, and through the course of an enlightened\neducation, which will give men just views of the causes and effects of\nthings, and which, while it teaches them to discover and acknowledge the\nDivine Being in all his wondrous works, and properly to distinguish him\nin his providences, preserves them from the miseries of superstition.\n\nThe world again has fixed the moral blemish of the money-getting, spirit\nupon the Quaker character. But knowledge would step in here also as a\nconsiderable corrector of the evil. It would shew, that there were other\nobjects besides money, which were worthy of pursuit. Nor would it point\nout only new objects, but it would make a scale of their comparative\nimportance. It would fix intellectual attachments, next to religion, in\nthe highest class. Thus money would sink in importance as a pursuit, or\nbe valued only as it was the means of comfort to those who had it, or of\ncommunicating comfort to others. Knowledge also would be useful in\ntaking off, to a certain degree, the corruptive effects of this spirit,\nfor it would prevent it by the more liberal notions it would introduce,\nfrom leaving the whole of its dregs of pollution upon the mind.\n\nThe Quakers again, as we have seen, have been charged with a want of\nanimation, from whence an unjust inference has been drawn of the\ncoldness of their hearts. But knowledge would diminish this appearance.\nFor, in the first place, it would enlarge the powers, and vary the\ntopics of conversation. It would enliven the speaker. It would give him\nanimation in discourse. Animation again would produce a greater\nappearance of energy, and energy of the warmth of life. And there are\nfew people, whatever might be the outward cold appearance of the person\nwith whom they conversed, whose prejudices would not die away, if they\nfound a cheerful and an agreeable companion.\n\nAnother charge against the Quakers was obstinacy. This was shewn to be\nunjust. The trait, in this case, should rather have been put down as\nvirtue. Knowledge, however, would even operate here as a partial remedy.\nFor while the Quakers are esteemed deficient in literature, their\nopposition to the customs of the world, will always be characterized as\nfolly. But if they were to bear in the minds of their countrymen a\ndifferent estimation as to intellectual attainments, the trait might be\nspoken of under another name. For persons are not apt to impute\nobstinacy to the actions of those, however singular, whom they believe\nto have paid a due attention to the cultivation of their minds.\n\nIt is not necessary to bring to recollection the other traits that were\nmentioned, to see the operation of a superior education upon these. It\nmust have already appeared, that, whatever may be the general\nadvantages of learning, they would be more than usually valuable to the\nQuaker character.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n_Arguments of those of the society examined, who may depreciate human\nknowledge--This depreciation did not originate with the first\nQuakers--with Barclay--Penn--Ellwood--but arose afterwards--Reputed\ndisadvantages of a classical education--Its heathen mythology and\nmorality--Disadvantages of a philosophical one--Its scepticism--General\ndisadvantages of human learning--Inefficiency of all the arguments\nadvanced._\n\n\nHaving shewn the advantages, which generally accompany a superior\neducation, I shall exhibit the disadvantages which may be thought to\nattend it, or I shall consider those arguments, which some persons of\nthis society, who have unfortunately depreciated human learning, though\nwith the best intentions, might use against it, if they were to see the\ncontents of the preceding chapter.\n\nBut, before I do this, I shall exonerate the first Quakers from the\ncharge of such a depreciation. These exhibited in their own persons the\npracticability of the union of knowledge and virtue. While they were\neminent for their learning, they were distinguished for the piety of\ntheir lives. They were indeed the friends of both. They did not\npatronize the one to the prejudice and expulsion of the other.[53]\n\n[Footnote 53: George Fox was certainly an exception to this as a\nscholar. He was also not friendly to classical learning on account of\nsome of the indelicate passages contained in the classical authors,\nwhich he and Farley and Stubbs, took some pains to cite, but, if these\nhad been removed, I believe his objections would have ceased.]\n\nBarclay, in his celebrated apology, no where condemns the propriety or\nusefulness of human learning, or denies it to be promotive of the\ntemporal comforts of man. He says that the knowledge of Latin, Greek and\nHebrew, or of logic and philosophy, or of ethics, or of physics and\nmetaphysics, is not necessary. But not necessary for what? Mark his own\nmeaning. Not necessary to make a minister of the Gospel. But where does\nhe say that knowledge, which he himself possessed to such a considerable\nextent, was not necessary, or that it did not contribute to the innocent\npleasures of life? What would have been the character of his own book,\nor what would have been its comparative value and usefulness, if he had\nnot been able to quote so many authors to his purpose in their original\ntexts, or to have detected so many classical errors, or to have\nintroduced such apposite history, or to have drawn up his propositions\nwith so much logical and mathematical clearness and precision, or if he\nhad not been among the first literary characters of his day?\n\nWilliam Penn was equally celebrated with Barclay as a scholar. His works\nafford abundant proof of his erudition, or of the high cultivation of\nhis mind. Like the rest of his associates, he was no advocate for\nlearning, as a qualification for a minister of the Gospel, but he was\nyet a friend to it, on the principle, that it enlarged the\nunderstanding, and that it added to the innocent pleasures of the mind.\nHe entreated his wife, in the beautiful letter which he left her, before\nhe embarked on his first voyage to America, \"not to be sparing of\nexpence in procuring learning for his children, for that by such\nparsimony all was lost that was saved.\" And he recommended also in the\nsame letter the mathematical or philosophical education which I have\ndescribed.\n\nThomas Ellwood, a celebrated writer among the early Quakers, and the\nfriend of the great John Milton, was so sensible of the disadvantages\narising from a want of knowledge, that he revived his learning, with\ngreat industry, even after he had become a Quaker. Let us hear the\naccount which he gives of himself in his own Journal. \"I mentioned\nbefore, says he, that, when I was a boy, I made some progress in\nlearning, and that I lost it all again before I came to be a man. Nor\nwas I slightly sensible of my last therein, till I came amongst the\nQuakers. But then I both saw my loss, and lamented it; and applied\nmyself with the utmost diligence, at all leisure times to recover it. So\nfalse I found that charge to be, which in those times was east as a\nreproach upon the Quakers, that they despised and decried all human\nlearning, because they denied it to be essentially necessary to a Gospel\nministry, which was one of the controversies of those times.\"\n\n\"But though I toiled hard, and spared no pains to regain what I had once\nbeen master of, yet I found it a matter of so great difficulty, that I\nwas ready to say, as the noble eunuch to Philip, in another case, how\ncan I, unless I had some man to guide me?\"\n\n\"This I had formerly complained of to my especial friend Isaac\nPennington, but now more earnestly; which put him upon considering and\ncontriving a means for my assistance.\"\n\n\"He had an intimate acquaintance with Dr. Paget, a physician of note in\nLondon, and he with John Milton, a gentleman of great note for learning,\nthroughout the learned world, for the accurate pieces he had Written on\nvarious subjects and occasions.\"\n\n\"This person, having filled a public station in the former times, lived\nnow a private and retired life in London; and, having wholly lost his\nsight, kept always a man to read to him, which usually was the son of\nsome gentleman of his acquaintance, whom in kindness he took to improve\nin his learning.\"\n\n\"Thus by the mediation of my friend Isaac Pennington with Dr. Paget, and\nof Dr. Paget with John Milton, was I admitted to come to him; not as a\nservant to him (which at that time he needed not) nor to be in the house\nwith him; but only to have the liberty of coming to his house at certain\nhours, when I would, and to read to him what books he should appoint me,\nwhich was all the favour I desired.\"\n\nBy means of this extract, made from the life of Thomas Ellwood, we come\nto three conclusions. First, that the early Quakers were generally men\nof eminent learning. Secondly, that they did not decry or depreciate\nhuman knowledge. And thirdly, that the calumny of such a depreciation by\nthem arose from the controversy which they thought it right to maintain,\nin which they denied it to be necessary as a qualification for a Gospel\nminister.\n\nThis latter conclusion brings me round again to the point. And here I\nmust observe, that, though this famous controversy occasioned the first\nQuakers to be unduly blamed on account of such a depreciation, yet it\ncontributed to make some of their immediate successors, as I stated in a\nformer volume, justly chargeable with it. But whether this was or was\nnot the real cause, it is not material to the question. Many of the\nsociety, from came cause or other, did undoubtedly, in the age\nimmediately succeeding that of their founders, begin to depreciate human\nknowledge, the effects of which, though gradually dissipating, have not\nbeen wholly done away at the present day. The disadvantages, therefore,\nof human learning, or the arguments which would be advanced against it\nby those who may undervalue it, I shall now consider.\n\nThese arguments may be divided into particular and general. On the\nformer I shall first speak.\n\nA classical education is considered to be objectionable, first, on\naccount of the Heathen mythology that is necessarily connected with it.\nIts tendency, as it relates to fabulous occurrences, is thought to be\nunfavourable, as it may lead to a romantic propensity, and a turn for\nfiction. But surely the meaning of such occurrences cannot be well\nmistaken. If they are represented to our view in fable, they have had\ntheir foundation in truth. Many of them again are of such importance,\nthat we could not wish to see them annihilated. Let us refer, for\nexample, to the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha. Is it not one among the\nmany outward confirmations of the truth of the history of Moses? Or do\nwe not trace in it additional proofs of the deluge, and of the renewal\nof mankind?\n\nIts tendency again, as it relates to the fabulous history of the Heathen\ngods, their number, their offices, and their character, is considered as\ndegrading and exceptionable. I will concede this for a moment. But may\nit not, on the other hand, be rendered instructive and useful? May not\nthe retention of such an history be accompanied with great moral\nadvantages to our children? The emperor Theodosius commanded the idol\ntemples to be destroyed. Instead of devoting them to the use of the\nChristians of those times, by which they might have been preserved to\nfuture generations, the most beautiful remains of antiquity were\nreduced to ruins. But would it not have been better, if Theodosius had\nbrought good out of evil by retaining them? Would it not have been a\nhigh moral gratification to those who knew the fact, that temples,\nappropriated to the worship of idols, had been devoted to the service of\nthe only true God? Would it not have been a matter of joy to these to\nhave reflected upon the improving condition of mankind? And, while they\nlooked up to these beautiful structures of art, might not the sight of\nthem have contributed to the incitement of their virtue? If it be the\ntendency of the corrupt part of our nature to render innocent things\nvicious, it is, on the other hand, in the essence of our nature to\nrender vicious things in process of time innocent, so that the very\nremnants of idolatry may be made subservient to our moral improvement.\n\"If, as I observed in the first volume, we were to find an alter which\nhad been sacred to Moloch, but which had been turned into a\nstepping-stone to help the aged and infirm upon their horses, why should\nwe destroy it? Might it not be made useful to our morality, as for as it\ncould be made to excite sorrow for the past and gratitude for the\npresent?\" And in the same manner the retention of the Heathen mythology\nmight be made serviceable. Ought it not, whenever we contemplate it, to\nmake us thankful, that we have not the dark and cheerless path of our\nancestors to tread; that we have clearer light; that we have surer\nprospects; that we have a steadier ground of hope; and ought we not, on\na contemplation of these superior advantages, brought to us by\nrevelation, to be roused into the practice of a superior virtue.\n\nClassical education again is considered as objectionable by the Quakers\non account of the Heathen notions, which it may spread. Thus the highest\nreputation of man is placed in deeds of martial achievement, and a\nmartial ardour is in consequence infused into youth, which it is\ndifficult to suppress. That such notions and effect are produced, there\ncan be no doubt; but how are we to avoid these whilst we are obliged to\nlive in the world? The expulsion of the classics would not expel them.\nOur own newspapers, which are open to all, spread the same opinions, and\nare instrumental of course in producing the same excitements, but they\ndo it in a much more objectionable way than the classical authors, that\nis, they do it with less delicacy, and with a more sanguinary applause.\nBut where, as I observed before, shall we retire from such impressions?\nDoes not the recruiting drum propagate them in all our towns? Do not the\nringing of the bells, and the illuminations, which occasionally take\nplace in the time of war, propagate them also? And do we not find these,\nboth in war and in peace, the sentiments and impressions of the world?\nOur own notions then, our own writings, and our own customs, are more to\nbe blamed in this respect, than the literary compositions of ancient\ntimes. But this, of all others, ought to be least an objection with the\nQuakers to such an education; because, to their honour, they have a\nconstant counteraction of the effects of such sentiments and impressions\nin the principles of their own constitution, and which counteraction\ncannot cease, while, by the bearing of their testimony, they live in a\ncontinual protest against them.\n\nThe last objection to a classical education is, that the system of the\nHeathen morality is generally too deficient for those who are to be\nbrought up as Christians. To this I answer, that it is quite as good as\nthe system of the morality of the world. I could procure purer\nsentiments, and this generally from the Heathen authors usually\ncalled[54] classical, than I can collect from many, even of the admired\npublications of our own times. The morality of the heathens is not so\ndeficient as many have imagined. If their best opinions were duly\nselected and brought into one view, the only matter of surprise would\nbe, how, with no other than the law written upon the heart, they had\nmade such sublime discoveries. It was principally in their theology,\nwhere the law written upon the heart could not reach, that the ancients\nwere deficient. They knew but little of the one true God. They did not\nknow that he was a Spirit, and that he was to be worshiped in spirit and\nin truth. They were ignorant of his attributes. They had learnt nothing\nof the true origin, nature, and condition of man, or of the scheme of\ncreation and redemption. These things were undoubtedly hidden from the\neyes of the ancient philosophers. And it was in knowledge of this kind\nchiefly, that their deficiency was apparent. But how is this particular\ndeficiency detrimental to youth, or how rather might it not be rendered\nuseful to them in the way described? What a sublime contrast does\nknowledge, as exhibited by revelation, afford to the ignorance of those\ntimes, and what joy and gratitude ought we not to feel in the\ncomparison? And this is the only use which can be made of their\nmythology? For when we send youth to the classical authors, we send them\nto learn the languages, and this through a medium where the morality is\nboth useful and respectable, but we do not send them, living where the\nblessings of revelation are enjoyed, to be instructed in religion.\n\n[Footnote 54: It must however be acknowledged, that, amidst beautiful\nsentiments, such as are indelicate are occasionally interspersed. But\nthe quakers might remedy this objection by procuring a new edition of\nthe purest classics only, in which particular passages might be omitted.\nThey might also add new Latin notes, founded on Christian principles,\nwhere any ideas were found to be incorrect, and thus make Heathenism\nitself useful, as a literal teacher of a moral system. The world, I\nbelieve, would be obliged to the Quakers for such an edition, and it\nwould soon obtain in most of the schools of the kingdom.]\n\nThe principal argument against a philosophical education, which is the\nnext subject for consideration, is, that men, who cultivate such\nstudies, require often more proofs of things than can always be had, and\nthat, if these are wanting, they suspend their belief. And as this is\ntrue in philosophy, so it may be true in religion. Hence persons\naccustomed to such pursuits, are likely to become sceptics or infidels.\nTo this I answer, that the general tendency of philosophy is favourable\nto religion. Its natural tendency is to give the mind grand and sublime\nideas, and to produce in it a belief of the existence of one great\ncause, which is not visible among men. Thus, for example, I find that\nthe planets perform a certain round! They perform it with a certain\nvelocity. They do not wander at random, but they are kept to their\norbits. I find the forces which act upon them for this purpose. I find,\nin short, that they are subject to certain laws. Now, if the planets\nwere living agents, they might have prescribed these laws to themselves.\nBut I know that this, when I believe them to consist of material\nsubstances, is impossible. If then, as material substances, they are\nsubject to laws, such laws must have been given them. There must have\nbeen some lawgiver. In this manner then I am led to some other great,\nand powerful, and invisible Agent or Cause. And here it may be observed,\nthat if philosophers were ever baffled in their attempts at discovery,\nor in their attempts after knowledge, as they frequently are, they would\nnot, on this account, have any doubt with respect to the being of a God.\nIf they had found, after repeated discoveries, that the ideas acquired\nfrom thence were repeatedly or progressively sublime, and that they led\nrepeatedly or progressively to a belief of the existence of a superior\nPower, is it likely that they would all at once discard this belief,\nbecause there researches were unsuccessful? If they were to do this,\nthey would do it against all the rules of philosophizing, and against\nthe force of their own habits. I say, that analogical is a part of\nphilosophical reasoning, and that they would rather argue, that, as such\neffects had been uniformly produced, so they would probably still be\nproduced, if their researches were crowned with success. The tendency\nthen of philosophical knowledge is far otherwise than has been supposed.\nAnd it makes highly in favour of the study of these sciences, that those\nwho have cultivated them the most, such as Newton, and Boyle, and\nothers, have been found among the ablest advocates for religion.[55]\n\n[Footnote 55: I by no means intend to say, that philosophy leads to the\nreligion called Christianity, but that it does to Theism, which is the\nfoundation of it.]\n\nI come now, to the general arguments used by the Quakers against human\nlearning, the first of which is, that they who possess it are too apt to\nreduce religion to reason, and to strip it of the influence of the\nSpirit. But this is contrary, as a general position, to all fact. We\nfind no mention of this in history. The fathers of the church were the\nmost eminent for learning in their own days, and these insisted upon the\nInfluence of the Spirit in spiritual concerns, as one of the first\narticles of their faith. The reformers, who succeeded these, were men of\nextensive erudition also, and acknowledged the same great principle. And\nnine-tenths, I believe, of the Christians of the present, day, among\nwhom we ought to reckon nine-tenths of the men of learning also, adopt a\nsimilar creed.\n\nAnother general argument is, that learning is apt to lead to conceit and\npride, or to a presumed superiority of intellect, in consequence of\nwhich men raise themselves in their own estimation, and look down upon\nothers as creatures of an inferior order of race. To this I may answer,\nthat as prodigies are daily produced in nature, though they may be but\nas one to a hundred thousand when compared with the perfect things of\ntheir own kind, so such phenomena may occasionally make their appearance\nin the world. But as far as my own experience goes, I believe the true\ntendency of learning to be quite the reverse. I believe the most learned\nto be generally the most humble, and to be the most sensible of their\nown ignorance. Men, in the course of their studies, daily find something\nnew. Every thing new shews them only their former ignorance, and how\nmuch there is yet to learn. The more they persevere, in their\nresearches, the more they acknowledge the latter fact. The longer they\nlive, the more they lament the shortness of life, during which, man with\nall his industry, can attain so little, and that, when he is but just\nbeginning to know, he is cut off. They see, in short, their own\nnothingness, and, however they may be superior in their attainments,\nthey are convinced that their knowledge is, after all, but a shadow;\nthat it is but darkness; that it is but the absence of light; and that\nit no sooner begins to assume an appearance than it is gone.\n\nThe last general argument against learning is, that it does not lead to\nmorality, or that learned men do not always exhibit an example of the\nbest character. In answer to this I must observe, that the natural\ntendency of learning is to virtue. If learned men are not virtuous, I\npresume their conduct is an exception to the general effect of knowledge\nupon the mind. That there are, however, persons of such unnatural\ncharacter, I must confess. But any deficiency in their example is not to\nbe attributed to their learning. It is to be set down, on the other\nhand, to the morally defective education they have received. They have\nnot been accustomed to wise restraints. More pains have been taken to\ngive them knowledge, than to instruct them in religion. But where an\neducation has been bestowed upon persons, in which their morals have\nbeen duly attended to, where has knowledge been found to be at variance,\nor rather where has it not been found to be in union, with virtue? Of\nthis union the Quakers can trace some of the brightest examples in their\nown society. Where did knowledge, for instance, separate herself from\nreligion in Barclay, or in Penn, or in Burroughs, or in Pennington, or\nin Ellwood, or in Arscott, or in Claridge, or in many others who might\nbe named. And as this has been the case in the Quaker society, where a\ndue care has been taken of morals, so it has been the case where a\nsimilar care has been manifested in the great society of the world.\n\n   \"Piety has found\n   Friends In the friends of Science, and true pray'r\n   Has flow'd from lips wet with Castalian dews.\n   Such was thy wisdom, Newton, childlike sage!\n   Sagacious reader of the works of God,\n   And in his word sagacious. Such too thine,\n   Milton, whose genius had angelic wings,\n   And fed on manna. And such thine, in whom\n   Our British Themis gloried with just cause,\n   Immortal Hale! for deep discernment prais'd\n   And sound integrity not more, than fam'd\n   For sanctity of manners undefil'd.\"  Cowper.\n\nIt appears then, if I have reasoned properly, that the arguments usually\nadduced against the acquisition of human knowledge are but of little\nweight. If I have reasoned falsely upon this subject, so have the early\nQuakers. As they were friends to virtue, so they were friends to\nscience. If they have at any time put a low estimate upon the latter, it\nhas been only as a qualification for a minister of the Gospel. Here they\nhave made a stand. Here they have made a discrimination. But I believe\nit will no where be found, that they have denied, either that learning\nmight contribute to the innocent pleasures of life, or that it might be\nmade a subordinate and auxiliary instrument towards the promotion of\nvirtue.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n_Conclusion of the work--Conclusionary remarks divided into two\nkinds--First, as they relate to those who may have had thoughts of\nleaving the society--Advantages, which these may have proposed to\nthemselves by such a change--These advantages either religious or\ntemporal--The value of them considered._\n\n\nHaving now gone through all the subjects, which I had prescribed to\nmyself at the beginning of this work, I purpose to close it. But as it\nshould be the wish of every author to render his production useful, I\nshall add a few observations for this purpose. My remarks then, which\nwill be thus conclusory, relate to two different sorts of persons. They\nwill relate, first, to those who may have had thoughts of leaving the\nsociety, or, which is the same thing, who persist in a course of\nirregularities, knowing beforehand, and not regretting it, that they\nshall be eventually disowned. It will relate, secondly, to all other\npersons, or to those who may be called the world. To the former I shall\nconfine my attention in this chapter.\n\nI have often heard persons of great respectability, and these even in\nthe higher circles of life, express a wish, that they had been brought\nup as Quakers. The steady and quiet deportment of the members of this\nsociety, the ease with which they appear to get through life, the\nsimplicity and morality of their character, were the causes which\nproduced the expression of such a wish. \"But why then, I have observed,\nif you feel such a disposition as this wish indicates, do you not become\nQuakers?\" \"Because, it has been replied, we are too old to be singular.\nDressing with sufficient simplicity ourselves, we see no good reason for\nadopting the dress of the society. It would be as foolish in us to\nchange the colour and fashion of our clothing, as it would be criminal\nin the Quakers, with their notions, to come to the use of that which\nbelongs to us. Endeavouring also to be chaste in our conversation, we\ncannot adopt their language. It would be as inconsistent in us to speak\nafter the manner of the Quakers, as it would be inconsistent in them to\nleave their own language for ours. But we wish we had been born Quakers.\nAnd, if we had been born Quakers, we would never have deserted the\nsociety.\"\n\nPerhaps they to whom I shall confine my remarks in this chapter, are not\naware, that such sentiments as these are floating in the minds of many.\nThey are not aware, that it is considered as one of the strongest things\nfor those who have been born in the society, and been accustomed to its\nparticularities, to leave it. And least of all are they aware of the\nworthless motives, which the world attributes to them for an intended\nseparation from it.\n\nThere is, indeed, something seemingly irreconcileable in the thought of\nsuch a dereliction or change. To leave the society of a moral people,\ncan it be a matter of any credit? To diminish the number of those who\nprotest against war, and who have none of the guilt upon their heads of\nthe sanguinary progress of human destruction which is going on in the\nworld, is it desirable, or rather, ought it not to be a matter of\nregret? And to leave it at a time, when its difficulties are over, is it\na proof of a wise and a prudent choice? If persons had ever had it in\ncontemplation to leave the society in its most difficult and trying\ntimes, or in the days of its persecution, when only for the adoption of\ninnocent singularities its members were insulted, and beaten, and\nbruised, and put in danger of their lives, it had been no matter of\nsurprise: but to leave it, when all prejudices against them are\ngradually decreasing, when they are rising in respectability in the eyes\nof the government under which they live, and when, by the weight of\ntheir own usefulness and character, they are growing in the esteem of\nthe world, is surely a matter of wonder, and for which it is difficult\nto account.\n\nThis brings me to the point in question, or to the examination of those\narguments, which may at times have come into the heads of those who have\nhad thoughts of ceasing to be members of this society.\n\nIn endeavouring to discover these, we can only suppose them to be\nactuated by one motive, for no other will be reasonable, namely, that\nthey shall derive advantages from the change. Now all advantages are\nresolvable into two kinds, into such as are religious, and into such as\nare temporal. The first question then is, what advantages do they gain\nin the former case, or do they actually come into the possession of a\nbetter religion?\n\nI am aware that to enter into this subject, though but briefly, is an\nodious task. But I shall abstain from all comparisons, by which I might\noffend any. If I were to be asked which, among the many systems of the\nChristian religion, I should prefer, I should say, that I see in all of\nthem much to admire, but that no one of them, perhaps, does wholly, or\nin every part of it, please me; that is, there is no one, in which I do\nnot see some little difficulty, which I cannot solve, though this is no\nimpediment to my faith. But, if I were pressed more particularly upon\nthis point, I should give the following answer. I should say, that I\nshould prefer that, which, first of all, would solve the greatest number\nof difficulties, as far as scriptural texts were concerned, in\nconformity with the Divine attributes, which, secondly, would afford the\nmost encouraging and consolatory creed, if it were equally well founded\nwith any other; and which, thirdly, either by its own operation, or by\nthe administration of it, would produce the post perfect Christian\ncharacter. Let us then judge of the religion of the Quakers by this\nstandard.\n\nThat there are difficulties with respect to texts of scripture, must be\nadmitted; for if all men were to understand them alike, there would be\nbut one profession of the Christian religion. One man endeavours to make\nhis system comport wholly with human reason, and the consequence is,\nthat texts constantly stare him in the face, which militate against it.\nAnother discards reason, with a determination to abide literally by\nthat, which is revealed, and the consequence is, that, in his literal\ninterpretation of some passages, he leaves others wholly irreconcileable\nwith his scheme. Now the religion, of the Quakers has been explained,\nand this extensively. In its doctrinal parts it is simple. It is\nspiritual. It unites often philosophy with revelation. It explains a\ngreat number of the difficult texts with clearness and consistency. That\nit explains all of them I will not aver. But these which it does\nexplain, it explains in the strictest harmony with the love, goodness,\njustice, mercy, and wisdom of God.\n\nAs to the creed of the Quakers, we have seen its effects. We have seen\nit to be both encouraging and consolatory. We have seen it produce\nhappiness in life, and courage in death. The doctrine of the possibility\nof human perfection, where it is believed, must be a perpetual stimulus\nto virtue, it must encourage hope and banish fear. But it may be said,\nthat stimulative and consolatory as it may be, it wants one of the marks\nwhich I have insisted upon, namely, a sound foundation. But surely they,\nwho deny it, will have as many scriptural texts against them as they who\nacknowledge it, and will they not be rendering their own spiritual\nsituation perilous? But what do the Quakers mean by perfection? Not the\nperfection of God, to which there are no limits, as has been before\nexplained, but that which arises to man from the possibility of keeping\nthe divine commands. They mean that perfection, such as Noah, and Job,\nand Zacharias, and Elizabeth, attained, and which the Jewish rabbies\ndistinguished by the name of Redemption, and which they conceived to be\neffected by the influence of the Holy Spirit, or that state of man in\nChristian morals, which, if he arrives at it, the Divine Being (outward\nredemption having taken place by the sacrifice of Christ) is pleased to\naccept as sufficient, or as the most pure state at which man, under the\ndisadvantages of the frailty of his nature, can arrive. And is not this\nthe practicable perfection, which Jesus himself taught in these words,\n\"Be ye perfect, even as your Father, which is in heaven is perfect.\" Not\nthat he supposed it possible, that any human being could be as perfect\nas the Divine Nature. But he proposed, by these expressions, the highest\nconceivable model of human excellence, of which our natures were\ncapable, well knowing that the higher our aspirations the higher we\nshould ascend, and the sooner we should reach that best state of\nhumanity that was attainable. And here it is, that Christianity, as a\nrule of moral conduct, surpasses all others. Men, in general, look up to\nmen for models. Thus Homer makes one of his heroes, when giving counsel\nto his son, say, \"Always emulate the best.\" Thus also we should say to\nour children, if a person of extraordinary character were to live in our\nneighbourhood, \"This is the pattern for your virture.\" But Jesus Christ\nsays, aim at perfection beyond that which is human, alluding to the\nattributes of God, and thus you will attain a higher excellence than the\nstudy of any other model can produce.\n\nWith respect to the formation of man according to the model which\nChristianity prescribes, the system of the Quakers is no where to be\nexcelled. No one, that we know of, is more powerful in the production of\na subjugated mind and of a moral character. By this I mean, that there\nis none which is more universally powerful. It is the tendency of\nChristianity, whatever denomination it may assume, to produce these\neffects. But there is full as general an appearance of these among the\nQuakers, as in any other Christian profession.\n\nIt will appear then, that, if the three criterions, which have been\nspecified, should be admitted to be those by which a judgment may be\nformed in the present case, they, who have had thoughts of leaving the\nsociety, will not be much better off by an exchange of their religion.\n\nLet us see next, what would be the greater temporal advantages, which\nthey would obtain. These may be summed up in two essential ingredients\nof happiness, in tranquillity of mind, in consequence of which we pass\nthrough the troubles of life in the most placid manner, and in a\nmoderate pecuniary independence, in consequence of which we know none of\nthe wants and hardships, but enjoy the reasonable comforts of it.\n\nWith respect to tranquillity of mind, we have shown this to be\nconstitutional with the Quakers. It arises from their domestic\nenjoyments, from seldom placing their pleasures or their fortunes in the\npower of others, from freedom from the ambition and envyings of the\nworld, from the regulation of the temper, from avoiding quarrels and\nlawsuits, and from other causes. And with respect to a moderate\npecuniary independence, we have shewn not only that this is the general\nportion of the society, but that it is in the very nature of their\nhabits to acquire it. Now these essential ingredients of happiness, or\nthese temporal advantages, do not belong to the present Quakers only.\nThey have always belonged to Quakers; and they will be perpetuated as an\ninheritance to their children, as long as Quakerism lasts. By this I\nmean to say, that if any Quakers, now living, could be sure that their\ndescendants would keep to the wholesome regulations of the society for\nten generations to come, they might have the comfort of believing, that\ntranquillity of mind would accompany them, as an effect of the laws and\nconstitution belonging it, and that at any rate an easy pecuniary\nsituation in life would be preserved to them. For if it be no difficult\nthing, with the natural habits of the society, to acquire an\nindependence, it is much easier to preserve that which has been left\nthem. But will they, who have had it in contemplation to leave the\nsociety, be able to say this for their children, when they adopt the\nworld for their home? What certainty is there, that these will\nexperience tranquillity, unless they are seen, quite as far as manhood,\nin the habits of religion? Will the cares of the world, its ambition,\nits thirst after honours, and its unbridled affections and passions,\ngive them no uneasiness? And can the fortunes transmitted to them,\nsubject as they will be to its destructive fashions and pleasures, be\ninsured to them for even half of their times? How many have we seen, who\nhave been in the prime of health in the morning, who have fallen before\nnight in the duel? And how many have we seen in a state of affluence at\nnight, who have been ruined by gaming in the morning?\n\nBut it is possible that they, who may have had thoughts of leaving the\nsociety; may picture to themselves another advantage, which I have not\nyet mentioned. It is possible, that there may be yet one which they may\ndistinguish by such a name. They may possibly think it to be a gain to\nget rid of the restraint of the discipline of the society, and to enjoy\nthe freedom of the world.\n\nThat the discipline is a restraint, I do not deny. But it must never be\nforgotten, that its object is moral good, and its effect the\npreservation of a moral character. But, come you, who complain of this\nheavy burden imposed upon you, and let us converse together for a\nmoment, and let us see, if, when you relinquish it, you do not impose\nupon yourself a worse. Are you sure that, when you get rid of this\ndiscipline, you will not come under the discipline of fashion? And who\nis Fashion? Is she not of all mistresses the most imperious, and\nunreasonable, and cruel? You may be pleased with her for a while, but\nyou will eventually feel her chains. With her iron whip, brandished over\nyour head, she will issue out her commands, and you must obey them. She\nwill drive you, without mercy, through all her corruptive customs, and\nthrough all her chameleon changes, and this against your judgment and\nagainst your will. Do you keep an equipage? You must alter the very\nshape of your carriage, if she prescribes it. Is the livery of your\npostilion plain? You must make it of as many colours as she dictates. If\nyou yourself wear corbeau or raven colour to-day, you must change it, if\nshe orders you, to that of puce, or the flea, to-morrow. But it is not\nonly, in your equipage and your dress, that she will put you under her\ncontrol. She will make you obedient to her in your address and manners.\nShe will force upon you rules for your intercourse with others. She will\npoint out to you her amusements, and make you follow them. She will\nplace you under her cruel laws of honour, from which she will disown\nyou, if you swerve. Now I beseech you, tell me, which you think you\nwould prefer, the discipline of the goddess Fashion, or that of the good\nold mistress, which you may have wished to leave? The one kindly points\nout to you, and invites and warns you to avoid, every dangerous\nprecipice, that may be before you. The other is not satisfied, but with\nyour destruction. She will force you, for a single word, uttered in a\nthoughtless moment, to run the hazard of your life, or to lose what she\ncalls your character. The one, by preserving you in innocence, preserves\nyou happy. The greater your obedience to her, the greater is your\nfreedom; and it is the best species of freedom, because it is freedom\nfrom the pollutions of the world. The other awakens your conscience, and\ncalls out its stings. The more obedient you are to her, the greater is\nyour slavery, and it is the worst species of slavery, because it is\noften slavery to vice. In consequence of the freedom which the one\nbestows upon you, you are made capable of enjoying nature and its\nvarious beauties, and by the contemplation of these, of partaking of an\nendless feast. In consequence of the freedom which the one bestows upon\nyou, you are made capable of enjoying nature, and its various beauties,\nand, by the contemplation, of these, of partaking of an endless feast.\nIn consequence of the slavery to which the other reduces you, you are\ncramped as to such enjoyments. By accustoming you to be pleased with\nridiculous and corruptive objects, and silly and corruptive changes, she\nconfines your relish to worthless things. She palsies your vision, and\nshe corrupts your taste. You see nature before you, and you can take no\npleasure in it. Thus she unfits you for the most rational of the\nenjoyments of the world, in which you are designed to live.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n_Conclusory remarks, as they relate to those who compose the world at\nlarge--Advantages, which these may derive from the contents of this\nwork--from a view of many of the customs--and of the principles\nexplained in it--from seeing practically the influence of these customs\nand principles in the production of character and happiness--and from\nseeing the manner of their operation, or how they produce the effects\ndescribed._\n\n\nI shall now endeavour to make my conclusory remarks useful as they may\nrelate to those who may be called the world.\n\nTo state the object, which I have in view, I shall observe at once, that\nmen are divided in opinion as to the lawfulness, or expediency, or\nwholesomeness of many of the customs, fashions, and accomplishments of\nthe world. We find some encouraging in their families, and this without\nany hesitation, and to an almost unlimited extent, those which many, on\naccount of religious considerations, have expelled. We find others again\nendeavouring to steer a course between the opinions and practice of\nthese. The same diversity of sentiment prevails also with respect to\nprinciples. The virtuous or moral are adopted by some. The political by\nothers. That the political often obtain both in education and in\nsubsequent life, there is no question. Thus, for example, a young man is\nthought by some to be more likely to make his way in the world with the\naddress which fashionable accomplishments may give him, even if he be a\nlittle dissipated, than one of strict virtue with unpolished manners.\nThus again in actions and transactions, policy is often preferred to\nexpress and open declarations of the truth. Others again are of opinion,\nthat the general basis of principle should be virtue, but that a\nlatitude may be, allowed for a seasonable policy. Thus an education is\ngoing on under Christian parents, as if Christianity had objects in\nview, which were totally opposite to each other.\n\nIt is in this point of view chiefly, that I can hope to be useful in\nthis conclusory part of my work. We have seen in the course of it both\ncustoms and principles laid open and explained. We have seen the\ntendencies and bearings of these. We have seen them probed, and examined\nby a moral standard. We have seen their influence on character and\nhappiness. We have seen the manner in which they act, or how these\neffects are produced. A revision therefore of these cannot but be\nuseful, but more particularly to parents, as it may enable some of\nthese, in conjunction with the knowledge they possess, to form probably\na more correct system than they may have had it in contemplation to\nadopt, for the education of their youth.\n\nThe first advantage then, which those who compose the world at large may\nderive from the contents of this work, will be from a review of some of\nthe customs which have been censured in it.\n\nIn looking into customs, the first that obtrudes itself upon our notice,\nis that of allowing to children those amusements, which, on account of\nthe use of them, may be called gaming. A view is offered to us here,\nwhich is divested of all superstition. It is no where contended at\nrandom, in speaking against these, that their origin is objectionable.\nIt is no where insisted upon, that there is evil in them considered\nabstractedly by themselves, or that they may not be used innocently, or\nthat they may not be made the occasion of innocent mirth. The evil is\ncandidly stated to arise from their abuse. The nature of this evil is\nunfolded. Thus the malevolent passions, such as anger, envy, hatred,\nrevenge, and even avarice, are stirred up, where they should be\nparticularly prevented, in the youthful breast. A spirit of gaming,\nwhich may be destructive of fortune, health, and morals, is engendered.\nA waste of time[56] is occasioned, inasmuch as other pursuits might be\nfollowed, which would be equally amusing, but conducive to the\nimprovement of the mind. The nature of the abuse is unfolded likewise.\nIt consists of making games of chance productive of loss and gain. Thus\nthey hold up speedy pecuniary acquisitions, and speedy repairs of\nmisfortune. Thus they excite hope and fear, and give birth to pain and\ndisappointment. The prevention also of the abuse, and that alone which\ncan be effectual, is pointed out. This consists of a separation of\nemolument from chance, or of the adoption of the maxim, that no youth\nought to be permitted to lay a wager, or to reap advantage from any\ndoubtful event by a previous agreement on a moneyed stake. Now if the\nreader be not disposed to go the length which the Quakers do, by the\nabolition of such amusements, he will at least have had the advantage of\nseeing that there may be evil in them, and where it lies, and the\nextent (if he will only look at the historical instances cited) to which\nit may proceed, and its infallible prevention or its cure.\n\n[Footnote 56: This argument is usually applied to grown up people, but\nmay be applicable to youth, when we consider the ingenious inventions of\nmodern times, such as maps of dissected geography, historical and other\ngames, which, while they afford pleasure, promote improvement.]\n\nThe next subject which offers itself to our view, is music, and this\ncomes before us in two forms, either as it is instrumental or vocal.\n\nWith respect to instrumental, it is no where insisted upon that its\norigin is evil, or that it is not productive of a natural delight, or\nthat it does not soothe and tranquilize the passions, or that it may not\nbe innocently used, or that it may not be made, under limitations, a\ncheerful companion in solitude. But it is urged against it, that it does\nnot tend, like many other studies, to the improvement of the mind; that\nit affords no solid ground of comfort either in solitude or affliction;\nthat it is a sensual gratification; and that sensual gratifications, if\nindulged in leisure hours, take up the time which should be devoted to\nthose of a higher nature, that is, intellectual and moral pursuits. It\nis urged against it again, that, if abused, it is chargeable with a\ncriminal waste of time, and a criminal impairing of health; that this\nabuse, in consequence of proficiency being insisted upon (without which\nit ceases to be delightful) is at the present day almost inseparable\nfrom its use; and that where the abuse of a thing, either in consequence\nof fashion, or its own seductive nature, or any other cause, is either\nnecessarily or very generally connected with the use of it, watchfulness\nto avoid it is as much a duty in Christian morals, as it is a duty\nagainst the common dangers of life.\n\nOn vocal again we observe a proper distinction attempted. We find, that\nthe singing is no more criminal than the reading of a song, being but\nanother mode of expressing it, and that, the morality of it therefore\nwill depend upon the words and sentiments it contains. If these are\nindelicate, or unchaste, or hold out false and corruptive ideas, as has\nbeen shewn to be the case with a variety of songs, then singing may from\nan innocent become a vicious amusement. But it has been observed, that\nyouth seldom make any discrimination or selection with respect to songs,\nbut that they pick up all that come in their way, whatever may be the\nimpropriety of the words or sentiments, which they may contain.\n\nNow then, whether we speak of instrumental or vocal music, if the reader\nshould not be willing totally to discard this science as the Quakers\ndo, he will at least have learnt some good from the observation which\nthe work will have held out to him on this subject. He will see that\nevil may unquestionably be produced by the cultivation of it. He will\nsee the absolute necessity of guarding his children against the learning\nof it to professional precision, as it is now unfortunately taught, to\nthe detriment of their health, and of the acquisition of more important\nknowledge. He will see also the necessity of great vigilance with\nrespect to the purity of the words and sentiments which may be connected\nwith it.\n\nThe important subject, which is brought next before us, is that of the\ntheatre. Here we are taught, that, though dramatic pieces had no\ncensurable origin, the best of the ancient moralists condemned them. We\nare taught, that, even in the most favourable light in which we can view\nthem, they have been thought objectionable, that is, that where they\nhave pretended to teach morality, they have inculcated rather the\nrefined virtue of heathenism, than the strict though mild morality of\nthe Gospel; and where they have attempted to extirpate vice, they have\ndone it rather by making it appear ridiculous, than by teaching men to\navoid it as evil, or for the love of virtue. We are taught, that, as it\nis our duty to love our neighbour, and to be solicitous for his\nspiritual welfare, we ought not, under a system which requires\nsimplicity and truth, to encourage him to be what he is not, or to\npersonate a character which is not his own. We are taught that it is the\ngeneral tendency of the diversions of the stage, by holding out false\nmorals and prospects, to weaken the sinews of morality; by disqualifying\nfor domestic enjoyments, to wean from a love of home; by accustoming to\nlight thoughts and violent excitement of the passions, to unfit for the\npleasures of religion. We are taught that diversions of this nature\nparticularly fascinate, and that, if they fascinate, they suggest\nrepetitions. And finally we are taught, that the early Christians on\ntheir conversion, though before this time they had followed them as\namong the desirable pleasures of their lives, relinquished them on the\nprinciples now explained.\n\nThe next subject, which comes to us in order, is dancing. This is handed\ndown to us, under two appearances, either as it is simple, or as it is\nconnected with preparations and accompaniments.\n\nIn viewing it in its simple state, it is no where contended, if it be\nencouraged on the principle of promoting such an harmonious carriage of\nthe body, or use of the limbs, as maybe more promotive of health, that\nit is objectionable, though it is supposed that it is not necessary for\nsuch purposes, and that, without music and its other usual\naccompaniments, it would not be pleasant. Neither is it contended that a\nsimple dance upon the green, if it were to arise suddenly and without\nits usual preparations, may not be innocent, or that if may not be\nclassed with an innocent game at play, or with innocent exercise in the\nfields, though it is considered, that it would hardly be worthy of those\nof riper years, because they who are acknowledged to have come to the\nstature of men, are expected to abandon amusements for pursuits of\nusefulness, and particularly where they make any profession of the\nChristian name.\n\nIn viewing it with its preparations, and with its subsequent\naccompaniments, as usually displayed in the ball-room, we see it in a\nless favourable light. We see it productive, where it is habitually\nresorted to, of a frivolous levity, of vanity and pride, and of a\nlittleness of mind and character. We see it also frequently becoming the\noccasion of the excitement of the malevolent passions, such as anger,\nenvy, hatred, jealousy, malice, and revenge. We find it also frequently\nleading to[57] indisposition. We find lastly, that, in consequence of\nthe vexation of mind, which may arise from a variety of causes, but more\nparticularly from disappointment and the ascendency of some of the\npassions that have been mentioned, more pleasure is generally perceived\nin the anticipation of these amusements, than in the actual taste or use\nof them.\n\n[Footnote 57: Not only colds, head-aches, and a general lassitude, ore\nthe result Of dancing in ball-rooms, but occasionally serious\nindisposition. I have known the death of two young persons attributed to\nit by the physicians who attended them in their illness.]\n\nThe subject of novels is presented next to our view. And here it has\nappeared, that no objection can be truly adduced against these on\naccount of the fictitious nature of their contents. Novels also are not\nall of them promiscuously condemned. It is contended, however, from a\nvariety of causes which were shewn, that they are very generally\ncensurable. We are taught again, that the direct tendency of those which\nare censurable is to produce conceit and affectation, a romantic spirit,\nand a perverted morality among youth. We are taught again, that, on\naccount of the peculiar construction of these, inasmuch as they have\nplot and character like dramatic compositions, they fascinate, and this\nto such a degree, that youth wait for no selection, but devour\npromiscuously all that come in their way. Hence the conclusion is, that\nthe effects, alleged against novels, cannot but be generally produced.\nWe are presented also with this fact, that, on account of the high\nseasoning and gross stimulants they contain, all other writings, however\nuseful, become insipid. Hence the novel reader, by becoming indisposed\nto the perusal of more valuable books, excludes himself from the\nopportunity of moral improvement, and, if immoral sentiments are\ncontracted, from the chance of any artificial corrective or cure.\n\nThe diversions of the field offer themselves next to our notice. We are\ntaught, on the discussion which has arisen on this subject, that we are\nnot permitted to take away the lives of animals wantonly but only as\nthey may be useful for food, or as they may be dangerous to ourselves\nand to the other animals which may belong to us, and that a condition is\nannexed to the original grant or charter, by which permission was given\nto kill, which is never to be dispensed with, or, in other words, that\nwe are to take away their lives as speedily as we can. Hence rights have\nsprung up on the part of animals, and duties on the part of men, any\nbreach of which is the violation of a moral law. Hence the diversions of\nthe field become often objectionable, because life is not thus taken\naway as speedily as it might otherwise have been, and because food or\nnoxiousness is not often the object of the destruction of animals, but\nmere pleasure or sport. We are taught also to consider animals, not as\nmere machines, but as the creatures of God. We are taught also, that as\nthey were designed to have their proper share of happiness during the\ntime of their existence, any wanton interruption of this is an\ninnovation of their rights as living beings. And we are taught finally,\nthat the organic nature of men and animals being the same, as far as a\nfeeling of pain is concerned, the sympathy which belongs to our nature,\nand the divine law of doing as we would be done by, which will hold as\nfar as we can enter into the perceptions either of man or brutes, impose\nupon us the duty of anticipating their feelings, and of treating them in\na corresponding or tender manner.\n\nIf we take a view of other customs, into which the Quakers have thought\nit right to introduce regulations with a view of keeping their members\npure and innocent, we learn other lessons of usefulness. Thus, for\nexample, the reader, if he does not choose to adopt their dress, may\nobtain desirable knowledge upon this subject. He will see that the two\ngreat objects of dress are decency and comfort. He will see, though\nChristianity prescribes neither colour nor shape for the clothing, that\nit is not indifferent about it. It enjoins simplicity and plainness,\nbecause, where men pay an undue attention to the exterior, they are in\ndanger of injuring the dignity of their minds. It discards ornaments\nfrom the use of apparel, because these, by puffing up the creature, may\nbe productive of vanity and pride. It forbids all unreasonable changes\non the plea of conformity with fashion, because the following of fashion\nbegets a worldly spirit, and because, in proportion as men indulge this\nspirit, they are found to follow the loose and changeable morality of\nthe world, instead of the strict and steady morality of the Gospel.\n\nOn the subject of language, though the reader may be unwilling to adopt\nall the singularities of the Quakers, he may collect a lesson that may\nbe useful to him in life. He may discover the necessity of abstaining\nfrom all expressions of flattery, because the use of these may be\nmorally injurious to himself by abridging the independence of his mind,\nand by promoting superstition; while it may be injurious to others, by\noccasioning them to think more highly of themselves than they ought, and\nmore degradingly of their fellow-creatures. He may discover also the\nnecessity of adhering to the truth in all expressions, whether in his\nconversation or in his letters; that there is always a consistency in\ntruth, and an inconsistency in falsehood; that as expressions accord\nwith the essences, qualities, properties and characters of things, they\nare more or less proper; and that an attempt to adhere to the truth is\nproductive of moral good, while a departure from it may lead into error,\nindependently of its injury as a moral evil.\n\nWith respect to the address, or the complimentary gestures or ceremonies\nof the world, if he be not inclined to reject them totally as the\nQuakers do, he may find that there may be unquestionably evil in them,\nif they are to be adjudged by the purity of the Christian system. He may\nperceive, that there may be as much flattery and as great a violation of\ntruth through the medium of the body, as through the medium of the\ntongue, and that the same mental degradation, or toss of dignified\nindependence of mind, may insensibly follow.\n\nOn the subject of conversation and manners, he may learn the propriety\nof caution as to the use of idle words; of abstaining from scandal and\ndetraction; of withholding his assent to customs when started, however\nfashionable, if immoral; of making himself useful by the dignity of the\ntopic he introduces, and by the decorum with which he handles it; of\nnever allowing his sprightliness to border upon folly, or his wit upon\nlewdness, but to clothe all his remarks in an innocent and a simple\nmanner.\n\nFrom the subject of customs connected with meals, such as that, for\nexample, of saying grace, he may team that this is a devotional act;\nthat it is not to be said as a mere ceremony, by thanking the Supreme\nBeing in so many words while the thoughts are roving on other subjects,\nbut that it should be said with seriousness and feeling, and that it\nshould never come as an oblation from the tongue, except it come also\nan oblation from the heart. And on that which relates to the drinking of\ntoasts, he may see the moral necessity of an immediate extirpation of\nit. He may see that this custom has not one useful or laudable end in\nview; that it is a direct imitation of Pagans in the worst way in which\nwe can follow them--their enjoyment of sensual pleasures; that it leads\ndirectly and almost inevitably to drunkenness, and of course to the\ndegradation of the rational and moral character.\n\nA second advantage, which they who compose the world may derive on this\noccasion, will be seen from a recapitulation of some of the principles\nwhich the work contains. The advantage in question will chiefly consist\nin this, that, whatever these principles may be, they may be said to be\nsuch as have been adopted by a moral people, and this after serious\ndeliberation, and solely on a religious ground. It is of great\nimportance from whence principles come recommended to our notice. If\nthey come from the inconsiderate and worthless, they lose their value.\nIf from the sober and religious, we receive them under the impression,\nthat they may be promotive of our good. I shall give therefore a summary\nof these, as they may be collected from the work.\n\nGod has imparted to men a portion of his own Spirit, though he has\ngiven it to them indifferent degrees. Without this Spirit it would be\nimpossible for them to discern spiritual things. Without this it would\nbe impossible for them to know spiritually, even that the Scriptures\nwere of divine authority, or spiritually to understand them. This Spirit\nperforms its office of a teacher by internal monitions, and, if\nencouraged, even by the external objects of creation. It is also a\nprimary and infallible guide. It is given to all without exception. It\nis given to all sufficiently. They who resist it, quench it, and this to\ntheir own condemnation. They who encourage it receive it more\nabundantly, and are in the way of salvation and redemption. This Spirit\ntherefore becomes a Redeemer also. Redemption may he considered in two\npoints of view, as it is either by outward or inward means, or as it\nrelates to past sins or to sins to come. Jesus Christ effected\nredemption of the first kind, or that from past sins, while he was\npersonally upon earth, by the sacrifice of himself. But it is this\nSpirit, or Christ within, as the Quakers call it, which effects the\nlatter, or which preserves from future transgressions. It is this Spirit\nwhich leads, by means of its inward workings, to a new birth, and\nfinally to the highest perfection of which our nature is capable. In\nthis office of an inward Redeemer, it visits all, so that all may be\nsaved, if they will attend to its saving operations, God being not\nwilling that any should perish, but that all should inherit eternal\nlife.\n\nThis Spirit also qualifies men for the ministry. It qualifies women also\nfor this office as well as men. It dictates the true season for silence,\nand the true season for utterance, both in public and private worship.\n\nJesus Christ was man because he took flesh, and inhabited the body which\nhad been prepared for him; but he was Divinity, because he was the Word.\n\nA resurrection will be effected, but not of the body as it is. Rewards\nand punishments will follow, but guilt will not be imputed to men till\nthey have actually committed sin.\n\nBaptism and the Lord's Supper are essentials of the Christian religion.\nThey are not, however, essentials as outward ordinances, but only as\nthey are administered by the Holy Spirit.\n\nCivil government is for the protection of virtue and for the removal of\nvice. Obedience should be paid to all its laws, where the conscience is\nnot violated in doing it. To defraud it in any manner of its revenues,\nor to take up arms on any consideration against it, is unlawful. But if\nmen cannot conscientiously submit to any one or more of its ordinances,\nthey are not to temporize, but to obey Jesus Christ rather than their\nown governors in this particular case. They are, however, to be willing\nto submit to all the penalties which the latter may inflict upon them\nfor so doing. And as no Christian ought to temporize in the case of any\nlaws enjoined him by the government under which he lives, so neither\nought he to do it in the case of any of the customs or fashions, which\nmay be enjoined him by the world.\n\nAll civil oaths are forbidden in Christianity. The word of every\nChristian should be equivalent to his oath.\n\nIt is not lawful to return evil for evil, nor to shed the blood of man.\nAll wars are forbidden.\n\nIt is more honourable, and more consistent with the genius and spirit of\nChristianity, and the practice of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles, and\nof the primitive Christians, that men should preach the Gospel freely,\nthan that they should live by it, as by a profession or by a trade.\n\nAll men are brethren by creation. Christianity makes no difference in\nthis respect between Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bond and\nfree. No geographical boundaries, nor colour of the skin or person, nor\ndifference of religious sentiment, can dissolve this relationship\nbetween them.\n\nAll men are born equal with respect to privileges. But as they fall into\ndifferent situations and ranks of life, they become distinguished. In\nChristianity, however, there is no respect of persons, or no distinction\nof them, but by their virtue. Nobility and riches can never confer\nworth, nor can poverty screen from a just appropriation of disgrace.\n\nMan is a temple in which the Divinity may reside. He is therefore to be\nlooked upon and treated with due respect. No Christian ought to lower\nhis dignity, or to suffer him, if he can help it, to become the\ninstrument of his own degradation.\n\nMan is a being, for whose spiritual welfare every Christian should be\nsolicitous, and a creature therefore worthy of all the pains that can be\nbestowed upon him for the preservation of his moral character.\n\nThe first object in the education of man should be the proper\nsubjugation of his will.\n\nNo man ought to be persecuted or evil spoken of for a difference in\nreligious opinion. Nor is detraction or slander allowable in any case.\n\nEvery religious community should consider the poor belonging to it as\nmembers of the same family, for whose wants and comforts it is a duty\nto provide. The education also of the children of these should be\nprovided for.\n\nIt is enjoined us to live in peace with all men. All quarrels therefore\nare to be avoided between man and man. But if differences arise, they\nare to be adjusted by arbitration, and not, except it be otherwise\nimpossible, by going to law, and never by violence.\n\nIf men offend against the laws, they should be prevented from doing\ninjuries in future, but never by the punishment of the loss of life. The\nreformation of a criminal, which includes a prevention of a repetition\nof such injuries, is the great object to be regarded in the\njurisprudence of Christians.\n\nIn political matters there is no safe reasoning but upon principle. No\nman is to do evil that good may come. The policy of the Gospel is never\nto be deserted, whatever may be the policy of the world.\n\nTrade is an employment, by means of which we are permitted to gain a\nlivelihood. But all trades are not lawful. Men are responsible, as\nChristians, for engaging in those which are immoral, or far continuing\nin those which they may carry on either to the moral detriment of\nthemselves or of others. Abstinence from hazardous enterprises by the\nfailure of which innocent persons might be injured, and honesty in\ndealing, and punctuality to words and engagements, are essentials in\nthe prosecution of trade.\n\nHaving made observations on the customs, and brought to the view of the\nreader some of the prominent principles of the Quakers, a third\nadvantage will arise from knowing the kind of character, which these in\nconjunction will produce.\n\nOn this subject we might be permitted our conjectures. We might insist\nupon the nature and immediate tendencies of these customs and\nprinciples, and we might draw our conclusions from thence, or we might\nstate how they were likely to operate, so as probably not to be far from\nthe truth. But we are spared both the trouble of such a task, and are\nrelieved from the fear of having the accuracy of our conclusions\ndoubted. The Quaker character has been made up from the acknowledgments\nof others. It has been shewn that they are a moral people; that they are\nsober, and inoffensive, and quiet; that they are benevolent to man in\nhis religious and temporal capacity; that they are kind or\ntender-hearted to animals; that they do not make sacrifices of their\nconsciences to others; that in political affairs they reason upon\nprinciple; that they are punctual to their words and engagements; and\nthat they have independence of mind, and courage. Their character, as it\nis defective, has been explained also. It has been probed, and tried by\na proper touchstone. Appearances have been separated from realities. The\nresult has been, that a deficiency in literature and science, and that\nsuperstition, and that an undue eagerness after money, has been fixed\nupon a portion of them. The two former, however, it is to be\nrecollected, are only intellectually defective traits, and maybe\nremedied by knowledge. The latter, it is to be presumed, belongs rather\nto individuals than to the society at large. But whatever drawbacks may\nbe made from the perfect by the imperfect qualities that have been\nstated, there is a great preponderancy on the side of virtue. And where,\nwhen we consider the evil propensities of our nature, and the difficulty\nof keeping these in due order, are we to took for a fairer character?\nThat men, as individuals, may be more perfect, both in and out of the\nsociety, is not to be denied. But where shall we find them purer as a\nbody? and where shall we find a faulty character, where the remedy is\nmore easily at hand?\n\nThe next advantage will be in seeing the manner of the operation of\nthese customs and principles, or how they act. To go over the whole\ncharacter of the Quakers with this view would be both tedious and\nunnecessary. I shall therefore only select one or two parts of it for my\npurpose. And first, how do these customs and principles produce\nbenevolence? I reply thus: The Quakers, in consequence of their\nprohibitions against all public amusements, have never seen man in the\ncapacity of a hired buffoon or mimic, or as a purchasable plaything.\nHence they have never viewed him in a low and degrading light. In\nconsequence of their tenet on war, they have never viewed him as an\nenemy. In consequence of their disciplinary principles, they have viewed\nhim as an equal. Hence it appears, that they have no prejudices against\nhim from causes which often weigh with others, either on account of\nrank, or station, or many of the customs of the world. Now I conceive,\nthat the dereliction of prejudice against man is as necessary, as a\nfirst measure, to the production of benevolence towards him, as the\ndereliction of vice towards the production of virtue. We see then their\nminds free from bias on this subject. But what is there on the other\nside to operate actively towards the promotion of this trait? They view\nman, in the first place, as the temple in which the Divinity may reside.\nThis procures him respect. Secondly, as a being for whose spiritual\nwelfare they ought to be solicitous. This produces a concern for him.\nAnd thirdly, as a brother. This produces relationship. We see then the\nground cleared. We see all noxious weeds extirpated. We see good seed\nsown in their places; that is, we see prejudices removed from the heart,\nand we see the ideas of respect, concern, and relationship implanted in\nit. Now it is impossible that these ideas, under these circumstances,\nshould not as naturally and immediately produce a general benevolence to\nman, as common seeds, when all obstructive weeds are removed, should\nproduce their corresponding saplings or flowers.\n\nHow again are these customs and principles of the Quakers promotive of\nindependence of mind? I answer thus: There is a natural independence of\nmind in man, but it is often broken and weakened. Some men injure it by\nthe solicitation and acceptance of honours, and pensions, and places;\nothers by flattery and falsehood; others by customs of obeisance; others\nby their obedience to fashion. But the independence of mind of the\nQuakers is not stunted in its growth by the chiding blasts of such\ncircumstances and habits. It is invigorated, on the other hand, by their\nown laws. No servility is allowed either in word or gesture. Neither\nthat which is written, nor that which is uttered, is to please the\nvanity of the persons addressed, or to imply services never intended to\nbe performed. The knee is not to be bent to any one. It is strengthened\nagain and made to shoot by their own maxims. Is it possible to be in the\nhabit of viewing all men as equal in privileges, and no one as superior\nto another but by his virtue, and not to feel a disposition that must\nsupport it? Can the maxim of never doing evil that good may come, when\ncalled into exercise, do otherwise than cherish it? And can reasoning\nupon principle have any other effect than that of being promotive of\nits growth?\n\nThese then are the ways in which these customs and principles operate.\nNow the advantage to be derived from seeing this manner of their\noperation, consists in this: First, that we know to a certainty, that\nthey act towards the production of virtue. Knowing again what these\ncustoms and principles are, we know those which we are bound to cherish.\nWe find also, that there are various springs which act upon the moral\nconstitution for the formation of character. We find some of these great\nand powerful, and others inferior. This consideration should teach us\nnot to despise even those which are the least, if they have but a\ntendency to promote our purity. For if the effect of any of them be only\nsmall, a number of effects of little causes or springs, when added\ntogether, may be as considerable as a large one. Of these again we\nobserve, that some are to be round where many would hardly have expected\nthem. This consideration should make us careful to look into all our\ncustoms and principles, that we may not overlook any one which we may\nretain for our moral good. And as we learn the lesson of becoming\nvigilant to discover every good spring, and not to neglect the least of\nthese, however subtle its operation, so we learn the necessity of\nvigilance to detect every spring or cause, and this even the least,\nwhether in our customs or our principles, if it should in its tendency\nbe promotive of vice.\n\nAnd in the same manner we may argue with respect to other productions of\nthese customs and principles of the Quakers. As we have seen the latter\nlead to character, so we have seen them lead to happiness. The manner of\ntheir operation to this end has been also equally discernible. As we\nvalue them because they produce the one, so we should value them because\nthey produce the other. We have seen also which of them to value. And we\nshould be studious to cherish the very least of these, as we should be\ncareful to discard the least of those which are productive of real and\nmerited unhappiness to the mind.\n\nAnd now, having expended my observations on the tendencies of the\ncustoms and principles of the Quakers, I shall conclude by expressing a\nwish, that the work which I have written may be useful. I have a wish,\nthat it may be useful to those who may be called the world, by giving\nthem an insight into many excellent institutions, of which they were\nbefore ignorant, but which may be worthy of their support and their\npatronage. I have a wish also, that it may be useful to the Quakers\nthemselves, first, by letting them see how their own character may be\nyet improved; and secondly, by preserving them, in some measure, both\nfrom unbecoming remarks, and from harsh usage, on the part of their\nfellow-citizens of a different denomination from themselves. For surely\nwhen it is known, as I hope it is by this time, that they have moral and\nreligious grounds for their particularities, we shall no longer hear\ntheir scruples branded with the name of follies and obstinacies, or see\nmagistrates treating them with a needless severity, but giving[58] them,\non the other hand, all the indulgences they can, consistently with the\nexecution of the laws. In proportion as this utility is produced, my\ndesign will be answered in the production of the work, and I shall\nreceive pleasure in having written it. And this pleasure will be subject\nonly to one drawback, which will unavoidably arise in the present case;\nfor I cannot but regret that I have not had more time to bestow upon it,\nor that some other person has not appeared, who possessing an equal\nknowledge of the Quakers with myself, but better qualified in other\nrespects, might have employed his talents more to the advantage of the\nsubjects upon which I have treated in these volumes.\n\n[Footnote 58: Some magistrates, much to their honour, treat them with\ntenderness; and no people are more forward than the Quakers in\nacknowledging any attention that may be shewn them, but particularly\nwhere their religious scruples may be concerned.]\n\n\nEND OF THE THIRD VOLUME","title":"A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume 3: Taken from a View of the Education and Discipline, Social Manners, Civil and Political Economy, Religious Principles and Character, of the Society of Friends","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":82191}