APORTRAITURE OF QUAKERISM. 

TAKEN FROM A VIEWOF THEEDUCATION AND DISCIPLINE, SOCIAL MANNERS, CIVIL AND POLITICAL ECONOMY, RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLESANDCHARACTER, OF THE

Society of Friends

 * * * * *

BY THOMAS CLARKSON, M. A. 

AUTHOR OF SEVERAL ESSAYS ON THE SLAVE TRADE. 

VOL. III. 

CONTENTS OF THE THIRD VOLUME. 

 * * * * *

GREAT TENETS. 

CHAPTER I. 

_Civil government--Governors have no right to interfere in matters ofreligion--Nor are the governed bound to obey, where their consciencesare oppressed by doing it--but they are to be willing to suffer thepenalties annexed to their disobedience--and they are on no account toresist them by force of arms, _

CHAPTER II. 

_Oaths--Christians are not to take civil oaths--Reasons of the Quakersfor their disuse of them, _

CHAPTER III. 

SECT. I. _War--Unlawful for Christians to fight--Scriptural passages insupport of this tenet--Answers to these and replies, _

SECT. II. _These passages supported by the opinions and practice of theearly Christians, _

SECT. III. _Objection to the motive assigned for this practice--Reply tothis objection--Motive confirmed, _

SECT. IV. _Conduct of the early Christians further examined--WhileChristianity continued pure, they held it unlawful to fight--As itbecame less pure, their scruples against it declined--As it becamecorrupt, they ceased, _

SECT. V. _Reflections of the author on the foregoing subject--Supposedconversation with a superior being in another region--New arguments fromthence, _

SECT. VI. _Subject further considered--Erroneous conceptions of thosewho argue in favor of the necessity of war--This necessary only wherethe policy of the world is pursued--Nature of this policy--But notnecessary where men act on the policy of the Gospel, _

SECT. VII. _This doctrine confirmed by historical cases, _

SECT. VIII. _Final examination of the subject, _

CHAPTER IV. 

SECT. I. _Maintenance of a Gospel ministry--Quakers hold it unlawful topay their own ministers, or those of any other denomination, for theirGospel labours--Scriptural passages and historical facts relative tothis doctrine, _

SECT. II. _Additional reasons against the payment of those of anotherdenomination, as collected from a history of tithes, _

SECT. III. _A more particular statement of these reasons, _

 * * * * *

CHARACTER. 

CHAPTER I. 

_Character of the Quakers--Difficulties in the proper estimation ofcharacter--These removable in the present case, _

CHAPTER II. _Character general or particular--General is that of a moralpeople, _

CHAPTER III. 

SECT. I. _Character particular--First of the particular traits isbenevolence to man in his temporal capacity, _

SECT. II. _Second is benevolence to man in his religious capacity, _

SECT. III. _Third is benevolence, or a tender feeling for the brutecreation, _

CHAPTER IV. 

_Fourth is complacency of mind and manners, _

CHAPTER V. 

_Fifth is, that they do not sacrifice their consciences, as a body ofChristians, where they believe a compliance with any law or custom to bewrong, _

CHAPTER VI. 

_Sixth is, that in political affairs they reason upon principle, and notupon consequences, _

CHAPTER VII. 

_Seventh is independence of mind, _

CHAPTER VIII. 

SECT. I. _Eighth is courage in life, _

SECT. II. _Ninth is courage in death, _

CHAPTER IX. 

_Tenth is punctuality to words and engagements, _

CHAPTER X. 

_Imperfect traits--These are either intellectually or morallydefective--First of these is a deficiency in literature and science, when compared with other people, _

CHAPTER XI. 

_Second is superstition--Distinctions on this subject, _

CHAPTER XII. 

_Third is obstinacy--No foundation for this trait, _

CHAPTER XIII. 

SECT. I. _Fourth is a money-getting spirit--This spirit seldomchargeable with avarice, _

SECT. II. _Practicable methods suggested for the extirpation of it, _

CHAPTER XIV. 

Fifth is a want of animation or affection--This an appearance only. 

CHAPTER XV. 

Sixth is evasiveness in speech--No foundation for this trait. 

CHAPTER XVI. Seventh is shyness--This an appearance only. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Eighth is a disregard of truth--Inconsistency of the imputation of thistrait. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

SECT. I. Character of the Quaker women--Women share in the virtues ofthe men, but do not partake of all their reputed imperfections. 

SECT. II. Quaker women have a public character--Influence of this upontheir minds. 

 * * * * *

MISCELLANEOUS PARTICULARS. 

CHAPTER I. 

Quakers a happy people--Subordinate causes of this happiness. 

CHAPTER II. 

Good, which the Quakers have done as a society upon earth. 

CHAPTER III. 

Quakers in England on the decline in point of numbers, as a religioussociety--Certain causes of this decline. 

CHAPTER IV. 

Supposed remedies for the diminution of some of these causes--These ofvarious kinds--One of these a superior education--Supposed effect ofthis education. 

CHAPTER V. 

_Component parts of this education--Favourable state of the society forthe admission of it, _

CHAPTER VI. 

_Various arguments against it--These examined, _

CHAPTER VII. 

_Conclusory remarks, as they relate to those who may have had thoughtsof leaving the society, _

CHAPTER VIII. 

_Conclusory remarks, as they relate to those who may be called theworld, _

GREAT TENETSOF THEQUAKERS. 

CHAP. I. 

_Civil government--First tenet is, that governors have no right tointerfere with the governed on the subject of Religion--and that if theyinterfere, and insist upon things which the conscience disapproves, thegoverned ought to refuse a compliance with them, and to bear patientlyall the penalties annexed to such a refusal, but never to resist thegovernors by violence on this or any other account. _

The Quakers hold four principles, which I shall distinguish by the nameof Great Tenets. These are considered as arising out of the implied orpositive injunctions of Christianity, and were insisted upon asessentials on the formation of the society. The first of these is on thesubject of Civil Government. 

Civil Government had existed long before the appearance of Christianityin the world. Legislators since that era, as they have imbibed itsspirit, so they have introduced this spirit more or less into theirrespective codes. But, no nation has ever professed to change its systemof jurisprudence, or to model it anew, in consequence of the new lightwhich Christianity has afforded: neither have the alterations been sonumerous in any nation, however high its profession of Christianity, with respect to laws, as to enable us to say, that there is anygovernment in the known world, of Christian origin, or any governmentwholly upon the principles of the gospel. 

If all men were to become real Christians, civil government would becomeless necessary. As there would be then no offences, there would be noneed of magistracy or of punishment. As men would then settle anydifferences between them amicably, there would be no necessity forcourts of law. As they would then never fight, there would be no need ofarmies. As they would then consider their fellow-creatures as brethren, they would relieve them as such, and there would be no occasion of lawsfor the poor. As men would then have more solicitude for the publicgood, and more large and liberal notions, than at any former time, theywould of themselves conceive and raise all necessary public institutionsand works. Government then is not so necessary for real Christians. Itis necessary principally, as the apostle says, for evil-doers. But if itbe chiefly necessary for evil-doers, then governors ought to be carefulhow they make laws, which may vex, harrass, and embarrass Christians, whom they will always find to be the best part of their communities, or, in other words, how they make laws, which Christians, on account oftheir religious scruples, cannot conscientiously obey. 

It is a tenet of the Quakers, on the subject of government, that thecivil magistrate has no right to interfere in religious matters, so aseither to force any particular doctrines upon men, or to hinder themfrom worshipping God in their own way, provided that, by their creedsand worship, they do no detriment to others. The Quakers believe, however, that Christian churches may admonish such members as fall intoerror, and may even cut them off from membership, but this must be donenot by the temporal, but by the spiritual sword. 

This tenet the Quakers support, first, by reason. Religion, they say, isa matter solely, between God and man, that is, between God and that manwho worships him. This must be obvious, they conceive, because man isnot accountable to man for his religious opinions, except he bindshimself to the discipline of any religious society, but to God alone. Itmust be obvious again, they say, because no man can be a judge over theconscience of another. He can know nothing of the sincerity or hypocrisyof his heart. He can be neither an infallible judge, nor an infalliblecorrecter of his religious errors. "The conscience of man, says Barclay, is the seat and throne of God in him, of which he alone is the properand infallible judge, who, by his power and spirit, can rectify itsmistakes. " It must be obvious again, they say, from the considerationthat, if it were even possible for one man to discern the conscience ofanother, it is impossible for him to bend or controul it. But conscienceis placed both out of his sight and of his reach. It is neither visiblenor tangible. It is inaccessible by stripes or torments. Thus, while thebody is in bondage, on account of the religion of the soul, the soulitself is free, and, while it suffers under torture, it enjoys thedivinity, and feels felicity in his presence. But if all these thingsare so, it cannot be within the province either of individualmagistrates or of governments, consisting of fallible men, to fetter theconsciences of those who may live under them. And any attempt to thisend is considered by the Quakers as a direct usurpation of theprerogative of God. 

This tenet the Quakers adopt again on a contemplation of the conduct anddoctrines of Jesus Christ and of his apostles. They find nothing inthese, which can give the least handle to any man to use force in thereligious concerns of another. During the life of Jesus Christ uponearth, it is no where recorded of him, that he censured any man for hisreligion. It is true that he reproved the Scribes and Pharisees, butthis was on account of their hypocrisy, because they pretended to bewhat they were not. But he no where condemned the devout Jew, who wassincere in his faith. But if he be found no where to have censuredanother for a difference in religious opinions, much less was it eversaid of him, that he forced him to the adoption of his own. In thememorable instance, where James and John were willing to have calledfire from Heaven, to burn those who refused to receive him, he rebukedthem by an assurance, that "they knew not what spirit they were of. "And, with respect to his doctrines, nothing can be more full to thepoint than his saying, that "his kingdom was not of this world, " bywhich he meant that his dominion was wholly of a spiritual nature, andthat men must cast off all worldly imaginations, and become spirituallyminded, before, they could belong to him. But no application of outwardforce, in the opinion of the Quakers, can thus alter the internal man. Nor can even the creeds and doctrines of others produce this effect, except they become sanctioned by the divine influence on the heart. 

Neither is it recorded of any of the apostles, that they used any otherweapons than those of persuasion and the power of God in the propagationof their doctrines, leaving such as did not choose to follow them totheir own way. They were explicit also in stating the spiritual natureof Christ's kingdom, from whence an inference similar to the former isdeducible, namely, that no compulsory interference can be effectual inmatters of religion. And St. Paul, in particular, tells the Corinthians, that, in his spiritual services to them, he does not consider himself[1]"as having any dominion over their faith, but as helpers of theirjoy. "

[Footnote 1: 2 Cor. I. 24. ]

But if neither Jesus Christ, who was the author of that religion, whichmany civil governments have established, nor the apostles, whoafterwards propagated it, forced their doctrines upon other men, orhindered them by force from worshipping in their own way, even thoughthe former could have called legions of angels to his support, itcertainly does not become weak, ignorant, and fallible men, because theyare placed in the situation of governors, to set up their own creeds assupreme, and to throw penalties and restrictions in the way of thereligious exercise of others. 

But if governors, contrary to the example of Jesus Christ and of hisapostles, should interfere in religious matters, and impose laws uponthe governed, of which, as Christians, they cannot but disapprove, thenthe Quakers are of opinion, that the governed ought always to obey thelaws of Jesus Christ, rather than the laws of any governors, who areonly men. Thus when Peter and John were commanded by the rulers of theJews to speak no more in the name of Jesus, they dared not yieldobedience to their commands, reasoning thus, [2] "Whether it be right inthe sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. "

[Footnote 2: Acts iv. 19. ]

And as the governed in such case ought, in obedience to God, the SupremeRuler of the Universe, and the King of Kings, to refuse a compliancewith the laws of their own governors, so they ought to be preparedpatiently to submit to the penalties which are annexed to such refusal, and on no account, if just representations made in the meek and quietspirit of their religion, are not likely to be effectual, to take uparms or resist them by force. And this doctrine they ground, first, onthe principle, that it is not only more noble, but more consistent withtheir duty as Christians, to suffer, than to give growth to the passionsof revenge, or by open resistance to become the occasion of loss of lifeto others. And, secondly, on the example of Jesus Christ, and of theapostles and primitive Christians, all of whom patiently submitted tothe pains and penalties inflicted upon them by the governments of theirrespective times for the exercise of their religion. 

CHAP. II. 

_Oaths--Quakers conceive it unlawful for Christians to take anoath--their sufferings on this account--Consider oaths asunnecessary--as having an immoral tendency, which even the Heathensallowed--and as having been forbidden by Jesus Christ--Explanation ofthe scriptural passages cited on this occasion--Christianity not soperfect with the lawfulness of oaths as without it--Other reasons takenfrom considerations relative to the ancient oath "by the name of God"_

A second tenet, which the Quakers hold, is, that it is unlawful forChristians to take a civil oath. 

Many and grievous were the sufferings of the Quakers, in the early partof their history, on account of their refusing to swear before the civilmagistrate. They were insulted, fined, and imprisoned. Some of thejudges too indulged a rancour against them on this account, unworthy oftheir high office, which prescribed justice impartially to all. For whenthey could not convict them of the offences laid to their charge, theyadministered to them the oath of allegiance, knowing that they would nottake it, and that confiscation of property and imprisonment wouldensue. But neither ill usage, nor imprisonment, nor loss of property, ever made any impression upon the Quakers, so as to induce them to swearin judicial cases, and they continued to suffer, till the legislature, tired out with the cries of their oppression, decreed, that theiraffirmation should in all cases except criminal, or in that of servingupon juries, or in that of qualifications for posts of honour oremolument under government, be received as equivalent to their oath. Andthis indulgence towards them is continued to them by law to the presentday. 

The Quakers have an objection to oaths, as solemn appeals to God, because they are unnecessary. 

It is an old saying among the Quaker writers, that "truth was before alloaths. " By this they mean, there was a time, when men's words werereceived as truths, without the intervention of an oath. Ancient fable, indeed, tells us, that there were no oaths in the golden age, but that, when men departed from their primitive simplicity, and began to quarrelwith one another, they had recourse to falsehood to substantiate theirown case, after which it became necessary, that some expedient should bedevised, in the case of disputes, for the ascertaining the truth. HenceHesiod makes the god of oaths the son of Esis or of contention. This, account differs but little from that of Polybuis, who says, that the useof oaths in judgment was rare among the ancients, but that, as perfidygrew, oaths increased. 

And as it is a saying of the Quakers, that "truth was before all oaths, "so they believe, that truth would be spoken, if oaths were done away. Thus, that which is called honour by the world, will bind men to thetruth, who perhaps know but little of religion. But if so, then he, whomakes Christianity his guide, will not be found knowingly in afalsehood, though he be deprived of the opportunity of swearing. 

But if it be true, that truth existed before the invention of oaths, andthat truth would still be spoken, even if all oaths were abolished, thenthe Quakers say, that oaths are not so necessary as some have imagined, because they have but a secondary effect in the production of the truth. This conclusion they consider also as the result of reason. For good menwill speak truth without an oath, and bad men will hardly be influencedby one. And where oaths are regarded, it is probable that truth isforced out of men, not so much, because they consider them as solemnappeals to God, as that they consider the penalties, which will followtheir violation; so that a simple affirmation, under the same pains andpenalties, would be equally productive of the truth. 

The Quakers consider oaths again as very injurious to morality. Forfirst, they conceive it to be great presumption in men to summon God asa witness in their trilling and earthly concerns. 

They believe, secondly, that, if men accustom themselves to call uponGod on civil occasions, they render his name so familiar to them, thatthey are likely to lose the reverence due to it, or so to blendreligious with secular considerations, that they become in danger oflosing sight of the dignity, solemnity, and awfulness of devotion. Andit is not an unusual remark, that persons, most accustomed to oaths, arethe most likely to perjury. A custom-house oath has become proverbial inour own country. I do not mean by this to accuse mercantile men inparticular, but to state it as a received opinion, that, where men makesolemn things familiar, there is a danger of their moral degradation. Hence the Quakers consider the common administration of oaths to have atendency that is injurious to the moral interests of men. 

This notion relative to the bad tendency of oaths, the Quakers state tohave prevailed even in the Gentile world. As Heathen philosophy becamepure, it branded the system of swearing as pernicious to morals. It wasthe practice of the Persians to give each other their right hand as atoken of their speaking the truth. He, who gave his hand deceitfully, was accounted more detestable than if he had sworn the Scythians, intheir conference with Alexander the Great, addressed him thus: "Thinknot that the Scythians confirm their friendship by an oath. They swearby keeping their word. " The Phrygians were wholly against oaths. Theyneither took them themselves, nor required them of others. Among theproverbs of the Arabs, this was a celebrated one, "Never swear, but letthy word be yes or no. " So religious was Hercules, says Plutarch, thathe never swore but once. Clinias, a Greek philosopher, and a scholar ofPythagoras, is said to have dreaded an oath so much, that, when byswearing he could have escaped a fine of three talents, he chose ratherto pay the money than do it, though he was to have sworn nothing but thetruth. Indeed, throughout all Greece, the system of swearing wasconsidered as of the most immoral tendency, the very word, whichsignified "perjured, " in the Greek language, meaning, when analysed, "hethat adds oath to oath, " or "the taker of many oaths. "

But, above all, the Quakers consider oaths as unlawful for Christians, having been positively forbidden by Jesus Christ. 

The words, in which they conceived this prohibition to have beencontained, they take from the sermon on the Mount. 

[3] "Again, ye have heard, that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thineoaths. "

[Footnote 3: Matt. V. 33. ]

"But I say unto you, swear not at all, neither by heaven, because it isGod's throne. "

"Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem, for itis the city of the great King. "

"Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make onehair white or black. "

"But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever ismore than this cometh of evil. "

It is said by those, who oppose the Quakers on this subject, that thesewords relate, not to civil oaths, but to such as are used by profanepersons in the course of their conversation. But the Quakers deny this, because the disciples, as Jews, must have known that profane swearinghad been unlawful long before this prohibition of Jesus Christ. Theymust relate, therefore, to something else, and to something, which hadnot before been forbidden. 

They deny it also on account of the construction of the sentences, andof the meaning of the several words in these. For the words, "Swear notat all, " in the second of the verses, which have been quoted, have animmediate reference to the words in the first. Thus they relate to theword "forswear, " in the first. But if they relate to the word"forswear, " they must relate to perjury, and if to perjury, then to acivil oath, or to an oath, where an appeal is made to God by man, as tosomething relating to himself. The word oath also is explicitlymentioned in the first of these verses, and mentioned as an oath whichhad been allowed. Now there was one oath, which had been allowed inancient time. The Jews had been permitted, in matters of judgment, toswear by the name of God. This permission was given them, for one, amongother reasons, that they might be prevented from swearing by the name ofthose idols by which their neighbours swore; for a solemn appeal to anyHeathen god necessarily includes an acknowledgment of the omnipresenceof the same. 

That they related to this oath in particular, the Quakers conceive to beobvious from the prohibition in the verses which have been cited, ofswearing by heaven, by earth, and by other things. The Jews, knowing thesacredness of the name of God, had an awful notion of the consequencesof perjury, if committed after an appeal to it, and therefore hadrecourse to the names of the creatures, in case they should swearfalsely. But even the oaths, thus substituted by them, are forbidden byJesus Christ; and they are forbidden upon this principle, as we find bya subsequent explanation given by St. Matthew, that whosoever swore bythese creatures, really and positively swore by the name of God. But ifthey are forbidden, because swearing by these creatures is the samething as swearing by God who made them, then the oath "by the name ofGod, " which had been permitted to the Jews of old, was intended by JesusChrist to be discontinued, or to have no place in his new religion. 

The Quakers then, considering the words in question to have the meaningnow annexed to them, give the following larger explanation of what wasthe intention of our Saviour upon this occasion. 

In his sermon on the Mount, of which these words on the subject of oathsare a part, he inculcated into his disciples a system of morality, farexceeding that of the Jews, and therefore in the verses which precedethose upon this subject, he tells them, that whereas it was said of old, "thou shall not kill, " he expected of them, that they should not evenentertain the passion of revenge. And whereas it was said of old, "thoushalt not commit adultery, " he expected, that they should not even lustafter others, if they were married, or after those in a married state. Thus he brings both murder and adultery from act to thought. He attachesa criminality to unlawful feelings if not suppressed, or aims at thesubjugation of the passions, as the springs of the evil actions of men. Going on to shew the farther superiority of his system of morality overthat of the Jews, he says again, whereas it was said of old, "thoushall not forswear thyself, " he expects that they should not swear atall, not even by the name of God, which had been formerly allowed, forthat he came to abrogate the ancient law, and perjury with it. It washis object to make the word of his true disciples equal to the ancientoath. Thus he substituted truth for oaths. And he made this essentialdifference between a Jew and a Christian, that, whereas the one swore inorder that he might be believed; the other was to speak truth in orderthat he might not swear. Such was the intended advance from Jew toChristian, or from Moses to Christ. 

The Quakers are farther confirmed in their ideas upon this subject, bybelieving, that Christianity would not have been as perfect as theyapprehend it to have been intended to be, without this restriction uponoaths. Is it possible, they say, that Jesus Christ would have left it toChristians to imagine, that their words were to be doubted on anyoccasion? Would he have left it to them to think so dishonourably of oneanother, or of their new vocation, that their words were to be tried bythe touchstone of oaths, when his religion was to have a greater effectthan any former system of morality ever known, in the production oftruth? Is it possible, when oaths sprung out of fraud and falsehood, ashe himself witnesses, (for whatever is more than yea and nay, cometh ofevil) that he would have left this remnant of antiquity standing, as ifhis religion was not intended to extirpate the very ground-work of it?

Finally, the Quakers are confirmed in their ideas upon this subject froma belief that oaths were to cease, either at the coming of Jesus Christ, or as men became Christians. For, in the first place, the oath "by thename of God, " is considered by some, as I have before noticed, to havebeen permitted to the Jews during their weak state, that they might notswear by the idols of their cotemporary neighbours, and thus lose sightof the only and true God. But what Christian stands in need of anypreservative against idolatry, or of any commemorative of the existenceand superintendence of an almighty, wise, beneficent, and moral Governorof the world? Some again have imagined, that, as the differentpurifications among the Jews, denoting the holiness of God, signifiedthat it became men to endeavour to be holy, so the oath "by the name ofGod, " denoting the verity of God, signified, that it became men todevote themselves to the truth. But no true Christian stands in need ofsuch symbols, to make him consider his word as equivalent to his oath. Others again have imagined, that the oath "by the name of God, " typifiedthe truth, or the eternal word. But as the type ceases when theantitype appears, so the coming of Jesus Christ, who in the gospellanguage is called both the truth and the eternal word, may beconsidered as putting an end to this, as to other types and shadows, ofthe Jewish church. 

CHAP. III. 

SECT. I. 

_War--Tenet on war--Quakers hold it unlawful for Christians tofight--Scriptural passages, which they produce in support of thistenet--Arguments which others produce from scriptural authority againstit--Reply of the Quakers to these arguments. _

The next of the great tenets which the Quakers hold, is on the subjectof war. They believe it unlawful for Christians to engage in theprofession of arms, or indeed to bear arms under any circumstances ofhostility whatever. Hence there is no such character as that of a Quakersoldier. A Quaker is always able to avoid the regular army, because thecircumstance of entering into it is a matter of choice. But where he hasno such choice, as is the case in the militia, he either submits, if hehas property, to distraints upon it, or, if he has not, to prison. [4]

[Footnote 4: The Quakers have been charged with inconsistency inrefusing military service, and yet in paying those taxes, which areexpressly for the support of wars. To this charge they reply, that theybelieve it to be their duty to render to Caesar the things which areCaesar's, and to leave the application of them to Caesar himself, as hejudges best for the support of government. This duty they collect fromthe example of Jesus Christ, who paid the tribute money himself, andordered his disciples to do it, and this to a government, not onlyprofessedly military, but distinguished for its idolatry and despotism. Personal service, however, they conceive to militate against a positivecommand by our Saviour, as will be explained in this chapter. ]

The Quakers ground the illicitness of war on several passages, which areto be found in the New Testament. I shall not quote all the texts theybring forward, but shall make a selection of them on this occasion. 

Jesus Christ, in the famous sermon, which he preached upon the Mount, took occasion to mention specifically some of the precepts of the Jewishlaw, and to inform his hearers, that he expected of those, who were tobe his true disciples, that they would carry these to a much higherextent in their practice under the new dispensation, which he was thenaffording them. Christianity required a greater perfection of the humancharacter than under the law. Men were not only not to kill, but noteven to cherish the passion of revenge. [5] And "whereas it was said ofold, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, I say unto you, saysChrist, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thyright cheek, turn to him the other also. " And farther on in the samechapter, he says, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt lovethy neighbour, and hate thine enemy: But I say unto you, love yourenemies, [6] bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. For if yelove them which love you, what reward have you? do not even thePublicans the same? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father whichis in heaven is perfect. " Now the Quakers are of opinion, that no mancan receive this doctrine his heart, and assist either offensively ordefensively in the operations of war. 

[Footnote 5: Matt. V. 38. ]

[Footnote 6: The Heathen nations, on account of their idolatry, werecalled enemies by the Jews. ]

Other passages, quoted by the Quakers, in favour of their tenet on war, are taken from the apostles Paul and James conjointly. 

The former, in his[7] second epistle to the Corinthians, says, "Forthough we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: For theweapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to thepulling down of strong holds, to the casting down imaginations, andevery high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, andbringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. " Fromhence the Quakers argue, that the warfare of Christianity, or that whichChristianity recognises, is not carnal, but spiritual, and that itconsists in the destruction of the evil imaginations, or of the evillusts and passions of men. That is, no man can be a true soldier ofChrist, unless his lusts are subdued, or unless the carnal be done awayby the spiritual mind. Now this position having been laid down by St. Paul, or the position having been established in Christian morals, thata state of subjugated passions is one of the great characteristic marksof a true Christian, the Quakers draw a conclusion from it by the helpof the words of St. James. This apostle, in his letter to the dispersedtribes, which were often at war with each other, as well as with theRomans, says, [8] "From whence come wars and fightings among you? Comethey not hence even of your lusts that war in your members?" But if warscome from the lusts of men, then the Quakers say, that those who havesubdued their lusts, can no longer engage in them, or, in other words, that true Christians, being persons of this description, or being such, according to St. Paul, as are redeemed out of what St. James calls thevery grounds and occasions of wars, can no longer fight. And as thisproposition is true in itself, so the Quakers conceive the converse ofit to be true also: For if there are persons, on the other hand, whodeliberately engage in the wars and fightings of the world, it is aproof, that their lusts are not yet subjugated, or that, though they maybe nominal, they are not yet arrived at the stature of true or offull-grown Christians. 

[Footnote 7: 2 Cor. X. 3, 4, 5. ]

[Footnote 8: James iv. I. ]

A third quotation, made by the Quakers, is taken from St. Paulexclusively. [9] "Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he isnone of his. " That is, if men have not the same disposition which JesusChrist manifested in the different situations of his life, the samespirit of humility and of forbearance, and of love, and of forgivenessof injuries, or if they do not follow him as a pattern, or if they donot act as he would have done on any similar occasion, they are notChristians. Now they conceive, knowing what the spirit of Jesus was bythose things which have been recorded of him, that he could never havebeen induced or compelled, by any earthly consideration or power, tohave engaged in the wars of the world. They are aware that his mission, which it became him to fulfil, and which engrossed all his time, wouldnot have allowed him the opportunity of a military life. But theybelieve, independently of this, that the spirit which he manifested uponearth, would have been of itself a sufficient bar to such an employment. This they judge from his opinions and his precepts. For how could hehave taken up arms to fight, who enjoined in the new dispensation, thatmen were not to resist evil; that they were to love their enemies; thatthey were to bless those who cursed them, and to do good to those whohated them? This they judge also from his practice. For how could hehave lifted up his arm against another, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again;" and who, in his very agony upon the Cross, prayedfor his persecutors, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know notwhat they do. " But if Jesus Christ could not have been induced orcompelled to have engaged in a profession, which would have subjectedhim to take away the life of another, so neither can any Christian; "forif a man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his. "

[Footnote 9: Rom. Viii. 9. ]

Three arguments are usually brought against the Quakers on this subject. 

The first is, that John the Baptist, [10] when the soldiers demanded ofhim what they should do, did not desire them to leave the service inwhich they were engaged, but, on the other hand, to be content withtheir wages. To this the Quakers reply, that John told them also, "to doviolence to no man. " But even if he had not said this, they apprehendthat nothing could be deduced from his expressions, which could becomebinding upon Christians. For John was the last prophet of the olddispensation, but was never admitted into the new. He belonged to thesystem which required an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, butnot to that which required no resistance to evil, and which insistedupon the love of enemies as well as of friends. Hence Jesus Christ saidof him, that "he who was least in the kingdom of heaven, was greaterthan he. "

[Footnote 10: Luke iii. 14. ]

The second argument brought against the Quakers on this occasion, is ofa similar nature with the former. It is said that, if war had beenunlawful, our Saviour, when the centurion[11] came to him at Capernaum, would have found fault with his profession; but he did not do this, buton the other hand he highly commended him for his religion. In answer tothis the Quakers observe, first, that no solid argument can be drawnfrom silence on any occasion. Secondly, that Jesus Christ seems, forwise purposes, to have abstained from meddling with many of the civilinstitutions of his time, though in themselves wicked, thinkingprobably, that it was sufficient to have left behind him such generalprecepts, as, when applied properly, would be subversive of them all. And, thirdly, that he never commended the centurion on account of hismilitary situation, but on account of his profession of his faith. 

[Footnote 11: Matt. Viii. 5. ]

They say farther, that they can bring an argument of a much morepositive nature than that just mentioned, from an incident which tookplace, and where Jesus was again concerned. When Peter cut off the earof one of the servants of the high priest, who was concerned in theapprehension of his Lord, he was not applauded, but reprimanded for thepart which he thus took in his defence in the following words:[12] "Putup again thy sword in its place, for all they that take the sword, shallperish by the sword. " Now the Quakers conceive, that much more is to beinferred against the use of the sword from this instance, than from theformer in favour of it. 

[Footnote 12: Matt. Xxvi, 52. ]

The last argument, which is usually adduced against the Quakers on thissubject, is, that they have mistaken the meaning of the words of thefamous sermon upon the Mount. These words teach us the noble lesson, that it is more consistent with the character of a Christian to forgive, than to resist an injury. They are, it is said, wholly of privateimport, and relate solely to private occurrences in life. But theQuakers have extended the meaning of them beyond private to publicinjuries or wars. 

The Quakers, in answer to this observe, that they dare not give to thewords in question a less extensive meaning. They relate to every one whoreads them. They relate to the poor. They relate to the rich. Theyrelate to, every potentate who may be the ruler of a land. They relateto every individual of his council. There is no exception, ordispensation to any one, in favour of any case. 

That they relate to public as well as private wars, or that they extendthemselves naturally to those which are public, the Quakers conceive itreasonable to suppose from the following consideration. No man, theyapprehend, can possess practically the divine principle of loving anindividual enemy at home, or of doing good to the man who hates him, buthe must of necessity love his enemy in any and every other place. Hemust have gone so for forward on the road to Christian perfection, as tobe unable to bear arms against any other person whatsoever, andparticularly when, according to the doctrines of the New Testament, nogeographical boundaries fix the limits of love and enmity between manand man, but the whole human race are considered as the children of thesame parent, and therefore as brothers to one another. But who can trulylove an enemy and kill him? And where is the difference, under theGospel dispensation, between Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bondand free?

That these words were meant to extend to public as well as to privateware, the Quakers believe again from the views which they entertainrelative to the completion of prophecy. They believe that a time willcome, in one or other of the succeeding ages, "when men shall bent theirswords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and whennation shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall not learnwar any more. " Now other Christians, who differ from them in theinterpretation of the words in question, believe equally with them, thatthe times thus predicted will come to pass. The question then is, whether the more enlarged interpretation of these words, as insistedupon by the Quakers, or of the less enlarged as insisted upon by others, be the most consistent with the belief of the future accomplishment ofthe prophecy just mentioned. And in this case the Quakers are ofopinion, that if wars were ever to cease, one ought to expect that somefoundation would have been previously laid in Christianity for thisgreat and important end. The subjugation of the passions, which it isthe direct tendency of Christianity to effect, would produce this end. And so far such a foundation has already been laid in this system. Butas the admission of moral precepts into the education of man, so as toform habits of moral opinion, is another, way of influencing conduct inlife, the Quakers think it likely that some such maxim as "thatChristians should not fight, " would have been introduced also, becausethe adoption of such a maxim would have had a similar tendency with thesubjugation of the passions in producing the same end. For it seemsabsurd, they conceive, to suppose that wars should cease, and that noprecept should have been held out that they were wrong. But the moreenlarged interpretation of the words in question furnishes such aprecept, and therefore another foundation seems to have been laid inChristianity for the same end. They admit, therefore, the largerinterpretation as included in the less, because it comports more withthe design of Providence, who, by the mouth of his prophets willsuniversal peace, that the prohibition of public as well as of privatewars should be understood as a Christian doctrine, than that the wordsin question should be confined to private injuries alone. 

The last reason, which the Quakers give for adopting the largerinterpretation of the words in the sermon upon the Mount, as well as theless, is the following. They are of opinion, that, as Christians, theyought not to lessen the number of the moral obligations of the Gospel. They ought not to abridge its dignity, nor to put limits to itsbenevolence. If it was the desire of Jesus Christ, that men should lovetheir enemies, it is their duty to believe, that his wish could not havebeen otherwise than universal. If it was an object with him to curemoral evil, it is their duty to suppose, that it was his desire todestroy it, not partially, but to the utmost possible extent. If it washis design to give happiness to man, it is their duty to determine, thathe intended to give it not in a limited proportion, but in the largestmeasure. But when they consider the nature of wars, that they militateagainst the law of preservation, that they include the commission of amultitude of crimes, that they produce a complication of misery andsuffering to man, they conceive they would not be doing their duty asChristians, or giving to Christianity its due honour, if they were notto admit the larger meaning of the words in question as well as theless. Reason too, pleads for the one as well as for the other. Consistency of moral doctrine again demands both. But if we admit therestricted interpretation, and exclude the larger, we offend reason. Allconsistency is at an end. Individual responsibility for moral turpitudewill be taken from man. Crimes, clearly marked and defined in the pageof Christianity, will cease to be crimes at the will of princes. Onecontradiction will rush in after another; and men will have twodifferent standards of morality, as they adhere to the commands of theGospel, or to the customs of governments or of the world. 

SECT. II. 

_Meaning of the scriptural passages advanced by the Quakers, supportedby the opinions and practice of the early Christians--Early Christianwriters held it unlawful for Christians to fight, as appears fromJustin--Tatian--Clemens--and others--Christians would not enter into thearmies for more than two centuries, as appears from Ireneus--Tertullian--Celsus--Origen and others--and generally left the military service, if they happened to be converted in it. 

It may be presumed to be difficult for Christians, who have been in thehabit of seeing wars entered into and carried on by their own and otherChristian governments, and without any other censure than that theymight be politically wrong, to see the scriptural passages of"non-resistance to evil and love of enemies, " but through a vitiatedmedium. The prejudices of some, the interests of others, and custom withall, will induce a belief among them, that these have no relation topublic wars. At least they will be glad to screen themselves under sucha notion. But the question is, what a Heathen would have said to thesepassages, who, on his conversion to Christianity, believed that the NewTestament was of divine origin, that it was the book of life, and thatthe precepts, which it contained, were not to be dispensed with, to suitparticular cases, without the imputation of evil. Now such a trial, theQuakers say, has been made. It was made by the first Christians, andthey affirm, that these interpreted the passages, which have beenmentioned, differently from those of most of the Christians of thepresent age; for that both their opinions and their practice spokeloudly against the lawfulness of war. 

Upon this new subject I shall enter next. And I confess I shall enterupon it willingly. First, because I know of none that is more important. Secondly, because, though controversy may have thrown some light uponit, much remains to be added. And, thirdly, because the assertions ofthe Quakers on this point are disputed by many at the present day. Withrespect to the opinions of the early Quakers, which I shall noticefirst, it must be premised, that such of them as have written books, have not all of them entered on this subject. Some of them have not hadeven occasion to mention it. But where they have, and where they haveexpressed an opinion, I believe that this will be found unfavourable tothe continuance of war. 

Justin the Martyr, one of the earliest writers in the second century, considers war as unlawful. He makes also the devil "the author of allwar. " No severer sentence could have been passed upon it than this, whenwe consider it as coming from the lips of an early Christian. Thesentiment too was contrary to the prevailing sentiments of the times, when, of all professions, that of war was most honourable, and was theonly one that was considered to lead to glory. It resulted, therefore, in all probablity, from the new views, which Justin had acquired by aperusal of such of the scriptures, as had then fallen into his hands. 

Tatian, who was the disciple of Justin, in his oration to the Greeks, speaks precisely in the same terms on the same subject. 

From the different expressions of Clemens of Alexandria, a contemporaryof the latter, we collect his opinion to be decisive against thelawfulness of war. 

Tertullian, who may be mentioned next in order of time, stronglycondemned the practice of bearing arms, as it related to Christians. Ishall give one or two extracts from him on this subject. In hisdissertation on the worship of idols, he says, "Though the soldiers cameto John, and received a certain form to be observed, and though thecenturion believed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter, disarmed everysoldier afterwards: for custom never sanctions an illicit act. " And inhis "Soldier's Garland, " he says, "Can a soldier's life be lawful, whenChrist has pronounced, that he who lives by the sword shall perish bythe sword? Can one, who professes the peaceable doctrines of the Gospel, be a soldier, when it is his duty not so much as to go to law? and shallhe, who is not to revenge his own wrongs, be instrumental in bringingothers into chains, imprisonment, torment, death?"

Cyprian, in his Epistle to Donatus, takes a view of such customs in hisown times, as he conceived to be repugnant to the spirit or the letterof the Gospel. In looking at war, which was one of them, he speaks thus:"Suppose thyself, says he, with me on the top of some very exaltedeminence, and from thence looking down upon the appearances of thingsbeneath thee. Let our prospect take in the whole horizon, and let usview, with the indifference of persons not concerned in them, thevarious motions and agitations of human life. Thou wilt then, I daresay, have a real compassion for the circumstances of mankind, and forthe posture in which this view will represent them. And when thoureflectest upon thy condition, thy thoughts will rise in transports ofgratitude and praise to God for having made thy escape from thepollutions of the world. The things thou wilt principally observe, willbe the highways beset with robbers, the seas with pirates, encampments, marches, and all the terrible forms of war and, bloodshed. When a singlemurder is committed, it shall be deemed perhaps a crime; but that crimeshall commence a virtue, when committed under the shelter of publicauthority, so that punishment is not rated by the measure of guilt, butthe more enormous the size of the wickedness is, so much the greater isthe chance for impunity. " These are the sentiments of Cyprian, and thatthey were the result of his views of Christianity, as taken from thedivine writings, there can be little doubt. If he had stood upon thesame eminence, and beheld the same sights previously to his conversion, he might, like others, have neither thought piracy dishonourable, norwar inglorious. 

Lactantius, who lived some time after Cyprian, in his treatise"Concerning the True Worship of God, " says, "It can never be lawful fora righteous man to go to war, whose warfare is in righteousness itself, "And in another part of the same treatise he observes, that "no exceptioncan be made with respect to this command of God. It can never be lawfulto kill a man, whose person the Divine Being designed to be sacred as toviolence. "

It will be unnecessary to make extracts from other of the earlyChristian writers, who mention this subject. I shall therefore onlyobserve, that the names of Origen, Archelaus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerom, and Cyril, may be added, to those already mentioned, as the namesof persons who gave it as their opinion, that it was unlawful forChristians to go to war. 

With respect to the practice of the early Christians, which is the nextpoint to be considered, it may be observed, that there is no wellauthenticated instance upon record, of Christians entering into the armyfor the first two centuries; but it is true, on the other hand, thatthey declined the military profession, as one in which it was not lawfulfor them to engage. 

The first species of evidence, which I shall produce to this point, maybe found in the following facts, which reach from the year 169 to theyear 198, Avidius Crassus had rebelled against the emperor Verus, andwas slain in a short time afterwards. Clodius Albinus in one part of theworld, and Pescenninus Niger in another, rebelled against the emperorSeverus, and both were slain likewise. Now suspicion fell, as it alwaysdid in these times, if any thing went wrong, upon the Christians, ashaving been concerned upon these occasions. But Tertullian, in hisDiscourse to Scapula, tells us, that no Christians were to be found inthese armies. And yet these armies were extensive. Crassus was master ofall Syria, with its four legions, Niger of the Asiatic and Egyptianlegions, and Albinus of those of Britain, which legions togethercontained between a third and an half of the standing legions of Rome. And the fact, that no Christians were to be found in these, is the moreremarkable, because, according to the same Tertullian, Christianity hadreached all the places, in which these armies were. 

A second species of evidence, as far as it goes, may be collected fromexpressions and declarations in the works of certain authors of thosetimes. Justin the Martyr, and Tatian, make distinctions betweensoldiers and Christians; and the latter says, that the Christiansdeclined even military commands. Clemens of Alexandria, gives theChristians, who were cotemporary with him, the appellation of"peaceable, or of the followers of peace, " thus distinguishing them fromthe soldiers of his age. And he says expressly, that "those, who werethe followers of peace, used none of the instruments of war. "

A third species of evidence, which is of the highest importance in thiscase, is the belief which the writers of these times had, that theprophecy of Isaiah, which stated, that men should turn their swords intoploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, was then in the actof completion. 

Irenĉus, who flourished about the year 180, affirms, that this famousprophecy had been completed in his time; "for the Christians, says he, have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight, " Justin Martyr, who was cotemporary withIrenĉus, asserted the same thing, which he could not have done if theChristians in his time had engaged in war. "That the prophecy, says he, is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times pastkilled one another, do not now fight with our enemies. " And here it isobservable, that the word "fight" does not mean to strike, or to beat, or to give a blow, but to fight as in war; and the word "enemy" doesnot mean a common adversary, or one who has injured us, but an enemy ofthe state; and the sentence, which follows that which has been given, puts the matter again out of all doubt. Tertullian, who lived afterthese, speaks in those remarkable words: "Deny that these (meaning theturning of swords into ploughshares) are the things prophesied of, whenyou see what you see, or that they are the things fulfilled, when youread what you read; but if you deny neither of these positions, then youmust confess, that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as thepractice of every individual is concerned, to whom it is applicable. " Imight go from Tertullian even as far as Theoderet, if it were necessary, to shew, that the prophecy in question was considered as in the act ofcompletion in those times. 

The fourth and last proof will be found in the assertions of Celsus, andin the reply of Origen to that writer. Celsus, who lived at the end ofthe second century, attacked the Christian religion. He made it one ofhis charges against the Christians, that they refused in his time tobear arms for the emperor, even in the case of necessity, and when theirservices would have been accepted. He told them farther, that if therest of the empire were of their opinion, it would soon be overrun bythe Barbarians. Now Celsus dared not have brought this charge againstthe Christians, if the fact had not been publicly known. But let us seewhether it was denied by those, who were of opinion that his workdemanded a reply. The person, who wrote against him in favour ofChristianity, was Origen, who lived in the third century. But Origen, inhis answer, admits the fact as stated by Celsus, that the Christianswould not bear arms, and justifies them for refusing the practice on theprinciple of the unlawfulness of war. 

And as the early Christians would not enter into the armies, so there isgood ground to suppose, that, when they became converted in them, theyrelinquished their profession. Human nature was the same both in and outof the armies, and would be equally worked upon, in this new state ofthings, in both cases. Accordingly we find, from Tertullian, in his"Soldier's Garland, " that many in his time, immediately on theirconversion, quitted the military service. We are told also, byArchelaus, who flourished under Probus in the year 278, that many Romansoldiers, who had embraced Christianity, after having witnessed thepiety and generosity of Marcellus, immediately forsook the profession ofarms. We are told also by Eusebius, that, about the same time, "Numberslaid aside a military life, and became private persons, rather thanabjure their religion. " And here it may not be unworthy of remark, thatsoldiers, after their conversion, became so troublesome in the army, both on account of their scruples against the idolatrous practicesrequired of the soldiery, and their scruples against fighting, that theywere occasionally dismissed the service on these accounts. 

SECT. III. 

_Objection to the foregoing statement, that the idolatry, which was thenconnected with the military service, and not the unlawfulness of war, was the reason why Christians declined it--Idolatry admitted to be acause--Instance in Marinus--But the belief of the unlawfulness offighting was another, and an equally powerful cause--Instances inMaximilian--Marcellus--Cassian--Marlin--The one scruple as much then apart of the Christian religion as the other. _

As an objection may be made to the foregoing statement, I think itproper to notice it in this place. 

It will be said, that the military oath, which all were obliged to takealike in the Roman armies, and which was to be repeated annually, wasfull of idolatry; that the Roman standards were all considered as gods, and had divine honours paid to them by the soldiery; and that the imagesalso of the emperors, which were either fixed upon these standards, orplaced in the midst of them in a temple in the camp, were to be adoredin the same manner. Now these customs were interwoven with the militaryservice. No Roman soldier was exempted from them. It will be urged, therefore, that no Christian could submit to these services. Indeed whena person was suspected of being a Christian in those times, he wasinstantly taken to the altars to sacrifice, it being notorious, that ifhe were a Christian he would not sacrifice, though at the hazard of hislife. Is it not, therefore, to be presumed, that these idolatrous testsoperated as the great cause, why Christians refused to enter into thearmy, or why they left it when converted as described in the formersection?

That these tests operated as a cause, we must allow. And let this beconsidered as an insuperable argument against those, who contend thatthere were Christian soldiers in these times, for no Christian couldsubmit to such idolatrous homage; but, if so, no Christian could be asoldier. 

That these tests must have operated as a cause, we may infer from thehistory of Marinus. Marinus, according to Eusebius, was a man of familyand fortune, and an officer in a legion, which, in the year 260, wasstationed at Caesarea of Palestine. One of the centurion's rods happenedto become vacant in this legion, and Marinus was appointed to it. Butjust at this moment another, next to him in rank, accused him before thetribunal of being a Christian, stating, that "the laws did not allow aChristian, who refused to sacrifice to the emperors, to hold any dignityin the army. " Achĉus, the judge, asked Marinus if it was true, that hehad become a Christian. He acknowledged it. Three hours were thenallowed him to consider, whether he would sacrifice or die. When thetime was expired, he chose the latter. Indeed, so desirous were theearly Christians of keeping clear of idolatry in every shape, that theyavoided every custom that appeared in the least degree connected withit. Thus when a largess was given in honour of the emperors, L. Septimius Severus the father, and M. Aurelius Caracalla the son, asolitary soldier, as we learn from Tertullian, was seen carrying thegarland, which had been given him on that occasion, in his hand, whilethe rest wore it upon their heads. On being interrogated by thecommander, why he refused wearing it, he replied, that[13] he had becomea Christian. He was immediately punished before the army, and sent intoprison. What became of him afterwards is not related. But it must beclear, if he lived and cherished his Christian feelings, that, when theday of the renewal of his oath, or of the worshipping of the standards, or of any sacrifice in the camp, should arrive, he would have refusedthese services, or abandoned his profession. 

[Footnote 13: The priests wore the garland, when they sacrificed to theHeathen gods. ]

But though unquestionably the idolatrous services, required of thesoldiers of those times, hindered Christians from entering into thearmies, and compelled those, who were converted in them, to leave them, nothing is more true, than that the belief, that it was unlawful forChristians to fight, occasioned an equal abhorrence of a military life. One of the first effects, which Christianity seems to have produced uponits first converts, when it was pure and unadulterated, and unmixedwith the interpretations of political men, was a persuasion, that itbecame them, in obedience to the divine commands, to abstain from allmanner of violence, and to become distinguishable as the followers ofpeace. We find accordingly from Athenagoras, and other early writers, that the Christians of his time, abstained, when they were struck, fromstriking again, and that they carried their principles so far, as evento refuse to go to law with those who injured them. We find also, fromthe same Athenagoras, and from Theophilus Antiochenus, Tatian, MinuciusFelix, and others, that they kept away from the shews of the gladiators. This they did, not only because these shews were cruel; but because, asTheophilus says, "lest we should become partakers of the murderscommitted there. " A similar reason is also given by Athenagoras on thisoccasion: "Who is there, says he, that does not prize the shews of thegladiators, which your emperors make for the people? But we, thinkingthat there is very little difference whether a man be the author orspectator of murder, keep away from all such sights. " And here it may beobserved, that the gladiators themselves were, generally prisoners ofwar, or reputed enemies, and that the murder of these was by publicauthority, and sanctioned; as in war, by the state. Now what conclusionare we to draw from these premises? Can we think it possible, thatthose, who refused to strike again, or to go to law with those whoinjured them, and who thought an attendance at the gladiatorialspectacles criminal on the principle, that he who stood by was amurderer, though the murder was sanctioned by law; should not have anobjection to the military service, on the principle, that it wasunlawful to fight?

In short, the belief of the unlawfulness of war, was universal amongChristians in those times. Every Christian writer of the second century, who notices the subject, makes it unlawful for Christians to bear arms. And if the Christian writers of this age were of this opinion, contraryto all their sentiments before their conversion, and wholly from theirknowledge of divine truths, why should not others, who had a commonnature with these, be impressed, on receiving the same truths, in asimilar manner? And so undoubtedly they were. And as this belief wasuniversal among the Christians of those times, so it operated with themas an impediment to a military life, quite as much as the idolatry, thatwas connected with it, of which the following instances, in oppositionto that of Marinus, may suffice. 

The first case I propose to mention shall be, where there was anobjection to entering into the military service upon this principle. Andhere, I apprehend none can be more in point than that of Maximilian, aspreserved in the acts of Ruinart. 

Maximilian, having been brought before the tribunal, in order to beenrolled as a soldier, Dion, the proconsul, asked him his name. Maximilian, turning to him, replied, "Why wouldst thou know my name? Iam a Christian, and cannot fight. "

Then Dion ordered him to be enrolled, and when he was enrolled, it wasrecited out of the register, that he was five feet ten inches high. Immediately after this, Dion bade the officer mark him. But Maximilianrefused to be marked, still asserting that he was a Christian. Uponwhich Dion instantly replied, "Bear arms, or thou shalt die. "

To this Maximilian answered, "I cannot fight, if I die. I am not asoldier of this world, but a soldier of God. " Dion then said, "Who haspersuaded thee to behave thus?" Maximilian answered, "My own mind, andhe who called me. " Dion then spoke to his father, and bade him persuadehis son. But his father observed, that his son knew his own mind, andwhat it was best for him to do. 

After this had passed, Dion addressed Maximilian again in these words, "Take thy arms, and receive the mark. " "I can receive, says Maximilian, no such mark. I have already the mark of Christ. " Upon which Dion said, "I will send thee quickly to thy Christ. " "Thou mayest do so, saidMaximilian, but the glory will be mine. "

Dion then bade the officer mark him. But Maximilian still persisted inrefusing, and spoke thus: "I cannot receive the mark of this world, andif thou shouldst give me the mark, I will destroy it. It will availnothing. I am a Christian, and it is not lawful for me to wear such amark about my neck, when I have received the saving mark of the LordJesus Christ, the Son of the living God, whom thou, knowest not, whodied to give us life, and whom God gave for our sins. Him all weChristians obey. Him we follow as the restorer of our life, and theauthor of our salvation. "

Dion instantly replied to this, "Take thy arms, and receive the mark, orthou shalt suffer a miserable death. "--"But I shall not perish, saidMaximilian. My name is already enrolled with Christ. I cannot fight. "

Dion said, "Consider then thy youth, and bear arms. The profession ofarms becomes a young man. " Maximilian replied, "My arms are with theLord. I cannot fight for any earthly consideration. I am now aChristian. "

Dion the proconsul, said, "Among the life-guards of our mastersDioclesian and Maximian, and Constantius and Maximus, there areChristian soldiers, and they fight. " Maximilian answered, "They knowbest what is expedient for them, but I am a Christian, and it isunlawful to do evil. "

Dion said, "Take thy arms. Despise not the profession of a soldier, lestthou perish miserably. "--"But I shall not perish, says Maximilian; andif I should leave this world, my soul will live with Christ the Lord. "

Dion then ordered his name to be struck from the roll, and, when thiswas done, he proceeded, "Because, out of thy rebellious spirit, thouhast refused to bear arms, thou shall be punished according to thydeserts for an example to others. " And then he delivered the followingsentence: "Maximilian! because thou hast with a rebellious spiritrefused to bear arms, thou art to die by the sword. " Maximilian replied, "Thanks be to God. "

He was twenty years, three months, and seventeen days old, and when hewas led to the place of execution, he spoke thus: "My dear brethren, endeavour with all your might, that it may be your portion to see theLord, and that he may give you such a crown;" and then, with a pleasantcountenance, he said to his father, "Give the executioner the soldier'scoat thou hast gotten for me, and when I shall receive thee in thecompany of the blessed martyrs, we may also rejoice together with theLord. "

After this he suffered. His mother Pompeiana obtained his body of thejudge, and conveyed it to Carthage, and buried it near the place wherethe body of Cyprian the Martyr lay. And thirteen days after this hismother died, and was buried in the came place. And Victor, his father, returned to his habitation, rejoicing and praising God, that he had sentbefore such a gift to the Lord, himself expecting to follow after. 

I shall only observe, upon this instance, that it is nearly pure andunmixed, or that it is but little connected with idolatrouscircumstances, or rather, that the unlawfulness of fighting wasprincipally urged by Maximilian as a reason against entering upon amilitary life. Let us now find a case, where, when a person wasconverted in the army, he left it, pleading this principle, as one amongothers, for his dereliction of it. 

Marcellus was a centurion in the legion called "Trajana. " On a festival, given in honour of the birth-day of Galerius, he threw down his militarybelt at the head of the legion, and in the face of the standards, declared with a loud voice, that he would no longer serve in the army, for that he had become a Christian. "I hold in detestation, said he, addressing himself to all the soldiers, the worship of your gods: gods, which are made of wood and stone, gods which are deaf and dumb. " So farMarcellus, it appears, seems to have been influenced in his desertion ofa military life by the idolatry connected with it. But let us hear himfarther on this subject. "It is not lawful, says he, for a Christian, who is the servant of Christ the Lord, to bear arms for any earthlyconsideration. " After a delay of more than three months in prison afterthis transaction, which delay was allowed for the purpose of sparinghim, he was brought before the prefect. There he had an opportunity ofcorrecting his former expressions. But as he persisted in the samesentiments, he suffered. It is remarkable, that, almost immediatelyafter his execution, Cassian, who, was the notary to the same legion, refused to serve any longer, by publicly throwing his pen andaccompt-book upon the ground, and declaring, at the same time, that thesentence of Marcellus was unjust. When taken up by the order ofAurelianus Agricolanus, he is described by the record, preserved byRuinart, to have avowed the same sentiments as Marcellus, and, like him, to have suffered death. 

It may not be necessary, perhaps, to cite any other instances, asopposed to that of Marinus, to the point in question. But, as anotheroccurs, which may be related in few words, I will just mention it inthis place. Martin, of whom Sulpicius Severus says so much, had beenbred to the profession of arms, but, on his conversion to Christianity, declined it. In the answer, which he gave to Julian the Apostate for hisconduct on this occasion, we find him making use only of these words, "Iam a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight. "

Now this answer of Martin is detached from all notions of idolatry. Theunlawfulness of fighting is given as the only motive for hisresignation. And there is no doubt, that the unlawfulness of fightingwas as much a principle of religion in the early times of Christianity, as the refusal of sacrifice to the Heathen gods; and that they operatedequally to prevent men from entering into the army, and to drive themout of it on their conversion. Indeed these principles generally wenttogether, where the profession of arms presented itself as an occupationfor a Christian. He, who refused the profession on account of theidolatry connected with it, would have refused it on account of theunlawfulness of fighting. And he, who refused it on account of the guiltof fighting, would have refused it oh account of the idolatrous servicesit required. Both and each of them were impediments, in the early timesof Christianity, to a military life. 

SECT. IV. 

_Early Christians then declined the army on account, of one, among otherpersuasions, that it was unlawful for Christians to fight--Theirpractice examined farther, or into the fourth century--shewn from hence, that while Christianity continued pure, Christians still declined themilitary profession--but as it became less pure, their scruples againstit became less--and when it became corrupt, their scruples against itceased--Manner in which the Quakers make the practice of these earlytimes support the meaning of the scriptural passages, which they adducein favour of their tenet on war. _

As it will now probably be admitted, that the early Christians refusedto enter into the army, and that they left it after their conversion, onaccount of one, among other persuasions, that it was unlawful for themto fight, I must examine their practice, as it related to this subject, still farther, or I must trace it down to a later period, before I canshow how the Quakers make the practice of these early times support themeaning of the scriptural passages, which they advance in favour oftheir tenet on war. 

It may be considered as a well founded proposition, that, as the lamp ofChristianity burnt bright, in those early times, so those, who wereilluminated by it, declined the military profession; and, that, as itsflame shone less clear, they had less objection to it. Thus, in the twofirst centuries, when Christianity was the purest, there were noChristian soldiers. In the third century, when it became less pure, there is frequent mention of such soldiers. And in the fourth, when itscorruption was fixed, Christians entered upon the profession of armswith as little hesitation, as they entered upon any other occupation inlife. 

That there were no Christian soldiers in the first and second centuries, has already been made apparent. 

That Christianity also was purest in these times, there can be no doubt. Let us look at the character which is given of the first Christians byAthenagoras, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, and others of the earlyChristian writers. According to these they were plain and neat in theirapparel, and frugal in their furniture. They were temperate in theireating and drinking. They relinquished all the diversions of the times, in which they saw any tendency to evil. They were chaste in theirconversation, tempering mirth with gravity. They were modest and chastein their deportment and manners. They were punctual to their words andengagements. They were such lovers of the truth, that, on being asked, if they were Christians, they never denied it, though death was theconsequence of such a religious profession. They loved each other asbrethren, and called one another by that name. They were kind, andcourteous, and charitable, beyond all example, to others. They abstainedfrom all manner of violence. They prayed for those who persecuted them. They were patterns of humility and patience. They made no sacrifice oftheir consciences, but would persevere in that which was right, neverrefusing to die for their religion. This is the character, which isuniformly given of them by the Christian writers of those times. 

That their conduct was greatly altered in the third century, where weare now to view it, we may collect from indisputable authority. I statedin the former section, that a Christian soldier was punished forrefusing to wear a garland, like the rest of his comrades, on a publicoccasion. This man, it appears, had been converted in the army, andobjected to the ceremony on that account. Now Tertullian tells us, thatthis soldier was blamed for his unseasonable zeal, as it was called, bysome of the Christians at that time, though all Christians beforeconsidered the wearing of such a garland as unlawful and profane. Inthis century there is no question but the Christian discipline began torelax. To the long peace the church enjoyed from the death of Antoninusto the tenth year of Severus, is to be ascribed the corruption thatensued. This corruption we find to have spread rapidly; for the sameTertullian was enabled to furnish us with the extraordinary instance ofmanufacturers of idols being admitted into the ecclesiastical order. Many corruptions are also noticed in this century by other writers. Cyprian complained of them, as they existed in the middle, and Eusebius, as they existed at the end of it, and both attributed it to the peace, or to the ease and plenty, which the Christians had enjoyed. The lattergives us a melancholy account of their change. They had begun to live infine houses, and to indulge in luxuries. But, above all, they had begunto be envious, and quarrelsome, and to dissemble, and to cheat, and tofalsify their word, so that they lost the character, which Pliny, anadversary to their religion, had been obliged to give of them, and whichthey had retained for more than a century, as appears by their ownwriters. 

That there were Christian soldiers in this more corrupt century of thechurch, it is impossible to deny. For such frequent mention is made ofthem in the histories, which relate to this period, that we cannotrefuse our assent to one or other of the propositions, either that therewere men in the armies, who called themselves Christians, or that therewere men in them, who had that name given them by others. That they wereChristians, however, is another question. They were probably suchChristians, as Dion mentioned to have been among the life-guards ofDioclesian and Maximian, and of Constantius and Maximus, of whomMaximilian observed, "These men may know what it is expedient for themto do, but I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight. " Indeed, thatreal Christians could have been found in the army in this century isimpossible, for the military oath, which was full of idolatry, and theadoration of the standards, and the performance of sacrifice, stillcontinued as services[14] not to be dispensed with by the soldiery. Noone, therefore, can believe, that men in the full practice of Paganidolatry, as every legionary soldier must then have been, were realChristians, merely because it is recorded in history, that men, callingthemselves Christians, were found in the army in those times. On theother hand, if any soldiers professed Christianity at this period, orare related by authors to have professed it, and yet to have remainedsoldiers, it may be directly pronounced, that they could only have beennominal or corrupted Christians. 

[Footnote 14: The military oath was not altered for Christians till thenext century, when they were allowed to swear "by God, by Christ, and bythe Holy Spirit, and by the majesty of the emperor, which, next to God, is to be loved and honoured by mankind. "]

That Christianity was more degenerate in the fourth than in the thirdcentury (which is the next position) we have indubitable proof. One ofthe first facts, that strikes us, is an extraordinary one related byLactantius, in his "Death of the persecuted, " that there were Christiansat this time, who, having probably a superstitious belief, that the signof the Cross would be a preventive of pollution, were present, and evenassisted at some of the Heathen sacrifices. But it is not necessary todetail these or other particulars. Almost every body knows, that moreevils sprang up to the church in this century, than in any other, someof which remain at the present day. Indeed, the corruption ofChristianity was fixed as it were by law in the age now mentioned. Constantine, on his conversion, introduced many of the Pagan ceremoniesand, superstitions, in which he had been brought up, into the Christianreligion. The Christians, rejoiced at seeing an emperor of their ownpersuasion, under whom they had hopes of restoration to equal privilegeswith others, and of freedom from persecution, submitted, in order toplease or flatter him, to his idolatrous customs and opinions, thussacrificing their consciences to their ease and safety. Many, on theother hand, who had always been Heathens, professed themselvesChristians at once out of compliment to their emperor, and without anyreal conversion of the heart. Thus there was a mixture of Christianityand Paganism in the church, which had never been known before. Constantine too did not dispense with the blasphemous titles ofEternity, Divinity, and Pontifex Maximus, as they had been given to hispredecessors. After his death, he was considered also as a god. And ifPhilostorgius is to be believed, the Christians, for so he calls them, prayed to and worshipped him as such. 

Now in this century, when the corruption of the church may beconsidered to have been fixed, we scarcely find any mention of Christiansoldiers, or we find the distinction between them and others graduallypassing away. The truth is, that, when the Christians of this age hadsubmitted to certain innovations upon their religion, they were in a fitstate to go greater lengths; and so it happened, for as Heathens, whoprofessed to be Christians out of compliment to their emperor, had noobjection to the military service, so Christians, who had submitted toHeathenism on the same principle, relaxed, in their scruples concerningit. The latter too were influenced by the example of the former. Hencethe unlawfulness of fighting began to be given up. We find, however, that here and there an ancient father still retained it as a religioustenet, but these dropping off one after another, it ceased at length tobe a doctrine of the church. 

Having now traced the practice of the Christians down to the fourthcentury, as far as the profession of arms is concerned, I shall state infew words the manner in which the Quakers make this practice support themeaning of the scriptural passages, which they produce in favour oftheir tenet on war. 

The Quakers then lay it down as a position, that the Christians of thefirst and second centuries, as we had already observed, gave the sameinterpretation, as they themselves give, of the passages in question. 

Now they say first, that if there were any words or expressions in theoriginal manuscripts of the Evangelists or Apostles, which might throwlight upon the meaning of these or other passages on the same subject, but which words and expressions were not in the copies which came after, then many of those who lived in the first and second centuries, hadadvantages with respect to knowledge on this subject, which theirsuccessors had not, inasmuch as the former were soon afterwards lost. 

They say secondly, that if there was any thing in tradition which mighthelp to explain these passages more satisfactorily, those of the firstand second centuries had advantages again, because they lived nearer tothese traditions, or to the time when they were more pure, than thoseChristians did, who succeeded them. 

They say thirdly, that, if primitive practice be to be considered as thebest interpreter of the passages in question, then those of the firstand second centuries had their advantages again, because many of themlived in the times of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and all of themnearer to those who succeeded the Evangelists and Apostles, than thosein the subsequent ages of the Christian era. 

But in direct inference, they conceive, is to be drawn from thesepremises, namely, that the opinions of those who lived in the first andsecond centuries, relative to the meaning of the passages in question, are likely to be more correct on these several accounts, than those ofChristians in any of the ages that followed. 

And as in the first and second centuries of the church, whenChristianity was purest, there were no Christian soldiers, but as in thefourth century, when it became corrupt, Christians had lost theirobjections to a military life, they conceive the opinions of the formerto be more correct than those of the latter, because the opinions ofreal Christians, willing to make any sacrifice for their religion, mustbe always less biassed and more pure, than those of persons callingthemselves Christians, but yet submitting to the idolatrous and othercorrupt practices of the world. 

And as they conceive this to be true of the opinions of the secondcentury, when compared with those of the fourth, so they conceive it tobe true of the opinions of the second, when compared with those of themoderns upon this subject, because, whatever our progress inChristianity may be, seeing that it is not equal to that of the firstChristians, it is certain, besides the distance of time, that we haveprejudices arising from the practice of fourteen centuries, during allwhich time it has been held out, except by a few individuals, as lawfulfor Christians to fight. 

SECT. V. 

_Reflections of the author on the foregoing subject--Case of a superiorbeing supposed, who should reside in the planet nearest to us, and seewar carried on by men no larger than the race of ants--His enquiry as tothe origin of these wars--their duration--and other circumstances--supposedanswers to these questions--New arguments, from this supposedconversation, against war. _

I have now stated the principal arguments, by which the Quakers areinduced to believe it to be a doctrine of Christianity, that men shouldabstain from war, and I intended to close the subject in the lastsection. But when I consider the frequency of modern wars; when Iconsider that they are scarcely over, before others rise up in theirplace; when I consider again, that they come like the common diseases, which belong to our infirm nature, and that they are considered by mennearly in a similar light, I should feel myself criminal, if I were notto avail myself of the privilege of an author, to add a few observationsof my own upon this subject. 

Living as we do in an almost inaccessible island, and having thereforemore than ordinary means of security to our property and our personsfrom hostile invasion, we do not seem to be sufficiently grateful to theDivine Being for the blessings we enjoy. We do not seem to make a rightuse of our benefits by contemplating the situation, and by feeling atender anxiety for the happiness of others. We seem to make no properestimates of the miseries of war. The latter we feel principally inabridgments of a pecuniary nature. But if we were to feel them in theconflagration of our towns and villages, or in personal wounds, or inthe personal sufferings of fugitive misery and want, we should be apt toput a greater value than we do, upon the blessings of peace. And weshould be apt to consider the connexion between war and misery, andbetween war and moral evil, in a light so much stronger than we do atpresent, that we might even suppose the precepts of Jesus Christ to bedeficient, unless they were made to extend to wars, as well as toprivate injuries. 

I wonder what a superior being, living in the nearest planet to ourearth, and seeing us of the size of ants, would say, if he were enabledto get any insight into the nature of modern wars. 

It must certainly strike him, if he were to see a number of suchdiminutive persons chasing one another in bodies over different parts ofthe hills and vallies of the earth, and following each other in littlenut-shells, as it were upon the ocean, as a very extraordinary sight, and as mysterious, and hard to be explained. He might, at first, consider them as occupied in a game of play, or as emigrating for morefood, or for a better climate. But when he saw them stop and fight, anddestroy one another, and was assured that they were actually engaged inthe solemn game of death, and this at such a distance from their ownhomes, he would wonder at the causes of these movements, and the reasonof this destruction, and, not knowing that they possessed rationalfaculties, he would probably consider them as animals, destined bynature to live upon one another. 

I think the first question he would ask would be, And from whence dothese fightings come? It would be replied of course, that they came fromtheir lusts; that these beings, though diminutive in their appearance, were men; that they had pride, and ambition; that they had envy andjealousy; that they indulged also hatred, and malice, and avarice, andanger; and that, on account of some or other of these causes, theyquarrelled and fought with one another. 

Well, but the superior being would say, is there no one on the earth, which I see below me, to advise them to conduct themselves better, orare the passions you speak of eternally uppermost, and never to besubdued? The reply would of course be, that in these little beings, called men, there had been implanted the faculty of reason, by the useof which they must know that their conduct was exceptionable, but that, in these cases, they seldom minded it. It would also be added in reply, that they had a religion, which was not only designed by a spirit fromheaven, who had once lived among them, but had been pronounced by him asefficacious to the end proposed; that one of the great objects of thisreligion was a due subjugation of their passions; and this was so muchinsisted upon, that no one of them was considered to have received thisreligion truly, unless his passions were subdued. But here the superiorbeing would enquire, whether they acknowledged the religion spoken of, and the authority from whence it came? To which it would of course bereplied, that they were so tenacious of it, notwithstanding theirindulgence of their passions, and their destruction of one another, thatyou could; not offend them more grievously than by telling them, thatthey did not belong to the religion they professed. 

It is not difficult to foresee what other questions the superior beingwould ask, and probably the first of these would be, the duration of thelives of these little beings, and the length and frequency of theirwars? It would be replied to this, that their lives were but as avapour, which appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away, andthat a quarter, and sometimes half of their time on earth, was spent inthose destructive pursuits. The superior being would unquestionably begrieved at this account, because he would feel, that they reallyfrustrated their own happiness, or that they lost by their own fault aconsiderable portion of the enjoyment of their lives. 

In this impatience and anxiety for their future comfort, he wouldprobably ask again, if they had any notion of any generous end for whichthey were born, for it is impossible they could suppose, that they cameinto the world to destroy one another. It would be replied, that theycould not be ignorant of the true object or end; for the same religion, in which they believed, and which was said before to have been giventhem by a spirit sent from heaven, inculcated that they were sent thereon a life of trial, and that in a future existence they were to give anaccount of their conduct, and were to be rewarded or punishedaccordingly. The same religion, it would be replied, also inculcated, notwithstanding their fightings, the utmost benevolence from one towardsanother. It wished so much every one of them to live peaceably, that itenjoined it as a duty rather to put up with an injury than to resent it, and it carried its benevolence so far, that it made no distinctionbetween others of the same species, who spoke a different language, orlived in other districts or parts of the same world. 

But here the superior being would interrupt. --What, he would say! Arethey not to resent injuries, and yet do they go to war? And are they notafraid of fighting in this manner, when they are to give an account oftheir conduct in a future state? It would be replied, No: they havetheir philosophers among them, and most of these have determined, that, in this particular case, responsibility lies at the door of those whoemploy them. But, notwithstanding this, there are others living amongthem, who think otherwise. These are of opinion, that those who employthem cannot take the responsibility upon themselves without taking itfrom those whom they thus employ. But the religion of the Great Spiritno where says, that any constituted authorities among them can take awaythe responsibility of individual creatures, but, on the other hand, inthe most positive terms, that every individual creature is responsiblewholly for himself. And this religion does not give any creature anexemption on account of any force which may be used against him; becauseno one, according to its precepts, is to do evil, not even that good maycome. But if he be persecuted, he is to adhere to that which is right, and to expect his reward in the other state. The impossibility, therefore, of breaking or dissolving individual responsibility, in thecase of immoral action, is an argument to many, of the unlawfulness ofthese wars. And those who reason in this manner, think they havereasoned right, when they consider besides, that, if any of the beingsin question were to kill one of his usually reputed enemies in the timeof peace, he would suffer death for it, and be considered as accountablealso for his crime in a future state. They cannot see, therefore, howany constituted authorities among them can alter the nature of things, or how these beings can kill others in time of war, without theimputation of a crime, whom they could not kill without such animputation in time of peace. They see in the book of the Great Spirit nodispensation given to societies to after the nature of actions, whichare pronounced to be crimes. 

But the superior being would say, is it really defined, and is itdefined clearly in the great book of the Spirit, that if one of themshould kill another, he is guilty of a crime! It would be replied, notonly of a crime, but of the greatest of all crimes, and that nodispensation is given to any of them to commit it in any case. And itwould be observed farther, that there are other crimes, which thesefightings generally include, which are equally specified and forbiddenin the great book, but which they think it proper to sanction in thepresent case. Thus, all kinds of treachery and deceit are considered tobe allowable, for a very ancient philosopher among them has left a maximupon record, and it has not yet been beaten out of their heads, notwithstanding the precepts of the great book, in nearly the followingwords: "Who thinks of requiring open courage of an enemy, or thattreachery is not equally allowable in war?"[15]

[Footnote 15: Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat?]

Strange! the superior being would reply. They seem to me to be reversingthe order of their nature, and the end of their existence. But how dothey justify themselves on these occasions? It would be answered, thatthey not only justify themselves, but they even go so far as to callthese fightings honourable. The greater the treachery, if it succeeds, and the greater the number of these beings killed, the more glorious isthe action esteemed. 

Still more strange! the superior being would reply. And is it possible, he would add, that they enter into this profession With a belief, thatthey are entering into an honourable employ? Some of them, it would bereplied, consider it as a genteel employ. And hence they engage in it. Others, of a lazy disposition, prefer it to any other. Others aredecoyed into it by treachery in various ways. There are also strongdrinks, which they are fond of, and if they are prevailed upon to takethese to excess, they lose their reason, and then they are obliged tosubmit to it. It must be owned too, that when these wars begin, thetrades of many of these little beings are stopped, so that, to get atemporary livelihood, they go out and fight. Nor must it be concealed, that many are forced to go, both against their judgment and againsttheir will. 

The superior being, hurt at these various accounts, would probably ask, and what then does the community get by these wars, as a counterbalancefor the loss of so much happiness, and the production of so much evil?It would be replied, nothing. The community is generally worse off atthe end of these wars, than when it began to contend. But here thesuperior being would wish to hear no more of the system. He wouldsuddenly turn away his face, and retire into one of the deep valleys ofhis planet, either with exclamations against the folly, or with emotionsof pity for the situation, or with expressions of disgust at thewickedness, of these little creatures. 

 "O for a lodge in some vast wilderness, Some boundless contiguity of shade, Where tumour of oppression and deceit, Of unsuccessful or successful war, Might never reach me more! My ear is pain'd, My soul is sick with every day's report, Of wrong and outrage, with which earth is fill'd. Lands, intersected by a narrow frith, Abhor each other. Mountains interpos'd, Make enemies of nations who had else, Like kindred drops, been mingled into one. Thus men devotes his brother, and destroys-- Then what is man? And what man, seeing this, And having human feelings, does not blush, And hang his head, to think himself a man?"

COWPER

SECT. VI. 

_Subject farther considered--Sad conceptions of those relative to theDivine Being, and the nature of the Gospel, who plead for the necessityof war--War necessary, where statesmen pursue the policy of theworld--Nature and tendency of this policy--but not necessary where theypursue the policy of the Gospel--Nature and tendency of thispolicy--This tendency farther confirmed by a supposed case of a fewQuakers becoming the governors of the world. _

It is now an old maxim, and time with all its improvements has not wornit away, that wars are necessary in the present constitution of theworld. It has not even been obliterated, that they are necessary, inorder to sweep off mankind on account of the narrow boundaries of theearth. But they, who make use of this argument, must be aware, that, inespousing it, they declare no less, than that God, in the formation ofhis system, had only half calculated or half provided for itscontinuance, and that they charge him with a worse cruelty than isrecorded of the worst of men: because, if he told men to increase andmultiply, and gave them passions accordingly, it would appear as if hehad created them only to enjoy an eternal feast in the sight of theirdestruction. Nor do they make him a moral governor of the world, if heallows men to butcher one another without an individual provocation oroffence. 

Neither do persons, arguing for the necessity of wars, do less than setthemselves above the prophecies or oracles of God, which declare, thatsuch warfare shall some time or other cease. 

Neither do they, when they consider wars as necessary, and as never tobe done away on account of the wicked passions of men, do less thanspeak blasphemy against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because theyproclaim it to be inadequate to the end proposed. For the propersubjugation of these, among other purposes, it was that the Gospel waspromulgated. If it be thought a miracle, that the passions of men shouldbe subdued, it is still a miracle, which Christianity professes to work;which it has worked since the hour of its institution; which it hasworked in men, who have placed their highest reputation in martialglory; and which it continues to work, at the present day. Those, therefore, who promote wars, and excite the passions of men for thispurpose, attempt to undo what it is the object of Christianity to do, and to stop the benign influence of the Gospel in the hearts of men. 

That wars are necessary, or rather that they will be begun andcontinued, I do not mean to deny, while statesmen pursue the wisdom orpolicy of the world. 

What this wisdom or policy is, it will not be difficult to trace. Andfirst, when any matter is in dispute among the rulers of nations, is itnot a maxim, that a high tone is desirable in the settlement of it, inorder that the parties may seem to betray neither fear nor weakness, andthat they may not be thought to lose any of their dignity or theirspirit? Now as the human passions are constituted, except they havepreviously been brought under due regulation by Christianity, what ismore likely than that a high tone of language on one side should beget asimilar tone on the other, or that spirit, once manifested, should, produce spirit in return, and that each should fly off, as it were, at agreater distance from accommodation than before, and that, when onceexasperation has begun, it should increase. Now what is the chance, ifsuch policy be resorted to on such occasions, of the preservation ofpeace between them?

And, secondly, is it not also a received maxim, that, in controversiesof this sort, a nation, even during the discussion, should arm itself, in order that it may shew itself prepared? But if any one nation armsduring the discussion; if it fits out armies or fleets of observationwith a view of deterring, or of being ready in case of necessity ofstriking, as it is called, the first blow; what is more probable, thanthat the other will arm also, and that it will fit out its own armiesand fleets likewise? But when both are thus armed, pride and spirit willscarcely suffer them to relax, and what is then more probable, than thatthey will begin to fight?

And, thirdly, is it not a maxim also, that, even during the attempt toterminate the dispute, the public mind should be prepared? Are not thepublic papers let loose to excite and propagate a flame? And are notthe deeds of our ancestors ushered into our ears to produce a martialspirit? But if the national temper is roused on both sides, and ifpreparations are carrying on at the same time with the utmost vigour, where again is the hope of the prevention of war between them?

And, fourthly, after hostilities are commenced, is it not a maxim alsoto perpetuate the enmity, which has been thus begun, and to give it adeeper root, and even to make it eternal by connecting it with religion?Thus flag-staffs are exhibited upon steeples, bells are rung to announcevictories, and sermons are preached as occasions arise, as if the placesallotted for Christian worship, were the most proper from whence toissue the news of human suffering, or to excite the passions of men forthe destruction of one another. Nor is this all. The very colours of thearmies are consecrated. I do not mean to say, that like the banners inthe Praetorian tents, they are actually worshipped, but that an attemptis made to render them holy in the eyes of those who are present. Anattempt is made, wonderful to relate, to incorporate war into thereligion of Jesus Christ, and to perpetuate enmity on the foundation ofthe Gospel!

Now this is the policy of the world, and can it be seriously imagined, that such a system as this can ever lead to peace? For whilediscussions relative to matters of national dispute are carried on in ahigh tone, because a more humble tone would betray weakness or fear;while again, during this discussion, preparations for war are going on, because the appearance of being prepared would convey the idea ofdetermined resolution, and of more than ordinary strength; while again, during the same discussion, the national spirit is awakened andinflamed; and while again, when hostilities have commenced, measures areresorted to, to perpetuate a national enmity, so that the partiesconsider themselves as natural enemies even in the succeeding peace, what hope is there of the extermination of war on earth?

But let us now look at the opposite policy, which is that of the Gospel. Now this policy would consist in the practice of meekness, moderation, love, patience, and forbearance, with a strict regard to justice, sothat no advantages might be taken on either side. But if theseprinciples, all of which are preventive of irritation, were to bedisplayed in our negotiations abroad, in the case of any matter indispute, would they not annihilate the necessity of wars? For what isthe natural tendency of such principles? What is their tendency, forinstance, in private life? And who are the negotiators on theseoccasions but men? Which kind of conduct is most likely to disarm anopponent, that of him who holds up his arm to strike, if his opponentshould not comply with his terms, or of him who argues justly, whomanifests a temper of love and forbearance, and who professes that hewill rather suffer than resist, and that he will do every thing soonerthan that the affair shall not be amicably settled? The Apostle Paul, who knew well the human heart, says, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. " That is, thou shall cause him, by thy amiable conduct, to experience burningfeelings within himself, which, while they torment him with thewickedness of his own conduct, shall make him esteem thee, and bring himover to thy side. Thus thou shalt overcome his evil by thy good. Or, inother words, as fire melts the hardest metals, so thy kindness shallmelt his anger. Thus Parnell--

 "So artists melt the sullen ore of lead, By heaping coals of fire upon its head. Touch'd by the warmth, the metal teams to glow, And pure from dress, the silver tang below. "

This policy again would consist of the practical duty of attempting totranquillize the minds of the people, while the discussion was going on, of exhorting them to await the event with composure, of declaringagainst the folly and wickedness of wars, as if peace only could be theresult, of abstaining from all hostile preparations, and indeed from allappearance of violence. Now what influence would such conduct haveagain, but particularly when known to the opposite party? If theopposite party were to see those alluded to keeping down the passions oftheir people, would they inflame the passions of their own? If they wereto be convinced, that these were making no preparations for war, wouldthey put themselves to the expence of arming? Can we see any othertermination of such a contest than the continuance of peace?

That the policy of the Gospel, if acted upon by statesmen, would renderwars unnecessary, we may infer from supposed cases. And, first, I wouldask this simple question, whether, if all the world were Quakers, therewould be any more wars? I am sure the reply would be, no. But why not?Because nations of Quakers, it would be replied, would discuss mattersin dispute between them with moderation, with temper, and withforbearance. They would never make any threats. They would never arm, and consequently they would never fight. It would be owing then to theseprinciples, or, in other words, to the adoption of the policy of theGospel in preference of the policy of the world, that, if the globe wereto be peopled by Quakers, there would be no wars. Now I would ask, whatare Quakers but men, and might not all, if they would suffer themselvesto be cast in the same mould as the Quakers, come out of it of the sameform and character?

But I will go still farther. I will suppose that any one of the fourcontinents, having been previously divided into three parts, wasgoverned only by three Quakers, and that these had the same authorityover their subjects, as their respective sovereigns have at present. AndI win maintain, that there would never be, upon this continent, duringtheir respective administrations, another war. For, first, many of thecauses of war would be cut off. Thus, for instance, there would be nodisputes about insults offered to flags. There would be none again aboutthe balance of power. In short, it would be laid down as a position, that no one was to do evil, that good might come. But as, notwithstanding, there might still be disputes from other causes, thesewould be amicably settled. For first, the same Christian dispositionwould be manifest in the discussion as in the former case. And, secondly, if the matter should be of an intricate nature, so that oneQuaker government could not settle it with another, these would referit, according to their constitution, to a third. This would be the "neplus ultra" of the business. Both the discussion and the dispute wouldend here. What a folly then to talk of the necessity of wars, when, ifbut three Quakers were to rule a continent, they would cease there?There can be no plea for such language, but the impossibility of tamingthe human passions. But the subjugation of these is the immediate objectof our religion. To confess, therefore, that wars must be, is either toutter a libel against Christianity, or to confess that we have not yetarrived at the stature of real Christians. 

SECT. VII. 

_Subject farther examined--Case allowed, that if a cabinet of good menhad to negotiate with a cabinet of good men, there might be no wars--butwhat would be the issue if good had to deal with bad--Case of Americansettlers, who adopted the policy of the world, and were always atwar--and of other American settlers, who adopted the policy of theGospel, and were always at peace--No case stronger, than wherecivilized men had to deal with savage American tribes. _

I believe it will be allowed, that the Quaker instances, mentioned inthe last section, are in point. But I am aware also, it will be saidthat, though different cabinets, all having the same Christiandisposition, would settle their disputes in a friendly manner, how woulda cabinet, consisting of spiritually minded men, settle with a cabinetof other men, who had not brought their passions under due regulation, and who, besides, had no notion of the unlawfulness of war. 

I apprehend that it will not be denied, that men, as ferocious as anyrecorded in history, were those, who were found in America, when thatcontinent was discovered. We hear nothing of Africans, or of Asiatics, which would induce us to suppose, that they were as wild and asbarbarous as these. And nothing is more true of these, than they, werefrequently concerned in wars. I shall therefore take these for anexample, and I shall shew by the opposite conduct of two differentcommunities towards them, that it rests with men to live peaceably ornot, as they cultivate the disposition to do it, or as they follow thepolicy of the Gospel in preference of the policy of the world. 

When the English, Dutch, and others, began to people America, theypurchased land of the natives. But when they went to that continent, notwithstanding there were amiable persons among them, and friends tocivil and religious liberty, they went with the notions of worldlypolicy, and they did not take with them the Christian wisdom of theunlawfulness of war. They acted on the system of preparation, becausethere might be danger. They never settled without palisadoes and a fort. They kept their nightly watches, though unmolested. They were, in short, in the midst of war, though no injury had been offered them by thenatives, and though professedly in the midst of peace. 

In the peopling of Connecticut, for I must begin with some one state, itwas ordered at an English court, [16] "holden at Dorchester, on theseventh day of June, 1736, that every town should keep a watch, and bewell supplied with ammunition. The constables were directed to warn thewatches in their turns, and to make it their care, that they should bekept according to the direction of the court. They were required also totake care that the inhabitants were well furnished with arms andammunition, and kept in a constant state of defence. " As these infantsettlements, the author observes, "were filled and surrounded withnumerous savages, the people conceived themselves in danger, when theylay down, and when they rose up, when they went out, and when they camein. Their circumstances were such, that it was judged necessary forevery man to be a soldier. "

[Footnote 16: Trumbull's History of Connecticut, p. 56. ]

I find from this author, looking farther into his history, thatpreviously to the order of the court at Dorchester, which did nothingmore than enjoin a more strict execution of the original plan, which wasthat of military preparation and defence, some of the settlers had beenkilled by the natives. The provocation which the natives received, isnot mentioned. But it was probably provocation enough to savage Indians, to see people settle in their country with all the signs and symptoms ofwar. Was such a system likely to have any other effect than that ofexciting their jealousy? They could see that these settlers had at leastno objection to the use of arms. They could see that these arms couldnever be intended but against other persons, and there were no otherpersons there but themselves. Judging therefore by outwardcircumstances, they could draw no inference of a peaceable dispositionin their new neighbours. War soon followed. The Pequots were attacked. Prisoners were made on both sides. The Indians treated those settlersbarbarously, who fell into their hands, for they did not see, on thecapture of their own countrymen, any better usage on the part of thesettlers themselves; for these settlers, again, had not the wisdom touse the policy of the Gospel, but preferred the policy of the world. [17]"Though the first planters of New-England and Connecticut, says the sameauthor, were men of eminent piety and strict morals, yet, like othergood men, they were subject to misconception, and the influence ofpassion. Their beheading sachems whom they took in war, killing the malecaptives, and enslaving the women and children, was treating them with aseverity, which, on the benevolent principles of Christianity, it willbe difficult to justify. "

[Footnote 17: P. 112. ]

After this treatment, war followed war. And as other settlements weremade by others in other states on the same principles, war fell to theirportion likewise. And the whole history of the settlement of America, where these principles were followed, or where the policy of the worldwas adopted, is full of the wars between the settlers and the Indians, which have continued more or less, and this nearly up to the presentday. 

But widely different was the situation of the settlers under WilliamPenn. When he and his fellow Quakers went to this continent, they wentwith the principles of Christian wisdom, or they adopted the policy ofthe Gospel instead of the policy of the world. They had to deal with thesame savage Indians as the other settlers. They had the same fury toguard against, and were in a situation much more exposed to attack, andof course much more creative of alarm; for they had neither sword normusket, nor pallisadoe, nor fort. They judged it neither necessary towatch, nor to be provided with ammunition, nor to become soldiers. Theyspoke the language of peace to the natives, and they proved thesincerity of their language by their continuance in a defencelesscondition. They held out also, that all wars were unlawful, and that, whatever injuries were offered them, they would sooner bear them, thangratify the principle of revenge. It is quite needless to go fartherinto the system of this venerable founder of Pennsylvania. But it may beobserved, that no Quaker settlers, when known to be such, [18] werekilled, and, whatever attacks were made upon the possessors of land intheir neighbourhood, none were ever made upon those who settled on thelands purchased by William Penn. 

[Footnote 18: "The Indians shot him who had the gun, says Storey in hisJournal, and when they knew the young man they killed was a Quaker, theyseemed sorry for it, but blamed him for carrying a gun. For they knewthe Quakers would not fight, or do them any harm, and therefore, bycarrying a gun, they took him for an enemy. " This instance, which was inafter times, confirms still more strongly all that has been said on thissubject. Quakers at this time occasionally armed themselves against thewild beasts of the country. ]

It may not be improper to observe farther, that the harmoniousintercourse between the Quakers and the Indians continues uninterruptedto the present day. In matters of great and public concern, of which Icould mention instances, it has been usual with the Indians to senddeputies to the Quakers for advice, and the former have even beenprevailed upon by the latter to relinquish wars, which they had it incontemplation to undertake. It is usual also for some of these to sendtheir children to the Quakers for education. And so great is theinfluence of the Quakers over some of these tribes, that manyindividuals belonging to them, and now living together, have beenreclaimed from a savage life. These have laid aside the toilsomeoccupations of the chase. They raise horses, cattle, and sheep. Theycultivate wheat and flax. They weave and spin. They have houses, barns, and saw-mills among them. They have schools also, and civilization istaking place of the grossest barbarism. 

These facts, when contrasted, speak for themselves. A cabinet of Quakerministers, acting upon the policy of the Gospel, has been seated in theheart of a savage and warlike nation, and peace has been kept with themfor ever. A cabinet of other settlers, acting on the policy of theworld, has been seated in the heart of nations of a similar description, and they have almost constantly, been embroiled in wars. If Christianpolicy has had its influence on Barbarians, it would be libellous tosay, that it would not have its influence upon those who profess to beChristians. Let us then again, from the instances which have been nowrecited, deprecate the necessity of wars. Let us not think so meanly ofthe Christian religion, as that it does not forbid, nor so meanly of itspower, as that it is not ante to prevent, their continuance. Let us notthink, to the disgrace of our religion, that the human heart, under itsinfluence, should be so retrogade, that the expected blessing ofuniversal peace should be thought no improvement in our moral condition, or that our feelings under its influence should continue so impure, that, when it arrives, we should regard it not so much a blessing, as acures. But let us, on the other hand, hope and believe, that, as anopposite and purer policy is acted upon, it will do good to our ownnatures, good to the peace and happiness of the world, and honour to thereligion of the Gospel. 

SECT. VIII

_Subject finally considered--Authors of wars generally justify their ownas defensive--and state that, if any nation were to give up the practiceof war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel, it would be overrun byothers, which acted upon the policy of the world--Reason to believe, that such a nation would be held in veneration by others, and applied toby them for the settlement of their disputes--Sentiments of BishopButler in a supposed case--Case of Antoninus Pius--Conclusion. _

Having now said all that I intended to say on the supposed necessity ofwars, I shall for a short time direct the attention of the reader to twopoints, the only two, that I purpose to notice on this subject. 

It is usually said, first, that the different powers, who go to war, give it out that their wars are defensive, or that they justifythemselves on this principle. 

I shall observe in reply to this, that it is frequently difficult todetermine, where actual aggression begins. Even old aggressions, of longstanding, have their bearings in these disputes. Not shall we find oftenany clue to a solution of the difficulty in the manifestoes of eitherparty, for each makes his own case good in these; and if we were todecide on the merits of the question by the contents of these, we shouldoften come to the conclusion, that both the parties were wrong. Thus, for instance, a notion may have been guilty of an offence to another. Sofar the cause of the other is a just one. But if the other should armfirst, and this during an attempt at accommodation, it will be aquestion, whether it does not forfeit its pretensions to a just case, and whether both are not then to be considered as aggressors on theoccasion?

When a nation avows its object in a war, and changes its object in thecourse of it, the presumption is, that such a nation has been theaggressor. And where any nation goes to war upon no other avowedprinciple, than that of the balance of power, such a nation, howeverright according to the policy of the world, is an aggressor according tothe policy of the Gospel, because it proceeds upon the principle, thatit is lawful to do evil, that good may come. 

If a nation hires or employs the troops of another to fight for it, though it is not the aggressor in any war, yet it has the crime upon itshead of making those aggressors, whom it employs. 

But, generally speaking, few modern wars can be called defensive. A war, purely defensive, is that in which the inhabitants of a nation remainwholly at home to repel the attacks of another, and content themselveswith sending protection to the settlements which belong to it. But fewinstance are recorded of such wars. 

But if there be often a difficulty in discerning between aggressive anddefensive wars, and if, moreover, there is reason to suppose, that mostof the modern wars are aggressive, or that both patties becomeaggressors in the course of the dispute, it becomes the rulers ofnations to pause, and to examine their own consciences with fear andtrembling, before they allow the Sword to bedrawn, lest a dreadfulresponsibility should fall upon their heads for all the destruction ofhappiness, all the havoc of life, and all the slaughter of morals thatmay ensue. 

It is said, secondly, that if any nation were publicly to determine torelinquish the practice if war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel, it would be overrun by other nations which might act on the policy ofthe world. 

This argument is neither more nor less than that of the Pagan Celsus, who said in the second century, that, if the rest of the Roman empirewere Christians, it would be overrun by the Barbarians. 

Independently of the protection, which such a nation might count uponfrom the moral Governor of the world, let us enquire, upon rationalprinciples, what would be likely to be its fate. 

Armies, we know, are kept up by one nation, principally because they arekept up by another. 

And in proportion as one rival nation adds to its standing armies, it isthought by the other to be consistent with the policy of the world to dothe same. But if one nation were to decline keeping any armies at all, where would be the violence, to reason to suppose, that the other wouldfollow the example? Who would not be glad to get rid of the expence ofkeeping them, if they could do it with safety? Nor is it likely, thatany powerful nation, professing to relinquish war, would experience thecalamities of it. Its care to avoid provocation would be so great, andits language would be so temperate, and reasonable, and just, andconciliatory, in the case of any dispute which might arise, that itcould hardly fail of obtaining an accommodation. And the probability is, that such a nation would grow so high in esteem with other nations, thatthey would have recourse to it in their disputes with one another, andwould abide by its decision. "Add the general influence, says the greatBishop Butler in his Analogy, which each a kingdom would have over theface of the earth, by way of example particularly, and the reverencewhich would be paid to it. It would plainly be superior to all others, and the world must gradually come under its empire, not by means oflawless violence, but partly by what must be allowed to be justconquest, and partly by other kingdoms submitting themselves voluntarilyto it, throughout a course of ages, and claiming its protection oneafter another in successive exigencies. The head of it would be anuniversal monarch in another sense than any other mortal has yet been, and the eastern style would be literally applicable to him, "that allpeople, nations, and languages, should serve him. " Now Bishop Butlersupposes this would be the effect, where the individuals of a nationwere perfectly virtuous. But I ask much less for my hypothesis. I onlyask that the ruling members of the cabinet of any great nation (andperhaps these would only amount to three or four) should consist of realChristians, or of such men as would implicitly follow the policy of theGospel, and I believe the result would be as I have described it. 

Nor indeed are we without instances of the kind. The goodness of theemperor Antoninus Pius was so great, that he was said to have outdoneall example. He had no war in the course of a long reign of twenty-fouryears, so that he was compared to Numa. And nothing is more true, thanthat princes referred their controversies to his decision. 

Nor most I forget again to bring to the notice of the reader theinstance, though on a smaller scale, of the colonists and descendants ofWilliam Penn. The Quakers have uniformly conducted themselves towardsthe Indians in such a manner, as to have given them from their earliestintercourse, an exulted idea of their character. And the consequence is, as I stated in a former section, that the former, in affairs ofimportance, are consulted by the latter at the present day. But why, ifthe cabinet of any one powerful nation were to act upon the nobleprinciple of relinquishing war, should we think the other cabinets solost to good feelings, as not to respect its virtue? Let us instantlyabandon this thought; for the supposition of a contrary sentiment wouldmake them worse than the savages I have mentioned. 

Let us then cherish the fond hope, that human animosities are not to beeternal, and that man is not always to be made a tiger to man. Let ushope that the government of some one nation (and when we consider thevast power of the British empire, the nature of its constitution andreligion, and the general humanity of its inhabitants, none would bebetter qualified than our own) will set the example of the totaldereliction of wars. And let us, in all our respective situations, precede the anticipated blessing, by holding out the necessity of thesubjugation of the passions, and by inculcating the doctrine ofuniversal benevolence to man, so that when we look upon the beautifulislands, which lie scattered as so many ornaments of the ocean, we maywish their several inhabitants no greater injury than the violence oftheir own waves; or that, when we view continents at a distance from us, we may consider them as inhabited by our brothers; or that when wecontemplate the ocean itself, which may separate them from our sight, wemay consider it, not as separating our love, but as intended byProvidence to be the means of a quicker intercourse for the exchange ofreciprocal blessings. 

CHAP. IV. 

SECT. 1. 

_Fourth tenet is on the subject of a pecuniary maintenance of a Gospelministry--Example and precepts of Jesus Christ--Also of Paul andPeter--Conclusions from these premises--These conclusions supported bythe primitive practice--Great tenet resulting from these conclusions, and this primitive practice is, that the Quakers hold it unlawful to paytheir own ministers, and also others of any other denomination, fortheir Gospel labours. _

The fourth and last tenet of the Quakers is on the subject of theunlawfulness of a pecuniary maintenance of a Gospel ministry. 

In explaining this tenet, I am aware that I am treading upon delicateground. The great majority of Christians have determined, that thespiritual labourer is worthy of his hire; that if men relinquish theusual occupations by which a livelihood is obtained, in order that theymay devote themselves to the service of religion, they are entitled to apecuniary maintenance; and that, if they produce a rich harvest fromwhat they sow, they are of all men, considering their usefulness to manto be greater in this than in any other service they can render him, themost worthy of encouragement and support. I am aware also of thepossibility of giving offence to some in the course of the explanationof this tenet. To these I can only say, that I have no intention ofhurting the feelings of any; that in the church there are those whom Iesteem and love, and whom of all others I should be sorry to offend. Butit must be obvious to these, and indeed to all, that it is impossiblefor me, in writing a history of the manners and opinions of the Quakers, to pass over in silence the tenet that is now before me; and if I noticeit, they must be sensible, that it becomes me to state fully and fairlyall the arguments which the Quakers give for the difference of opinion, which they manifest from the rest of their fellow-citizens, on thissubject. 

It does not appear then, the Quakers say, by any records that can beproduced, that Jesus Christ ever received any payment for the doctrineswhich he taught, neither does it appear, as far as his own instructions, which are recorded by the Evangelists, can be collected on this subject, that he considered any pecuniary stipend as necessary or proper forthose who were to assist in the promotion of his religion. 

Jesus Christ, on the erection of his Gospel ministry, gave rules to hisdisciples, how they were to conduct themselves in the case before us. Heenjoined the twelve, before he sent them on this errand, as we collectfrom St. Matthew and St. Luke, that, [19] "as they had received freely, so they were to give freely; that they were to provide neither gold, norsilver, nor brass in their purses, nor scrip, nor other things for theirjourney; for that the workman was worthy of his meat. " And, on theirreturn from their mission, he asked them, [20] "When I sent you withoutpurse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, nothing. Then said he unto them, but now he that hath a purse let himtake it, and likewise his scrip. "

[Footnote 19: Matt x. 8. Luke ix. 1. ]

[Footnote 20: Luke xxii. 35. ]

In a little time afterwards, Jesus Christ sent out other seventy asdisciples, to whom he gave instructions similar to the former, that theyshould not take scrip, clothes, and money with them. But to these hesaid additionally, that[21] "wheresoever they were received, they wereto eat such things as were given them; but where they were not received, they were to go their way, and say, even the dust of your city, whichcleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you. " And as on that occasion hecompared the ministers of his Gospel to the labourers, whom a man sendsto the harvest, he told them they were at liberty to eat what was setbefore them, because the labourer was worthy of his hire. 

[Footnote 21: Luke x. ]

This the Quakers conceive to be the substance of all that Jesus Christtaught upon this subject. They go therefore next to St. Paul for afarther elucidation of it. 

They are of opinion, that St. Paul, in his Epistle to[22] Timothy, andto the Corinthians, and Galatians, acknowledges the position, that thespiritual labourer is worthy of his hire. 

[Footnote 22: 1 Cor. Ix. --1 Tim. V. --Gal. Vi. ]

The same Apostle, however, says, "that[23] if any would not work, neither should he eat. " From this text the Quakers draw two conclusions, first, that when ministers of the Gospel are idle, they are not entitledto bodily sustenance; and, secondly, that those only, who receive them, are expected to support them. The same Apostle says also, [24] "Let himthat is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in allgood things, " but he nowhere says, "to him that teacheth not. "

[Footnote 23: 2 Thes. Iii. 10. ]

[Footnote 24: Gal. Vi. 6. ]

But though men, who faithfully spend their time in preaching the Gospel, are entitled to bodily maintenance from those who receive them, yet St. Paul, the Quakers say, as far as his own practice was concerned thoughtit more consistent with the spirit of Christianity, and less detrimentalto its interests, to support himself by the labour of his own hands, than to be supported by that of others. And he advises others to do thesame, and not to make their preaching chargeable, [25] "not because, sayshe we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample to you to followus. "

[Footnote 25: 2 Thes. Iii. 0. ]

This power the Quakers consider ministers of the Gospel to abuse, whomake their preaching chargeable, if by any means, they can supportthemselves; for St. Paul says farther, [26] "What is my reward then?Verily that, when I preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel of Christwithout charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel. " Thus theApostle, they conceive, looks up to God and not to men for the reward ofhis spiritual labours. And the same Apostle makes it a characteristic ofthe false teachers, that they make merchandize of their hearers. [27]

[Footnote 26: 1 Cor. Ix. 18. ]

[Footnote 27: 2 Pet. Ii. 3. ]

It is objected to the Quakers, on this occasion, that St. Paul receivedrelief from the brethren at Philippi, as well as from others, when hedid not preach. But their reply is, that this relief consisted ofvoluntary and affectionate presents sent to him in circumstances ofdistress. In this case the Apostle states, that he never desired thesegifts, but that it was pleasant to him to see his religious instructionproduce a benevolence of disposition that would abound to theiraccount. [28]

[Footnote 28: Philip. Iv. 17. ]

St. Peter is the only other person, who is mentioned in the NewTestament as speaking on this subject. Writing to those, who had beencalled to the spiritual oversight of the churches, he advises asfollows:[29] "Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking theoversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God's heritage, butbeing examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. " Upon thesewords the Quakers make three observations; that ministers should notmake a gain of the Gospel; that they should look to God for theirreward, and not to men; and that Peter himself must have preached, likeSt. Paul, without fee or reward, or he could not consistently haverecommended such a practice to others. 

[Footnote 29: 1 Pet. V. 2. ]

The Quakers, therefore, from the example and precepts of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles Paul and Peter, come to the following conclusions onthis subject. First, that God raises up his own ministers. Secondly, that these are to dispense his Gospel freely. Thirdly, that they are totake, whereever they are received, such things as are given them, whichthings they deserve while in the exercise of their calling, as much asthe labourer his hire, but that no bargains are to be made aboutreligion; that they are not to compel men to give, neither are they totake away any thing from those who are unwilling to receive them, but, in this case, to go their ways, and shake the dust from their feetagainst them, or, in other words, to declare that they have done theirown duty in going to them with the word of God, and that the fault lieswith them in refusing to hear it. Neither, when they return from their, missions, or are idle at home, are they to receive any thing, but to usetheir own scrips and purses, and clothes. And fourthly, that though itbe lawful for them to receive such sustenance, under such limitations, during the exercise of their ministry, it would be more consistent withthe spirit of Christianity, if they would give their spiritual laboursfreely, and look up to God for their reward, thus avoiding the characterof false teachers, and the imputation of an abuse of their power in theGospel. 

Now these conclusions, the Quakers say, seem to have been sanctioned, ina great measure, by the primitive practice for the three first centuriesof the church, or till the darkness of apostacy began to overwhelm thereligious world. 

In the very early times of the Gospel, many Christians, both atJerusalem and Alexandria in Egypt, sold their possessions, and livedtogether on the produce of their common stock. Others in Antioch, Galatia, and Pontus, retained their estates in their possession, butestablished a fund, consisting of weekly or monthly offerings, for thesupport of the church. This fund continued in after times. But it wasprincipally for the relief of poor and distressed saints, in which theministers of the Gospel, if in that situation, might also share. Tertullian, in speaking of such funds, gives the following account:"Whatsoever we have, says he, in the treasury of our churches, is notraised by taxation, as though we put men to ransom their religion, butevery man once a month, or when it pleaseth him, bestoweth what hethinks proper, but not except he be willing. For no man is compelled, but left free to his own discretion. And that, which is thus given, isnot bestowed in vanity, but in relieving the poor, and upon childrendestitute of parents, and in the maintenance of aged and feeble persons, and of men wrecked by sea, and of such as have been condemned tometallic mines, or have been banished to islands, or have been cast intoprison, professing the Christian faith. "

In process of time, towards the close of the third century, some landsbegan to be given to the church. The revenue from these was thrown intothe general treasury or fund, and was distributed, as other offeringswere, by the deacons and elders, but neither bishops nor ministers ofthe Gospel were allowed to have any concern with it. It appears fromOrigen, Cyprian, Urban, Prosper, and others, that if in those times suchministers were able to support themselves, they were to have nothingfrom this fund. The fund was not for the benefit of any particularperson. But if such ministers stood in need of sustenance, they mightreceive from it; but they were to be satisfied with simple diet, andnecessary apparel. And so sacred was this fund held to the purposes ofits institution, that the first Christian emperors, who did as thebishops advised them, had no recourse to it, but supplied the wants ofministers of the Gospel from their own revenues, as Eusebius, Theodoret, and Sozomen relate. 

The council of Antioch, in the year 340, finding fault with the deaconsrelative to the management of the funds of the churches, ordained thatthe bishops might distribute them, but that they should take no part ofthem to themselves, or for the use of the priests and brethren who livedwith them, unless necessity required it, using the words of the Apostle, "Having food and raiment, be therewith content. "

In looking at other instances, cited by the Quakers, I shall mentionone, which throws light for a few years farther upon this subject. Inthe year 359, Constantine, the emperor, having summoned a generalcouncil of bishops to Arminium in Italy, and provided for theirsubsistence there, the British and French bishops, judging it not fit tolive on the public, chose rather to live at their own expence. Threeonly out of Britain, compelled by want, but yet refusing assistanceoffered to them by the rest, accepted the emperor's provision, judgingit more proper to subsist by public than by private support. Thisdelicate conduct of the bishops is brought to shew, that, whereministers of the Gospel had the power of maintaining themselves, theyhad no notion of looking to the public. In short, in those early times, ministers were maintained only where their necessities required it, andthis out of the fund for the poor. Those, who took from the fund, hadthe particular application given them of "sportularii, " orbasket-clerks, because, according to Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, andothers, they had their portion of sustenance, given them in baskets. These portions consisted but of a small pittance, sufficient only fortheir livelihood, and were given them on the principle laid down by St. Matthew, that the ministers of Jesus Christ were to eat and drink onlysuch things as were set before them. 

In process of time new doctrines were advanced relative to themaintenance of the ministry, which will be hereafter explained. But asthese were the inventions of men, and introduced during the apostacy, the Quakers see no reason, why they should look up to these inpreference to those of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles, and of thepractice of Christians in the purest periods of the church. Theybelieve, on the other hand, that the latter only are to be relied uponas the true doctrines. These were founded in divine wisdom on theerection of the Gospel ministry, and were unmixed with the inventions ofmen. They were founded on the genius and spirit of Christianity, and noton the genius or spirit of the world. The Quakers therefore, looking upto these as to the surer foundation, have adopted the following tenetson this subject. 

They believe, first, that it would be inconsistent in them asChristians, to make a pecuniary payment to their own ministers for theirGospel labours. And they regulate their practice accordingly upon thisprinciple. No one is ever paid by the Quakers for the performance of anyoffice in the church. If a minister lives at home, and attends themeeting to which he belongs, he supports himself, as St. Paul did, byhis own trade. If he goes on the ministry to other meetings, he isreceived by the Quakers as he travels along, and he finds meat and drinkat the houses of these. His travelling expenses also are generallydefrayed in this particular case. But he receives no reward, or fixed orpermanent stipend, for his services on these or on any other suchoccasions. 

And as the Quakers cannot pay their own ministers, so it is a tenet withthem, that they cannot pay those of other denominations for their Gospellabours upon the same principle; that is, they believe, that allministers of every description ought to follow the example, which St. Paul gave and enjoined them, of maintaining themselves by their ownhands; they ought to look up to God and not to men for their reward;they ought to avoid the character of false teachers, and the imputationof abusing their power in the Gospel. And to these they add a particularreason, drawn from the texts quoted, which is not applicable in theformer case, namely, that ministers are not authorised to take meat anddrink from those who are not willing to receive them. 

SECT. II. 

_Other reasons why Quakers cannot pay ministers of the Gospel of adifferent denomination from themselves--These arise out of the nature ofthe payments made to them, or out of the nature of tithes--History oftithes from the fourth century to the reign of Henry the eighth, whenthey were definitively consolidated into the laws of the land. _

But the Quakers have other reasons, besides the general reasons, and theparticular one which has been given, why as Christians they cannot payministers of a different denomination from themselves for their Gospellabours, or why they cannot pay ministers of the established church. These arise out of the nature of the payments which are made to them, orout of the nature of tithes. But to see these in their proper light, some notion should be given of the origin of this mode of theirmaintenance. I shall therefore give a very concise history of tithesfrom the fourth century, to which period I have already brought thereader, to the reign of Henry the eighth, when they took a station inthe laws of the land, from which they have never yet been displaced. 

It has already appeared that, between the middle and the close of thefourth century, such ministers of the Gospel as were able, supportedthemselves, but that those who were not able, were supported out of thefund for the poor. The latter, however, had no fixed or determinedproportion of this fund allotted them, but had only a bare livelihoodfrom it, consisting of victuals served out to them in baskets, as beforeexplained. This fund too consisted of voluntary offerings, or ofrevenues from land voluntarily bequeathed. And the principle, on whichthese gifts or voluntary offerings were made, was the duty of charity tothe poor. One material innovation, however, had been introduced, as Iremarked before, since its institution, namely, that the bishops, andnot the deacons, had now the management of this fund. 

At the latter end of the fourth century, and from this period to theeighth, other changes took place in the system of which I have beenspeaking. Ministers of the Gospel began to be supported, all of themwithout distinction, from the funds of the poor. This circumstanceoccasioned a greater number of persons to be provided for than before. The people therefore were solicited for greater contributions than hadbeen ordinarily given. Jerom and Omrysostom, out of good and piousmotives, exhorted them in turn to give bountifully to the poor, anddouble honour to those who laboured in the lord's work. And though theyleft the people at liberty to bestow what they pleased, they gave it astheir opinion, that they ought not to be less liberal than the ancientJews, who, under the Levitical law, gave a tenth of their property tothe priesthood and to the poor. Ambrose, in like manner, recommendedtenths, as now necessary, and as only a suitable donation for thesepurposes. 

The same line of conduct continued to be pursued by those who succeededin the government of the church, by Augustin, bishop of Hippo, by PopeLeo, by Gregory, by Severin among the Christians, in Pannonia, and byothers. Their exhortations, however, on this subject, were now mixedwith promises and, threats. Pardon of sins and future rewards were heldout on the one hand, and it was suggested on the other, that the people, themselves would be reduced to a tenth, and the blood of all the poorwho died, would be upon their heads, if they gave less than a tenth oftheir incomes to holy uses. By exhortations of this sort, reiterated forthree centuries, it began at length to be expected of the people, thatthey would not give less than tenths of what they possessed. No righthowever was alleged to such a proportion of their income, nor wascoercion ever spoken of. These tenths also were for holy uses, whichchiefly included the benefit of the poor. They were called the Lord'sgoods in consequence, and were also denominated the patrimony of thepoor. 

Another change took place within the period assigned, which I must nowmention as of great concern. Ministers of the Gospel now living whollyout of the tenths, which with legacies constituted the fund of the poor, a determined portion of this fund, contrary to all former usage, was setapart for their use. Of this fund, one fourth was generally given to thepoor, one fourth to the repairs of churches, one fourth to officiatingministers, and one fourth to the[30] bishops with whom they lived. Hencethe maintenance of ministers, as consisting of these two orders, andthe repairs of churches, took now the greatest part of it, so that theface of things began to be materially altered. For whereas formerly thisfund went chiefly to the poor, out of which ministers of the Gospel wereprovided, it now went chiefly to the church, out of which there came aprovision for the poor. Another change also must be noticed with respectto the principle on which the gifts towards this fund were offered. Forwhereas tenths were formerly solicited on the Christian duty of charityto the poor, they were now solicited on the principle, that by the lawof Moses they ought to be given for holy uses, in which the benefit ofthe fatherless, the stranger, and the widow, were included. From thistime I shall use the word tithes for tenths, and the word clergy insteadof ministers of the Gospel. 

[Footnote 30: In process of time, as the bishops became otherwiseprovided for, the fund was divided into three parts for the other threepurposes just mentioned. ]

In the eighth century, matters were as I have now represented them. Thepeople had been brought into a notion, that they were to give no lessthan a tenth of their income to holy uses. Bishops generally at thistime, and indeed long previously to this, lived in monasteries. Theirclergy lived also with them in these monasteries, and went from thenceto preach in the country within the diocese. It must be also noticed, that there were, at this time, other monasteries under abbots or priors, consisting mostly of lay persons, and distinct from those mentioned, andsupported by offerings and legacies in the same manner. The latter, however, not having numerous ecclesiastics to support, laid out more oftheir funds than the former were enabled to do, towards theentertainment of strangers, and towards the maintenance of the poor. Nowit must be observed, that, when these two kinds of monasteries existed, the people were at liberty to pay their tithes to either of them as theypleased, and that, having this permission, they generally favoured thelatter. To these they not only paid their tithes, but gave theirdonations by legacy. This preference of the lay abbies to theecclesiastical arose from a knowledge that the poor, for whose benefittithes had been originally preached up, would be more materially served. Other circumstances too occurred, which induced the people to continuethe same preference. For the bishops in many places began to abuse theirtrust, as the deacons had done before, by attaching the bequeathed landsto their sees, so that the inferior clergy, and the poor became in amanner dependent upon them for their daily bread. In other places theclergy had seized all to their own use. The people therefore sothoroughly favoured the lay abbies in preference to those of the church, that the former became daily richer, while the, latter did little morethan maintain their ground. 

This preference, however, which made such a difference in the funds ofthe ecclesiastical, and of the lay monasteries, was viewed with ajealous eye by the clergy of those times, and measures were at lengthtaken to remove it. In a council under Pope Alexander the third, in theyear 1180, it was determined, that the liberty of the people should berestrained with respect to their tithes. They were accordingly forbiddento make appropriations to religious houses without the consent of thebishop, in whose diocese they lived. But even this prohibition did notsucceed. The people still favoured the lay abbies, paying their tithesthere, till Pope Innocent the third, in the year 1200, ordained, and heenforced it by ecclesiastical censures, that every one should pay histithes to those who administered to him spiritual things in his ownparish. In a general council also held at Lyons, in the year 1274, itwas decreed, that it was no longer lawful for men to pay their titheswhere they pleased, as before, but that they should pay them to motherchurch. And the principle, on which they had now been long demanded, wasconfirmed by the council of Trent under Pope Pius the fourth, in theyear 1560, which was, that they were due by divine right. In the courseof forty years after the payment of tithes had been forced byecclesiastical censures and excommunications, prescription was set up. Thus the very principle, in which tithes had originated, was changed. Thus free will-offerings became dues, to be exacted by compulsion. Andthus the fund of the poor was converted almost wholly into a fund forthe maintenance of the church. 

Having now traced the origin of tithes, as far as a part of thecontinent of Europe is concerned, I shall trace it as far as they havereference to our own country. And here I may instantly observe, and in afew words, that the same system and the same changes are conspicuous. Free will-offerings and donations of land constituted a fund for thepoor, out of which the clergy were maintained. In process of time, tenths or tithes followed. Of these, certain proportions were allottedto the clergy, the repairs of the churches, and the poor. This was thestate of things in the time of Offa, king of Mercia, towards the closeof the eighth century, when that prince, having caused Ethelbert, kingof the East Angles, to be treacherously murdered, fled to the Pope forpardon, to please whom, and to expiate his own sin, he caused thosetithes to become dues in his own dominions, which were only at the willof the donors before. 

About sixty years afterwards, Ethelwolf, a weak and superstitiousprince, was worked upon by the clergy to extend tithes as dues to thewhole kingdom; and he consented to it under the notion, that he was thusto avert the judgments of God, which they represented as visible in thefrequent ravages of the Danes. Poor laymen, however, were still to besupported out of these tithes, and the people were still at liberty topay them to whichever religious persons they pleased. 

About the close of the tenth century, Edgar took from the people theright of disposing of their tithes at their own discretion, and directedthat they should be paid to the parish churches. But the othermonasteries or lay-houses resisting, his orders became useless for atime. At this period the lay monasteries were rich, but the parochialclergy poor. Pope Innocent, however, by sending out his famous decreebefore mentioned to king John, which was to be observed in England aswell as in other places under his jurisdiction, and by which it wasenacted, that every man was to pay his tithes to those only, whoadministered spiritual help to him in his own parish, settled theaffair; for he set up ecclesiastical courts, thundered out hisinterdicts, and frightened both king and people. [31]

[Footnote 31: To shew the principles, upon which princes acted withrespect to tithes in these times, the following translation of apreamble to a grant of king Stephen may be produced: "Because, throughthe providence of Divine Mercy, we know it to be so ordered, and by thechurches publishing it far and near, every body has heard, that, by thedistribution of alms, persons may be absolved from the bonds of sin, andacquire the rewards of heavenly joys, I, Stephen, by the grace of God, king of England, being willing to have a share with those, who by ahappy kind of commerce exchange heavenly things for earthly, and smittenwith the love of God, and for the salvation of my own soul, and thesouls of my father and mother, and all my forefathers and ancestors, "&c. ]

Richard the second confirmed these tithes to the parishes, as thussettled by this pope, but it was directed by an act, that, in allappropriations of churches, the bishop of the diocese should ordain aconvenient sum of money to be distributed out of the fruits and profitsof every living among the poor parishioners annually, in aid of theirliving and sustenance. "Thus it seems, says Judge Blackstone, the peoplewere frequently sufferers by the withholding of those alms, for which, among other purposes, the payment of tithes was originally imposed. " Atlength tithes were finally confirmed, and, in a more explicit manner, bythe famous act of Henry the eighth on this subject. And here I must justobserve, that, whereas from the eighth century to this reign, titheswere said to be due, whenever the reason of them was expressed, bydivine right as under the Levitical law, so, in the preamble to the actof Henry the eighth, they are founded on the same principle, beingdescribed therein, "as due to God and the church. " Thus, both on thecontinent of Europe, as well as in our own country, were these changesbrought about, which have been described. And they were brought aboutalso by the same means, for they were made partly by the exhortationsand sermons of monks, partly by the decrees of popes, partly by theedicts of popish kings, and partly by the determinations of popishcouncils. 

It is not necessary, that I should trace this subject farther, or that Ishould make distinctions relative to tithes, whether they may berectorial, or vicarial, or whether they may belong to lay persons, Ihave already developed enough of their history for my purpose. I shalltherefore hasten to state those other reasons, which the Quakers have togive, why they cannot pay other ministers of the Gospel for theirspiritual labours, or rather, why they cannot consent to the payment oftithes, as the particular species of payment demanded by the church. 

SECT. III

_The other reasons then, as deducible from the history of tithes, arethe following--First, that they are not in equity dues of thechurch--Secondly, that the payment of them being compulsory, it would, if acceded to, be an acknowledgment that the civil magistrate has aright to use force in matters of religion--And thirdly, that beingclaimed upon an act which holds them forth as of divine right, anypayment of them would be an acknowledgment of the Jewish religion, andthat Christ had not yet actually come. _

The other reasons then, which the Quakers have to give for refusing tosupport other ministers of the Gospel, may be now deduced from thenature of tithes, as explained in the former section. 

The early Quakers rejected the payment of tithes for three reasons;and, first, because they were demanded of them as dues of the church. 

Against this doctrine, they set their faces as a religious body. Theycontended that, if they were due at all, they were due to the poor, fromwhom they had been forcibly taken, and to whom in equity they stillbelonged; that no prince could alter the nature of right and wrong thattithes were not justly due to the church, because Offa wished them to beso, to expiate his own crimes; or because Ethelwolf wished them to beso, from a superstitious notion, that he might thus prevent theincursions of the Danes; or because Stephen wished them to be so, as hisown grant expresses, on the principle, that "the bonds of sin might bedissolved, and that he might have a part with those, who by a happy kindof commerce exchanged heavenly things for earthly;" or because the popesof Rome wished them to be so, from whose jurisdiction all the subjectsof England were discharged by law. 

They resisted the payment of them, because, secondly, tithes had becomeof a compulsory nature, or because they were compelled to pay them. 

They contended on this head, that tithes had been originally freewill-offerings, but that by violence they had been changed into dues, to be collected by force; that nothing could be more clear, than thatministers of the Gospel, if the instructions of Jesus to his discipleswere to be regarded, were not authorized even to demand, much less toforce, a maintenance from others; and that any constrained payment ofthese, while it was contrary to his intention, would be an infringementof their great tenet, by which they hold, that, Christ's kingdom beingof a spiritual nature, the civil magistrate had no right to dictate areligion to any one, nor to enforce payment from individuals for thesame, and that any interference in those matters, which were solelybetween God and man, was neither more nor less than an usurpation of theprerogative of God. 

They resisted the payment of them, because, thirdly, they were demandedon the principle, as appeared by the preamble of the act of Henry theeighth, that they were due as under the Levitical law by divine right. 

Against this they urged, first, that, if they were due as the Leviticaltithes were, they must have been subject to the same conditions. Theycontended that, if the Levites had a right to tithes, they hadpreviously given up to the community their own right to a share of theland, but that the clergy claimed a tenth of the produce of the lands ofothers, but had given up none of their own. They contended also, thattithes by the Levitical law were for the strangers, the fatherless, andthe widows, as well as for the Levites, but that the clergy, by takingtithes, had taken that which had been for the maintenance of the poor, and had appropriated it solely to their own use, leaving them thus tobecome a second burthen upon the land. 

But they contended, that the principle itself was false. Theymaintained, that the Levitical priesthood and tithes with it, had ceasedon the coming of Jesus Christ, as appeared by his own example and thatof his Apostles; that it became them, therefore, as Christians, to makea stand against this principle, for that, by acquiescing in the notionthat the Jewish law extended to them, they conceived they would beacknowledging that the priesthood of Aaron still existed, and thatChrist had not actually come. 

This latter argument, by which it was insisted upon, that tithes ceasedwith the Jewish dispensation, and that those who acknowledged them, acknowledged the Jewish religion for Christians, was not confined to theearly Quakers, but admitted among many other serious Christians of thosetimes. The great John Milton himself, in a treatise which he wroteagainst tithes, did not disdain to use it. "Although, says he, hire tothe labourer be of moral and perpetual right, yet that special kind ofhire, the tenth, can be of no right or necessity but to that speciallabour for which God ordained it. That special labour was the Leviticaland ceremonial service of the tabernacle, which is now abolished. Theright, therefore, of that special hire, must needs be withal abolished, as being also ceremonial. That tithes were ceremonial is plain, notbeing given to the Levites till they had been first offered an heaveoffering to the Lord. He then, who by that law brings tithes into theGospel, of necessity brings in withal a sacrifice and an altar, withoutwhich tithes by that law were unsanctified and polluted, and thereforenever thought of in the first Christian times, nor till ceremonies, altars, and oblations had been brought back. And yet the Jews, eversince their temple was destroyed, though they have rabbies and teachersof their law, yet pay no tithes, as having no Levites to whom, no templewhere, to pay them, nor altar whereon to hallow them; which argues, thatthe Jews themselves never thought tithes moral, but ceremonial only. That Christians therefore should take them up, when Jews have laid themdown, must needs be very absurd and preposterous. "

Having now stated the three great reasons, which the early Quakers gave, in addition to those mentioned in a former section, why they could notcontribute towards the maintenance of an alien ministry, or why theycould not submit to the payment of tithes, as the peculiar paymentdemanded by the established church, I shall only observe, that these arestill insisted upon by their descendants, but more particularly thelatter, because all the more, modern acts upon this subject take the actof Henry the eighth as the great ground-work or legal foundation oftithes, in the preamble of which it is inserted, that "they are due toGod and the church. " Now this preamble, the Quakers assert, has neverbeen done away, nor has any other principle been acknowledged instead ofthat in this preamble, why tithes have been established by law. TheQuakers therefore conceive, that tithes are still collected on thefoundation of divine right, and therefore that it is impossible for themas Christians to pay them, for that by every such payment, they wouldnot only be acknowledging the Jewish religion for themselves, but wouldbe agreeing in sentiment with the modern Jews, that Jesus Christ has notyet made his appearance upon earth. 

CHARACTEROF THEQUAKERS

CHAP. I. 

_Character of the Quakers--Character of great importance in life--yetoften improperly estimated--This the case with that of theQuakers--Attempt to appreciate it duly--Many outward circumstances inthe constitution of the Quakers, which may be referred to as certainhelps in the promotion of this attempt_. 

Nothing is of more importance to an individual, than a good character, during life. Posthumous reputation, however desirable it may be thought, is of no service to the person whom it follows. But a living character, if it be excellent, is inestimable, on account of the good which itproduces to him who possesses it. It procures him attention, civility, love, and respect from others. Hence virtue may be said to have itsreward in the present life. This account will be also true of bodies, and particularly of religious bodies, of men. It will make a differenceto the individuals of these, whether they be respected, as a body, bythe individuals of other religious denominations, or by the governmentunder which they live. 

But though character be of so much importance in life, there are few whoestimate it, either when they view it individually or collectively, asif really is. It is often, on the one hand, heightened by partiality, and, on the other, lowered by prejudice. Other causes also combine toafford wrong apprehensions concerning it. For as different diseasesthrow out often the same symptoms, and the judgment of the physician isbaffled, so different motives produce frequently similar actions, andthe man who tries to develop a character, even if he wishes to speaktruth, finds himself at a loss to pronounce justly upon it. 

As these failings and difficulties have attended men in estimating thecharacter of individuals, so they seem to have attended those who haveattempted to delineate that of the society of the Quakers. Indeed, if wewere to take a view of the different traits which have been assigned tothe latter, we could not but conclude, that there must have been somemistake concerning them. We should have occasion to observe, that someof these were so different in their kind, that they could not reasonablybe supposed to exist in the same persons. We should find that otherscould scarcely be admitted among a body of professing Christians. TheQuaker character, in short, as it has been exhibited to the world, is astrange medley of consistency and contradiction, and of merit anddefect. 

Amidst accounts, which have been so incongruous, I shall attempt thetask of drawing the character of the Quakers. I shall state, first, allthe excellencies, that have been said to belong to it. I shall statealso, all the blemishes with which it has been described to bechargeable. I shall then enquire how far it is probable that any ofthese, and in what degree they are true. In this enquiry, some littlereliance must be placed upon my personal knowledge of the Quakers, andupon my desire not to deceive. It is fortunate, however, that I shall beable, in this case, to apply to a test, which will be more satisfactoryto the world, than any opinion of my own upon this subject. I mean tosay that the Quakers, like others, are the creatures of their owneducation and habits, or that there are circumstances in theirconstitution, the knowledge of which will assist us in the discussion ofthis question; circumstances, which will speak for themselves and towhich we way always refer in the case of difficulty or doubt. Theirmoral education, for example, which has been already explained, cannotbut have an influence on the minds of those who receive it. Theirdiscipline also, which has appeared to be of so extraordinary a nature, and to be conducted in so extraordinary a manner, cannot but have aneffect of its own kind. The peculiar customs, in which they have beendescribed to have been born and educated, and which must of course actupon them as a second nature, must have a correspondent influence again. From these, and other prominent and distinguishing features in theirconstitution, I may hope to confirm some of the truths which have beentold, and to correct some of the errors that have been stated, on thesubject which is now before us. 

Nor am I without the hope, that the discussion of this subject upon suchprinciples, will be acceptable to many. To those, who love truth, thisattempt to investigate it will be interesting. To the Quakers it willbe highly useful. For they will see, in the glass or mirror which Ishall set before them, the appearance which they make in the world. Andif they shall learn, in consequence, any of the causes either of theirmerits or of their failings, they will have learnt a lesson, which theymay make useful by the farther improvement of their moral character. 

CHAP. II. 

_Good part of the character of the Quakers--This general orparticular--Great general trait is, that they are a moral people--Thisopinion of the world accounted for and confirmed by a statement of someof the causes that operate in the production of character--One of thesecauses is, the discipline peculiar to this society. _

I come, according to my design, to the good part of the character of theQuakers. This may be divided into two sorts, into that which is general, and into that which is particular. On the subject of their general goodcharacter I shall first speak. 

It is admitted by the world, as I had occasion to observe in the firstchapter of the first volume, that whatever other objections might bebrought against the Quakers as a body, they deserved the character of amoral people. 

Though this fact be admitted, and there would therefore appear to be nonecessity for confirming it, I shall endeavour, according to the planproposed, to shew, by means of the peculiar system of the Quakers as areligious body, that this is one of the traits given them by the world, which cannot be otherwise than true. 

The Quakers believe, in the first place, that the Spirit of God, actingin man, is one of the wises of virtuous character. They believe it tobe, of all others, the purest and sublimest source. It is that spring, they conceive, to good action, and of course to exalted character, inwhich man can have none but a passive concern. It is neither hereditarynor factitious. It can neither be perpetuated in generation by thefather to the child, nor be given by human art. It is considered by theQuakers as the great and distinguishing mark of their calling. Neitherdress, nor language, nor peculiar customs, constitute the Quaker, butthe spiritual knowledge which he possesses. Hence all pious men may besaid to have been Quakers. Hence the patriarchs were Quakers, that is, because they professed to be led by the Spirit of God. Hence theApostles and primitive Christians were Quakers. Hence the virtuousamong the Heathens, who knew nothing of Christianity, were Quakers also. Hence Socrates may be ranked in profession with the members of thissociety. He believed in the agency of the Divine Spirit. It was said ofhim, "that he had the guide of his life within him; that this spiritfurnished him with divine knowledge; and that it often impelled him toaddress and exhort the people. " Justin the Martyr had no scruple incalling both Socrates and Heraclitus Christians, though they lived longbefore Christ; "for all such as these, says he, who lived according tothe divine word within them, and which word was in all men, wereChristians. " Hence also, since the introduction of Christianity, many ofour own countrymen have been Quakers, though undistinguished by theexterior marks of dress or language. Among these we may reckon the greatand venerable Milton. His works are full of the sentiments of[32]Quakerism. And hence, in other countries and in other ages, there havebeen men, who might be called Quakers, though the word Quakerism wasunknown. 

[Footnote 32: Milton not only considered the Spirit of God as a divineteacher, but that the scriptures were not to be spiritually understoodbut by the means of this spirit. He believed also, that human learningwas not necessary for the qualification of a minister of the Gospel. And he wrote an essay against tithes. ]

But independently of the agency of the Spirit of God, which the Quakersthus consider to be the purest cause of a good life and character, wemay reckon a subordinate cause, which may be artificial, and within thecontrivance and wisdom of man. When the early Quakers met together as areligious body, though they consisted of spiritually minded men, theyresolved on a system of discipline, which should be followed by thosewho became members of the society. This discipline we have already seen. We have seen how it attempts to secure obedience to Christian precepts. How it marks its offences. How it takes cognizance of them whencommitted. How it tries to reclaim and save. How, in short, byendeavouring to keep up the members of the society to a good life, itbecomes instrumental in the production or preservation of a goodcharacter. 

From hence it will appear, that the virtue of the Quakers, and of coursethat their character may be distinguished into two kinds, as arisingfrom two sources. It may arise from spiritual knowledge on the one hand, or from their discipline on the other. That which arises from the first, will be a perfect virtue. It will produce activity in excellence. Thatwhich arises from the second, will be inferior and sluggish. But, however it may be subject to this lower estimation, it will always beable to produce for those who have it, a certain degree of moralreputation in the opinion of the world. 

These distinctions having been made as to the sources of virtuouscharacter, there will be no difficulty in shewing, that the world hasnot been deceived in the point in question. For if it be admitted thatthe Divine Spirit, by means of its agency on the heart of man, is reallya cause of virtuous character, it will then be but reasonable tosuppose, that the Quakers, who lay themselves open for its receptionmore than others, both by frequent private retirements, and by theirpeculiar mode of public worship, should bear at least as fair areputation as others, on account of the purity of their lives. But thediscipline, which is unquestionably a guardian of morals, is peculiar tothemselves. Virtue therefore is kept up among the Quakers by anextraordinary cause, or by a cause which does not act among many otherbodies of men. It ought therefore to be expected, while thisextraordinary cause exists, that an extraordinary result should follow, or that more will be kept apparently virtuous among the Quakers, inproportion to their numbers, than among those where no such disciplinecan be found, or, in other words, that, whenever the Quakers arecompared with those of the world at large, they will obtain thereputation of a moral people. 

CHAP. III. 

SECT. I. 

_Particular traits in the Quaker character--The first of these isbenevolence--This includes good will to man in his temporalcapacity--Reasons why the world has bestowed this trait upon theQuakers--Probability of its existence--from their ignorance of manydegrading diversions of the world--from their great tenet on war--fromtheir discipline which inculcates equality--and watchfulness overmorals--and from their doctrine that man is the temple of the HolySpirit. _

[33]Of the good traits in the Quaker character, which may be calledparticular, I shall first notice that of benevolence. This benevolencewill include, first, good will to man in his temporal capacity, or atender feeling for him as a fellow creature in the varied situations ofhis life. 

[Footnote 33: The reader must be aware, that all Quakers do not partakeof this good part of the character. That the generality do, I believe. That all ought to do, I know, because their principles, as will beclearly seen, lead to such a character. Those, therefore, who do not, will see their own deficiency, or how much they have yet to attain, before they can become Quakers. ]

The epithet of benevolent has been long given to this society. Indeed Iknow of no point, where the judgment of the world has been called forth, in which it has been more unanimous, than in the acknowledgment of thisparticular trait, as a part of the Quaker character. 

The reasons for the application of this epithet to the society, may bevarious. 

It has been long known, that as the early Christians called each otherbrethren, and loved each other as such, so there runs through the wholesociety of the Quakers a system of similar love, their affection for oneanother having been long proverbial. 

It has been long known again, that as the early Christians extendedtheir benevolence out of the pale of their own society to others wholived around them, so the Quakers manifest a similar disposition towardstheir countrymen at large. In matters of private distress, where personsof a different religious denomination have been the objects, and wheresuch objects have been worthy, their purses have been generally open, and they have generally given as largely in proportion to theirabilities as other people. To public charities in their respectiveplaces of residence, they have generally administered their propershare. But of late years, as they have mixed more with the world, thischaracter of the society has become more conspicuous or better known. Inthe cases of dearth and distress, which happened a few years ago, it isa matter of publicity, that they were among the foremost in themetropolis, and in same other towns in the kingdom, not only inpecuniary contributions, but in frequent and regular attendances for theproper distribution of them. And if their character has ever stoodhigher for willingness to contribute to the wants of others at any onetime than at another, it stands the highest, from whatever cause it mayhappen, at the present day. 

It has been long known again, that as the early Christians extendedtheir love beyond their own society, and beyond those of the world wholived around them, to those who were reputed natural enemies in theirown times, so the Quakers do not confine their benevolence to their owncountrymen, but extend it to the various inhabitants of the globe, without any discrimination, whether they are reputed hostile to thegovernment under which they live. In times of war we never see thembearing arms, and in times of victory we never see them exulting, likeother people. We never see them illuminating their houses, or running upand down the streets, frantic with joy upon such occasions. Their joy, on the other hand, is wounded by the melancholy consideration of thedestruction of the human race, when they lament, with almost equalsympathy, over the slaughter of enemies and friends. 

But this character of a benevolent people has been raised higher of lateyears in the estimation of the public by new circumstances or by theunanimous and decided part, which they have taken as a body, in behalfof the abolition of the slave-trade. For where has the injured Africanexperienced more sympathy than from the hearts of Quakers? In this greatcause the Quakers have been singularly conspicuous. They have beenactuated as it were by one spring. In the different attempts, made forthe annihilation of this trade, they have come forward with a religiouszeal. They were at the original formation of the committee for thisimportant object, where they gave an almost unexampled attendance foryears. I mentioned in the preceding volume, that near a century ago, when this question had not awakened the general attention, it hadawakened that of the Quakers as a body; and that they had maderegulations in their commercial concerns with a view of keepingthemselves clear of the blood of this cruel traffic. And from that timeto the present day they have never forgotten this subject. Their yearlyepistles notice it, whenever such notice is considered to be useful. Andthey hold themselves in readiness, on all fit occasions, to unite theirefforts for the removal of this great and shocking source of sufferingto their fellow-creatures. 

But whether these be the reasons, or whether they be not the reasons, why the Quakers have been denominated benevolent, nothing is more truethan that this appellation has been bestowed upon them, and this by theconsent of their countrymen. For we have only to examine our publicprints, to prove the truth of the assertion. We shall generally findthere, that when there is occasion to mention the society, the word"benevolent" accompanies it. 

The reader will perhaps be anxious to know how it happens, that theQuakers should possess this general feeling of benevolence in a degreeso much stronger than the general body of their countrymen, that itshould have become an acknowledged feature in their character. He willnaturally ask, does their education produce it? Does their disciplineproduce it? Do their religious tenets produce it? What springs act uponthe Quakers, which do not equally act upon other people? Theexplanation of this phenomenon will be perfectly consistent with mydesign; for I purpose, as I stated before, to try the truth or falsehoodof the different traits assigned to the character of the Quakers, by thetest of probabilities as arising from the nature of the customs oropinions which they adopt. I shall endeavour therefore to show, thatthere are circumstances, connected with their constitution, which have atendency to make them look upon man in a less degraded and hostile, andin a more kindred and elevated light, than many others. And when I shallhave accomplished this, I shall have given that explanation of thephenomenon, or that confirmation of the trait, which, whether it may ormay not satisfy others, has always satisfied myself. 

The Quakers, in the first place, have seldom seen a man degraded but byhis vices. Unaccustomed to many of the diversions of the world, theyhave seldom, if ever, seen him in the low condition of a hired buffoonor mimic. Men, who consent to let others degrade themselves for theirsport, become degraded in their turn. And this degradation increaseswith the frequency of the spectacle. Persons in such habits are apt tolose sight of the dignity of mankind, and to consider them as made foradministration to their pleasures, or in an animal or a reptile light. But the Quakers, who know nothing of such spectacles, cannot, at leastas far as these are concerned, lose either their own dignity of mind, or behold others lose it. They cannot therefore view men under thedegrading light of animals for sport, or of purchasable play-things. 

And as they are not accustomed to consider their fellow-creatures asbelow themselves, so neither are they accustomed to look with enmitytowards them. Their tenet on the subject of war, which has been so amplydetailed, prevents any disposition of this kind. For they interpretthose words of Jesus Christ, as I have before shewn, which relate toinjuries, as extending not to their fellow-citizens alone, but to everyindividual in the world, and his precept of loving enemies, as extendingnot only to those individuals of their own country, who may have anyprivate resentment against them, but to those who become reputed enemiesin the course of wars, so that they fix no boundaries of land or ocean, and no limits of kindred, to their love, but consider Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bond and free, as their brethren. Hence neitherfine nor imprisonment can induce them to learn the use of arms, so as tobecome qualified to fight against these, or to shed their blood. Andthis principle of love is not laid as it were upon the shelf, like avolume of obsolete laws, so that it may be forgotten, but is kept alivein their memories by the testimony which they are occasionally called tobear or by the sufferings they undergo by distraints upon theirproperty, and sometimes by short imprisonments, for refusing militaryservice. 

But while these circumstances may have some influence in the productionof this trait of benevolence to man in the character of the Quakers, theone by preventing the hateful sight of the loss of his dignity, and theother by destroying the seeds of enmity towards him, there are others, interwoven into their constitution, which will have a similar, though astronger tendency towards it. 

The great system of equality, which their discipline daily teaches andenforces, will make them look with an equal eye towards all of the humanrace. Who can be less than a man in the Quaker society, when the richand poor have an equal voice in the exercise of its discipline, and whenthey fill equally the important offices that belong to it? And who isthere out of the society, whom the Quakers esteem more than human? Theybow their knees or, their bodies, as I have before noticed, to no man. They flatter no man on account of his riches or his station. They payhomage to no man on account of his rank or title. Stripped of alltrappings, they view the creature man. If then they view him in thisabstracted light, they can view him only as an equal. Bit in what othersociety is it, that a similar estimate is made of him? The world areapt in general to make too much of those in an elevated station, andthose again in this station are apt to make less of others beneath themthan they ought. Thus an under or an over valuation of individualsgenerally takes place in society; from whence it will unavoidablyhappen, that if some men are classed a little below gods, others will beclassed but a little above the brutes of the field. Their discipline, again, has a tendency to produce in them an anxious concern for the goodof their fellow-creatures. Man is considered, in the theory of thisdiscipline, as a being, for whose spiritual welfare the members arebound to watch. They are to take an interest in his character and hishappiness. If he be overtaken in a fault, he is not to be deserted, butreclaimed. No endeavour is to be spared for his restoration. He isconsidered, in short, as a creature, worthy of all the pains and effortsthat can be bestowed upon him. 

The religion of the Quakers furnishes also a cause, which occasions themto consider man in an elevated light. They view him, as may be collectedfrom the preceding volume, as a temple of the Spirit of God. There is noman, so mean in station, who is not made capable by the Quakers offeeling the presence of the Divinity within him. Neither sect, norcountry, nor colour, excludes him, in their opinion, from thispresence. But it is impossible to view man as a tabernacle, in which theDivinity may reside, without viewing him in a dignified manner. Andthough this doctrine of the agency of the Spirit dwelling in man belongsto many other Christian societies, yet it is no where so systematicallyacted upon as by that of the Quakers. 

These considerations may probably induce the reader to believe, that thetrait of benevolence, which has been affixed to the Quaker character, has not been given it in vain. There can be no such feeling for themoral interests of man, or such a benevolent attention towards him inhis temporal capacity, where men have been accustomed to see one anotherin low and degrading characters, as where no such spectacles haveoccurred. Nor can there be such a genuine or well founded love towardshim, where men, on a signal given by their respective governments, transform their pruning-hooks into spears, and become tygers to oneanother without any private provocation, as where they can be broughtunder no condition whatever, to lift up their arm to the injury of anyof the human race. There must, in a practical system of equality, be adue appreciation of man as man. There must, in a system where it is aduty to watch over him, for his good, be a tender attention towards himas a fellow creature. And in a system, which considers him as a templein which the Divine Being may dwell, there must be a respect towardshim, which will have something like the appearance of a benevolentdisposition to the world. 

SECT. II. 

_Trait of benevolence includes again good will towards man in hisreligious capacity--Quakers said to have no spirit of persecution, norto talk with bitterness, with respect to other religious sects--Thistrait probable--because nothing in their doctrines that narrowslove--their sufferings on the other hand--and their law againstdetraction--and their aversion to making religion a subject of commontalk--all in favour of this trait. _

The word benevolence, when mentioned as a trait in the character of theQuakers, includes also good will to man in his religious capacity. 

It has often been observed of the Quakers, that they shew no spirit ofpersecution, and that you seldom hear them talk with bitterness, withrespect to other religious societies. 

On the first part of this trait it may be observed, that the Quakershave never had any great power of exercising dominion over others inmatters of religion. In America, where they have had the greatest, theyhave conducted themselves well. William Penn secured to every colonistthe full rights of men as to religious opinion and worship. If thespirit of persecution is ever to be traced to the Quakers, it must befound in their writings on the subject of religion. In one or two of theproductions of their first authors, who were obliged to support theiropinions by controversy, there is certainly an appearance of an improperwarmth of temper; but it remarkable that, since these times, scarcely abook has appeal written by a Quaker against the religion of another. Satisfied with their own religious belief, they seem to have wished onlyto be allowed to enjoy it in peace. For when they have appeared aspolemical writers, it has been principally in the defence of themselves. 

On the second part of the trait I may remark, that it is possible, inthe case of tithes, where their temper has been tried by expensivedistraints, and hard imprisonments, that they may utter a harshexpression against a system which they believe to be anti-Christian, andwhich they consider also as repugnant to equity, inasmuch as it compelsthem to pay labourers, who perform work in their own harvest; but thisfeeling is only temporary, and is seldom extended beyond the objectthat produces it. They have never, to my knowledge, spoken withbitterness against churchmen on this account. Nor have I ever heardthem, in such a season of suffering, pass the slightest reflection upontheir faith. 

That this trait of benevolence to man in his religious capacity isprobably true, I shall endeavour to shew according to the method I haveproposed. 

There is nothing, in the first place, in the religious doctrines of theQuakers, which can produce a narrowness of mind in religion, or acontempt for the creeds of others. I have certainly, in the course of mylife, known some bigots in religion, though, like the Quakers, I censureno man for his faith. I have known some, who have considered baptism andthe sacrament of the supper as such essentials in Christianity, as todeny that those who scrupled to admit them, were Christians. I haveknown others pronouncing an anathema against persons, because they didnot believe the atonement in their own way. I have known others again, who have descended into the greatest depths of election and reprobation, instead of feeling an awful thankfulness for their own condition as theelect, and the most tender and affectionate concern for those whom theyconsidered to be the reprobate, indulging a kind of spiritual pride ontheir own account, which has ended in a contempt for others. Thus thedoctrines of Christianity, wonderful to relate, have been made to narrowthe love of Christians! The Quaker religion, on the other hand, knows nosuch feelings as these. It considers the Spirit of God as visiting allmen in their day, and as capable of redeeming all, and this without anyexception of persons, and that the difference of creeds, invented by thehuman understanding, will make no difference in the eternal happiness ofman. Thus it does not narrow the sphere of salvation. It does notcircumscribe it either by numerical or personal limits. There does notappear therefore to be in the doctrines of the Quaker religion any thingthat should narrow their love to their fellow creatures, or any thingthat should generate a spirit of rancour or contempt towards others onaccount of the religion they profess. 

There are, on the contrary, circumstances, which have a tendency toproduce an opposite effect. 

I see, in the first place, no reason why the general spirit ofbenevolence to man in his temporal capacity, which runs through thewhole society, should not be admitted as having some power in checking abitter spirit towards him in his religious character. 

I see again, that the sufferings, which the Quakers so often undergo onaccount of their religious opinions, ought to have an influence withthem in making them tender towards others on the same subject. Virgil, who was a great master of the human mind, makes the queen of Carthagesay to Aeneas, "Haud ignara mali, miseris succurere disco, " or, "notunacquainted with misfortunes myself, I learn to succour theunfortunate. " So one would hope that the Quakers, of all other people, ought to know how wrong it is to be angry with another for his religion. 

With respect to that part of the trait, which relates to speakingacrimoniously of other sects, there are particular circumstances in thecustoms and discipline of the Quakers, which seem likely to prevent it. 

It is a law of the society, enforced by their discipline, as I shewed ina former volume, that no Quaker is to be guilty of detraction orslander. Any person, breaking this law, would come under admonition, iffound out. This induces an habitual caution or circumspection in speech, where persons are made the subject of conversation. And I have no doubtthat this law would act as a preventive in the case before us. 

It is not a custom, again, with the Quakers, to make religion a subjectof common talk. Those, who know them, know well how difficult it is tomake them converse, either upon their own faith, or upon the faith ofothers. They believe, that topics on religion, familiarly introduced, tend to weaken its solemnity upon the mind. They exclude subjects alsofrom ordinary conversation upon another principle. For they believe, that religion should not be introduced at these times, unless it can bemade edifying. But, if it is to be made edifying, it is to come, theyconceive, not through the medium of the activity of the imagination ofman, but through the passiveness of the soul under the influence of theDivine Spirit. 

SECT. III. 

_Trait of benevolence includes again a tender feeling toward the brutecreation--Quakers remarkable for their tenderness to animals--Thisfeature produced from their doctrine, that animals are not meremachines, but the creatures of God, the end of whose existence is alwaysto be attended to in their treatment--and from their opinion as to whatought to be the influence of the Gospel, as recorded in their ownsummary_. 

The word benevolence, when applied to the character of the Quakers, includes also a tender feeling towards the brute creation. 

It has frequently been observed by those who are acquainted with theQuakers, that all animals belonging to them are treated with a tenderconsideration, and are not permitted to be abused, and that they feel, in like manner, for those which may be oppressed by others, so thattheir conduct is often influenced in some way or other upon suchoccasions. 

It will be obvious, in enquiring into the truth of this trait in thecharacter of the Quakers, that the same principles, which I havedescribed as co-operating to produce benevolence towards man, are notapplicable to the species in question. But benevolence, when once rootedin the heart, will grow like a fruitful plant, from whatever causes itmay spring, and enlarge itself in time. The man, who is remarkable forhis kindness towards man, will always be found to extend it towards thecreatures around him. It is an ancient saying, that "a righteous manregards the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked arecruel. "

But, independently of this consideration, there is a principle in theQuaker constitution, which, if it be attended to, cannot but give birthto the trait in question. 

It has been shewn in the first Volume, on the subject of the diversionsof the field, that the Quakers consider animals, not as mere machines, to be used at discretion, but in the sublime light of the creatures ofGod, of whose existence the use and intention ought always to beconsidered, and to whom rights arise from various causes, any violationof which is a violation of a moral law. 

This principle, if attended-to by the Quakers, must, as I have justobserved, secure all animals which may belong to them, from oppression. They must so consider the end of their use, as to defend them fromabuse. They must so calculate their powers and their years, as to shieldthem from excessive labour. They must so anticipate their feelings, asto protect them from pain. They must so estimate their instinct, andmake an allowance for their want of understanding, as not to attach totheir petty mischiefs the necessity of an unbecoming revenge. They mustact towards them, in short, as created for special ends, and mustconsider themselves as their guardians, that these ends may not beperverted, but attained. 

To this it may be added, that the printed summary of the religion of thesociety constantly stares them in the face, in which it is recorded, what ought to be the influence of Christianity on this subject. "We arealso clearly of the judgment, that, if the benevolence of the Gospelwere generally prevalent in the minds of men, it would even influencetheir conduct in the treatment of the brute creation, which would nolonger groan, the victims of their avarice, or of their false ideas ofpleasure. "

CHAP. IV. 

_Second trait is that of complacency of mind or quietness ofcharacter--This trait confirmed by circumstances in their education, discipline, and public worship, which are productive of quiet personalhabits--and by their disuse of the diversions of the world--by the modeof the settlement of their differences--by their efforts in thesubjugation of the will--by their endeavour to avoid all activity ofmind during their devotional exercises--all of which are productive of aquiet habitude of mind_. 

A second trait in the character of the Quakers is that of complacency, or evenness, or quietness of mind and manner. 

This trait is, I believe, almost as generally admitted by the world, asthat of benevolence. It is a matter of frequent observation, that youseldom see an irascible Quaker. And it is by no means uncommon to hearpersons, when Quakers are the subject of conversation, talking of themysteries of their education, or wondering how it happens, that theyshould be able to produce in their members such a calmness and quietnessof character. 

There will be no difficulty in substantiating this second trait. 

There are circumstances, in the first place, in the constitution of theQuaker system, which, as it must have already appeared, must begenerative of quiet personal habits. Among these may be reckoned theireducation. They are taught, in early youth, to rise in the morning inquietness, to go about their ordinary occupations in quietness, and toretire in quietness to their beds. We may reckon also their discipline. They are accustomed by means of this, when young, to attend the monthlyand quarterly meetings, which are often of long continuance. Here theyare obliged to sit patiently. Here they hear the grown up members of thesociety speak in order, and without any interruption of one another. Wemay reckon again their public worship. Here they are accustomedoccasionally to silent meetings, or to sit quietly for a length of time, when not a word is spoken. 

There are circumstances again in the constitution of the Quakers, whichare either preventive of mental activity, and excitement of passion, orproductive of a quiet habitude of mind. Forbidden the use of cards, andof music, and of dancing, and of the theatre, and of novels, it must beobvious, that they cannot experience the same excitement of thepassions, as they who are permitted the use of these common amusementsof the world. In consequence of an obligation to have recourse toarbitration, as the established mode of decision in the case ofdifferences with one another, they learn to conduct themselves withtemper and decorum in exasperating cases. They avoid, in consequence, the frenzy of him who has recourse to violence, and the turbid state ofmind of him who engages in suits at law. It may be observed also, thatif, in early youth, their evil passions are called forth by othercauses, it is considered as a duty to quell them. The early subjugationof the will is insisted upon in all genuine Quaker families. Thechildren of Quakers are rebuked, as I have had occasion to observe, forall expressions of anger, as tending to raise those feelings, whichought to be suppressed. A raising even of their voice is discouraged, asleading to the disturbance of their minds. This is done to make themcalm and passive, that they may be in a state to receive the influenceof the pure principle. It may be observed again, that in their meetingsfor worship, whether silent or vocal, they endeavour to avoid allactivity of the mind for the same reason. 

These different circumstances then, by producing quiet personal habitson the one hand, and quiet mental ones on the other, concur in producinga complacency of mind and manner, so that a Quaker is daily as it wereat school, as far as relates to the formation of a quiet character. 

CHAP. V. 

_Third trait is, that they do not temporize, or do that which theybelieve to be improper as a body of Christians--Subjects, in which thistrait is conspicuous--Civil oaths--Holy or consecrated days--War--Tithes--Language--Address--Public illuminations--Utility of this trait to theQuaker character. _

It is a third trait in the character of the Quakers, that they refuse todo whatever as a religious body they believe to be wrong. 

I shall have no occasion to state any of the remarks of the world toshew their belief of the existence of this trait, nor to apply tocircumstances within the Quaker constitution to confirm it. The trait isalmost daily conspicuous in some subject or another. It is kept alive bytheir discipline. It is known to all who know Quakers. I shall satisfymyself therefore with a plain historical relation concerning it. 

It has been an established rule with the Quakers, from the formation oftheir society, not to temporize, or to violate their consciences, or, inother words, not to do that which as a body of Christians they believeto be wrong, though the usages of the world, or the government of thecountry under which they live, should require it, but rather to submitto the frowns and indignation of the one, and the legal penaltiesannexed to their disobedience by the other. This suffering in preferenceof the violation of their consciences, is what the Quakers call "thebearing of their testimony, " or a demonstration to the world, by the"testimony of their own example, " that they consider it to be the dutyof Christians rather to suffer, than to have any concern with that whichthey conceive to be evil. 

The Quakers, in putting this principle into practice, stand, I believe, alone. For I know of no other Christians, who as a body[34] pay thishomage to their scruples, or who determine upon an ordeal of sufferingin preference of a compromise with their ease and safety. 

[Footnote 34: The Moravians, I believe, protest against war uponscriptural grounds. But how far in this, or in any other case, they beara testimony, like the Quakers, by suffering, I do not know. ]

The subjects, in which this trait is conspicuous, are of two kinds, first as they relate to things enjoined by the government, and secondlyas they relate to things enjoined by the customs or fashions of theworld. 

In the first case there was formerly much more suffering than there isat present, though the Quakers still refuse a compliance with as manyinjunctions of the law as they did in their early times. 

It has been already stated that they refused, from the very institutionof their society, to take a civil oath. The sufferings, which theyunderwent in consequence, have been explained also. But happily, by theindulgence of the legislature, they are no longer persecuted for thisscruple, though they still persevere in it, their affirmation havingbeen made equal to an oath in civil cases. 

It has been stated again, that they protested against the religiousobservance of many of those days, which the government of the countryfor various considerations had ordered to be kept as holy. Inconsequence of this they were grievously oppressed in the early times oftheir history. For when their shops were found open on Christmas day, and on Good Friday, and on the different fast-days which had beenappointed, they were taken up and punished by the magistrates on the onehand, and insulted and beaten by the people on the other. But, notwithstanding this ill usage, they persevered as rigidly in thenon-observance of particular days and times, as in their non-compliancewith oaths, and they still persevere in it. It does not appear, however, that their bearing of their testimony in this case is any longer asource of much vexation or trouble to them: for though the government ofthe country still sanctions the consecration of particular days, and, the great majority of the people join in it, there seems, to have been aprogressive knowledge or civilization in both, which has occasioned themto become tender on account of this singular deviation from their ownpractice. 

But though the Quakers have been thus relieved by the legislature, andby the more mild and liberal disposition of the people, from so muchsuffering in bearing their testimony on the two occasions which havebeen mentioned, yet there are others, where the laws of government areconcerned, on which they find themselves involved in a struggle betweenthe violation of their consciences and a state of suffering, and whereunfortunately there is no remedy at hand, without the manifestation ofgreater partiality towards them, than it may be supposed an equaladministration of justice to all would warrant. 

Hie first of these occasions is when military service, is enjoined. TheQuakers, when drawn for the militia, refuse either to serve, or tofurnish substitutes. For this refusal they come under the cognizance ofthe laws. Their property, where they have any, is of course distrainedupon, and a great part of a little substance is sometimes taken fromthem on, this account. Where they have not distrainable property, whichis occasionally the case, they never fly, but submit to the knownpunishment, and go patiently to prison. The legislature, however, hasnot been inattentive to the Quakers even upon this occasion; for it haslimited their confinement to three months. The government also of thecountry afforded lately, in a case in which the Quakers were concerned, an example of attention to religious scruples upon this subject. In thelate bill for arming the country _en masse_, both the Quakers and theMoravians were exempted from military service. This homage to religiousprinciple did the authors of these exemptions the highest honour. And itcertainly becomes the Quakers to be grateful for this unsolicitedfavour; and as it was bestowed upon them upon the full belief that theywere the people they professed themselves, they should be particularlycareful that they do not, by any inconsistency of conduct, tarnish thehigh reputation, which has been attached to them by the government underwhich they live. 

The second occasion is, when tithes or other dues are demanded by thechurch. The Quakers refuse the payment of these upon principles, whichhave been already explained. They come of course again under thecognizance of the laws. Their property is annually distrained upon bywarrant from justices of the peace, where the demand does not exceed thevalue of ten pounds, and this is their usual suffering in this case. Butthere have not been wanting instances where an unusual hardness, ofheart has suggested a process, still allowable by the law, which hasdeprived them of all their property, and consigned them for life to thehabitation of a prison. [35]

[Footnote 35: One died, not a great while ago, in York Castle, andothers, who were confined with him, would have shared his fate, but forthe interference of the king. 

It is surprising, that the clergy should not unite in promoting a billin parliament, to extend the authority of the justices to grant warrantsof distraint for tithes to more than the value of ten pounds, and to anyamount, as this is the most cheap and expeditious way for themselves. Ifthey apply to the ecclesiastical courts, they can enforce no payment oftheir tithes then. They can put the poor Quaker into prison, but theycannot obtain their debt. If they apply to the exchequer, they may findthemselves, at the conclusion of their suit, and this after a delay ofthree years, liable to the payment of extra costs, to the amount offorty or fifty pounds, with which they cannot charge the Quaker, thoughthey may confine him for life. Some, to my knowledge, have been glad toabandon these suits, and put up with the costs, incurred in them; ratherthan continue them. Recourse to such courts occasion the clergyfrequently to be charged with cruelty, when, if they had only understoodtheir own interests better, they would have avoided them. ]

But it is not only in cases, of which the laws of the land takecognizance, that the Quakers prefer suffering to doing that which theirconsciences disapprove. There are other cases, connected, as I observedbefore, with the opinion of the world, where they exhibit a similarexample. If they believe any custom or fashion of the world to be evilin itself, or to be attended with evil, neither popular applause norpopular fury can make them follow it, but they think it right to beartheir testimony against it by its disuse, and to run the hazard of allthe ridicule, censure, or persecution, which may await them for sodoing. 

In these cases, as in the former, it must be observed, that thesufferings of the Quakers have been much diminished, though they stillrefuse a compliance in as many instances as formerly, with the fashionsof the world. 

It was stated in the first volume, that they substituted the word Thoufor You, in order that they might avoid by their words, as well as bytheir actions, any appearance of flattery to men. It was stated also, that they suffered on this account; that many magistrates, before whomthey were carried in the early times of their institution, occasionedtheir punishment to be more severe, and that they were often abused andbeaten by others, and put in danger of their lives. This persecution, however, for this singularity in their language, has long ceased; andthe substitution of Thou for You is now only considered as an innocentdistinction between Quakers and other people. 

It was stated again in the same volume, that the Quakers abstained fromthe usual address of the world, such as from pulling off their hats, andfrom bowing the body, and from their ceremonious usages. It wasexplained also, that they did this upon two principles. First, because, as such ceremonies were no real marks of obeisance, friendship orrespect, they ought to be discouraged by a people, whose religionrequired that no image should be held out, which was not a faithfulpicture of its original, and that no action should be resorted to, whichwas not correspondent with the feelings of the heart. Secondly, becauseall such ceremonies were of a complimentary or flattering nature, andwere expressly forbidden by Jesus Christ. It was stated also, that, onaccount of their rejection of such outward usages, their hats wereforcibly taken from their heads and thrown away; that they were beatenand imprisoned on this sole account; and that the world refused to dealwith them as tradesmen, in consequence of which many could scarcelysupply their families with bread. But this deviation from the generalpractice, though it still characterizes the members of this society, isno longer a source of suffering. Magistrates sometimes take care thattheir hats shall be taken gently from their heads on public occasions, and private persons expect now no such homage from Quakers, when theymeet them. 

There is, however, a custom, against which the Quakers anciently boretheir testimony, and against which they continue to bear it, whichsubjects them occasionally to considerable inconvenience and loss. Inthe case of a general illumination, they never light up their houses, but have the courage to be singular in this respect, whatever may be thetemper of the mob. 

They believe that the practice of general illuminations cannot beadopted consistently by persons, who are lovers of the truth. Theyconsider it as no certain criterion of joy. For, in the first place, howmany light up their houses, whose hearts are overwhelmed with sorrow?And, in the second place, the event which is celebrated, may not alwaysbe a matter of joy to good minds. The birth-day of a prince, forexample, may be ushered in as welcome, and the celebration of it maycall his actions to mind, upon which a reflection may produce pleasure, but the celebration of the slaughter or devastation of mankind canafford no happiness to the Christian. 

They consider the practice again, accompanied as it is with all itsfiery instruments, as dangerous and cruel. For how many accidents havehappened, and how many lives have been lost upon such occasions?

They consider it again as replete with evil. The wild uproar which itcreates, the mad and riotous joy which it produces, the licentiousnesswhich it favours, the invidious comparisons which it occasions, thepartial favour which it fixes on individuals who have probably no moralmerit, the false joys which it holds out, and the enmity which it has onsome occasions a tendency to perpetuate; are so many additionalarguments against it in the opinion of the Quakers. 

For these and other reasons they choose not to submit to the custom, butto bear their testimony against it, and to run the hazard of havingtheir windows broken, or their houses pillaged, as the populace maydictate: And in the same manner, if there be any other practice, inwhich the world may expect them to coincide, they reject it, fearless ofthe consequences, if they believe it to be productive of evil. 

This noble practice of bearing testimony, by which a few individualsattempt to stem the torrent of immorality by opposing themselves to itsstream, and which may be considered as a living martyrdom, does, in amoral point of view, a great deal of good to those, who conscientiouslyadopt it. It recalls first principles to their minds. It keeps in theirremembrance the religious rights of man. It teaches them to reason uponprinciple, and to make their estimates by a moral standard. It isproductive both of patience and of courage. It occasions them to be kindand attentive, and merciful to those who are persecuted and oppressed. It throws them into the presence of the Divinity when they arepersecuted themselves. In short, it warms their moral feelings, andelevates their religious thoughts. Like oil, it keeps them from rusting. Like a whetstone, it gives them a new edge. Take away this practice fromthe constitution of the Quakers, and you pull down a considerablesupport of their moral character. It is a great pity that, as professingChristians, we should not, more of us, incorporate this noble principleindividually into our religion. We concur unquestionably in customs, through the fear of being reputed singular, of which our hearts do notalways approve, though nothing is more true, than that a Christian isexpected to be singular with respect to the corruptions of the world. What an immensity of good would be done, if cases of persons, choosingrather to suffer than to temporize, were so numerous as to attract thegeneral notice of men! Would not every case of suffering operate as oneof the most forcible lessons that could be given to those who should seeit? And how long would that infamous system have to live, which makes adistinction between political expediency and moral right?

CHAP. VI. 

_A fourth trait is, that, in political affairs, they reason uponprinciple, and not from consequences--This mode of reasoning insures theadoption of the maxim of not doing evil that good may come--Had Quakersbeen legislators, many public evils had been avoided, which are nowknown in the world--Existence of this trait probable from the influenceof the former trait--and from the influence of the peculiar customs ofthe Quakers--and from the influence of their system of discipline upontheir minds. _

The next trait, which I shall lay open to the world as belonging to theQuaker character, is, that in all those cases, which may be calledpolitical, the Quakers generally reason upon principle, and but seldomupon consequences. 

I do not know of any trait, which ever impressed me more than this inall my intercourse with the members of this society. It was one of thosewhich obtruded itself to my notice on my first acquaintance with them, and it has continued equally conspicuous to the present time. 

If an impartial philosopher, from some unknown land, and to whom ourmanners, and opinions, and history, were unknown, were introducedsuddenly into our metropolis, and were to converse with the Quakersthere on a given political subject, and to be directly afterwardsconveyed to the west end of the town, and there to converse withpoliticians, or men of fashion, or men of the world, upon the same, hecould not fail to be greatly surprised. If he thought the former wise, or virtuous, or great, he would unavoidably consider the latter asfoolish, or vicious, or little. Two such opposite conclusions, as hewould hear deduced from the reasonings of each, would impress him withan idea, that he had been taken to a country inhabited by two differentraces of men. He would never conceive, that they had been educated inthe same country, or under the same government. If left to himself, hewould probably imagine, that they had embraced two different religions. But if he were told that they professed the same, he would then say, that the precepts of this religion had been expressed in such doubtfullanguage, that they led to two sets of principles contradictory to oneanother. I need scarcely inform the reader, that I allude to the twoopposite conclusions, which will almost always be drawn, where menreason from motives of policy or from moral right. 

If it be true that the Quakers reason upon principle in politicalaffairs, and not upon consequences, it will follow as a directinference, that they will adopt the Christian maxim, that men ought notto do evil that good may come. And this is indeed the maxim, which youfind them adopting in the course of their conversation on such subjects, and which I believe they would have uniformly adopted, if they had beenplaced in political situations in life. Had the Quakers been thelegislators of the world, we should never have seen many of the publicevils that have appeared in it. It was thought formerly, for example, aglorious thing to attempt to drive Paganism from the Holy Land, butQuakers would never have joined in any of the crusades for itsexpulsion. It has been long esteemed, again, a desideratum in politics, that among nations, differing in strength and resources, a kind ofbalance of power should be kept up, but Quakers would never have engagedin any one war to preserve it. It has been thought again, that it wouldcontribute to the happiness of the natives of India, if the blessings ofthe British constitution could be given them instead of their own. ButQuakers would never have taken possession of their territories for, theaccomplishment of such a good. It has been long thought again a matterof great political importance, that our West-Indian settlements shouldbe cultivated by African labourers. But Quakers would never haveallowed a slave-trade for such a purpose. It has been thought again, andit is still thought, a desirable thing, that our property should besecured from the petty depredations of individuals. But Quakers wouldnever have consented to capital punishments for such an end. In short, few public evils would have arisen among mankind, if statesmen hadadopted the system, upon which the Quakers reason in political affairs, or if they had concurred with an ancient Grecian philosopher incondemning to detestation the memory of the man, who first made adistinction between expediency and moral right. 

[36]That this trait of reasoning upon principle, regardless of theconsequences, is likely to be a feature in the character of the Quakers, we are warranted in pronouncing, when we discover no less than threecircumstances in the constitution of the Quakers, which may be causes inproducing it. 

[Footnote 36: The Sierra Leone Company, which was founded for laudablepurposes, ought have been filled by Quakers; but when they understoodthat there was to be a fort and depot of arms in the settlement, theydeclined becoming proprietors. ]

This trait seems, in the first place, to be the direct and legitimateoffspring of the trait explained in the last chapter. For every time aQuaker is called upon to bear his testimony by suffering, whether in thecase of a refusal to comply with the laws, or with the customs andfashions of the land, he is called upon to refer to his own conscience, against his own temporal interest, and against the opinion of the world. The moment he gives up principle for policy in the course of hisreasoning upon such occasions, then he does as many others do, that is, he submits to the less inconvenience, and then he ceases to be a Quaker. But while he continues to bear his testimony, it is a proof that hemakes expediency give way to what he imagines to be right. The bearingtherefore of testimony, where it is conscientiously done, is the parent, as it is also the bulwark and guardian of reasoning upon principle. Itthrows out a memento whenever it is practised, and habituates thesubject of it to reason in this manner. But this trait is nourished andsupported again by other causes, and first by the influence, which thepeculiar customs of the Quakers must occasionally have upon their minds. A Quaker cannot go out of doors, but he is reminded of his ownsingularity, or of his difference in a variety of respects from hisfellow-citizens. Now every custom, in which he is singular, whether itbe that of dress or of language, or of address, or any other, isfounded, in his own mind, on moral principle, and in direct oppositionto popular opinion and applause. He is therefore perpetually reminded, in almost all his daily habits, of the two opposite systems ofreasoning, and is perpetually called upon as it were to refer to theprinciples, which originally made the difference between him and anothercitizen of the world. 

Neither has the discipline of the Quakers a less tendency to theproduction of the trait in question. For the business, which istransacted in the monthly and quarterly and yearly meetings, istransacted under the deliberations of grave and serious men, whoconsider themselves as frequently under the divine influence, or asspiritually guided on such occasions. In such assemblies it would bethought strange if any sentiment were uttered, which savoured ofexpediency in opposition to moral right. The youth therefore, who arepresent, see no other determination of any question than by a religiousstandard. Hence these meetings operate as schools, in which they arehabituated to reason upon principle, and to the exclusion of all worldlyconsiderations, which may suggest themselves in the discussion of anypoint. 

CHAP. VII. 

_A fifth trait is, that they have an extraordinary independence ofmind--This probable, because the result of the farmer trait--becauselikely to be produced by their discipline--by their peculiar custom--andby their opinions on the supposed dignity of situations in life--becauseagain, they are not vulnerable by the seduction of governments--or bythe dominion of the church--or by the power of fashion and of theopinion of the world. _

The next trait, conspicuous in the character of the Quakers, and whichis nearly allied to the former, is that of independence of mind. 

This trait is of long standing, having been coeval with the societyitself. It was observed by Cromwell, that "he could neither win theQuakers by money, nor by honours, nor by places, as he could otherpeople. " A similar opinion is entertained of them at the present day. For of all people it is generally supposed that they are the leasteasily worked upon, or the least liable to be made tools or instrumentsin the bands of others. Who, for example, could say, on anyelectioneering occasion, whatever his riches might be, that he couldcommand their votes?

There will be no difficulty in believing this to be a real feature inthe character of the Quakers. For when men are accustomed to refermatters to their reason, and to reason upon principle, they will alwayshave an independence of mind, from a belief that they are right. Andwherever it be a maxim with them not to do evil that good may come, theywill have a similar independence from a consciousness, that they havenever put themselves into the power of the world. Hence thisindependence of mind must be a result of the trait explained in theformer chapter. 

But in looking into the constitution of the Quakers, we shall find itfull of materials for the production of this noble trait. 

Their discipline has an immediate tendency to produce it. For in nocommunity does a man feel himself so independent as a man. A Quaker iscalled upon in his own society to the discharge of important offices. Hesits as a representative, a legislator, and a judge. In looking roundhim, he finds all equal in privileges, but none superior, to himself. 

Their peculiar customs have the same tendency, for they teach them tovalue others, who are not of the society, by no higher standard thanthat by which they estimate themselves. They neither pull off theirhats, nor bow, nor scrape. In their speech they abstain from the use offlattering words and of titles. In their letters, they never subscribethemselves the humble servants of any one. They never use, in short, anyaction or signature, which, serving as a mark of elevation to others, has any influence towards the degradation of themselves. 

Their opinions also upon the supposed dignity of situations in lifecontribute towards the promotion of this independence of their minds. 

They value no man, in the first place, on account of his earthly title. They pay respect to magistrates, and to all the nobility of the land, intheir capacity of legislators, whom the chief magistrate has appointed;but they believe that the mere letters in a schedule of parchment cangive no more intrinsic worth to a person, than they possess themselves, and they think with Juvenal, that "the only true nobility is virtue. "Hence titles, in the glare of which some people lose the dignity oftheir vision, have no magical effect upon Quakers. 

They value no man again on account of the antiquity of his familyexploits. They believe, that there are people now living in low andobscure situations, whose ancestors performed in the childhood ofhistory, when it was ignorant and incapable of perpetuating traditions, as great feats as those, which in its greater maturity it has recorded. And as far as these exploits of antiquity may be such as were performedin wars, they would not be valued by them as ornaments to men, of whoseworth they can only judge by their virtuous or their Christiancharacter. 

They value no man again on account of the antiquity of his ancestry. Believing revelation to contain the best account of the rise of man, they consider all families as equally old in their origin, because theybelieve them to have sprung from the same two parents, as their commonsource. 

But this independence of mind, which is said to belong to the Quakers, may be fostered again by other circumstances, some of which are peculiarto themselves. 

Many men allow the independence of their minds to be broken by anacceptance of the honours offered to them by the governments, underwhich they live; but no Quaker could accept of any of the honours of theworld. 

Others allow the independence of their minds to be invaded by theacceptance of places and pensions from the same quarter. But Quakers, generally speaking, are in a situation too independent in consequenceof their industry, to need any support of this kind; and no Quaker couldaccept it on the terms on which it is usually given. 

Others again suffer their opinions to be fettered by the authority ofecclesiastical dominion, but the Quakers have broken all such chains. They depend upon no minister of the Gospel for their religion, nor dothey consider the priesthood, as others do, as a distinct order of men. 

Others again come under the dominion of fashion and of popular opinion, so that they dare only do that which they see others do, or are hurriedfrom one folly to another, without having the courage to try to resistthe stream. But the life of a Quaker is a continual state ofindependence in this respect, being a continual protest against many ofthe customs and opinions of the world. 

I shall now only observe upon this subject, that this trait ofindependence of mind, which is likely to be generated by some, and whichis preserved by other of the causes which have been mentioned, is notconfined to a few members, but runs through the society. It belongs tothe poor as well as to the rich, and to the servants of a family as wellas to those who live in poverty by themselves. If a poor Quaker were tobe introduced to a man of rank, he would neither degrade himself byflattery on the one hand, nor by any unbecoming submission on theother. He would neither be seduced into that which was wrong, norintimidated from doing that which was right, by the splendour orauthority of appearances about him. He would still preserve theindependence of his mind, though he would behave with respect. You wouldnever be able to convince him, that he had been talking with a person, who had been fashioned differently from himself. This trait ofindependence cannot but extend itself to the poor. For having the samerights and privileges in the discipline, and the same peculiar customs, and the same views of men and manners as the rest of the society, asimilar disposition must be found in these, unless it be counteracted byother causes. But as Quaker servants, who live in genuine Quakerfamilies, wear no liveries, nor any badges of poverty or servitude, there is nothing in the opposite scale to produce an opposite feature intheir character. 

CHAP. VIII. 

SECT. I. 

_A sixth trait is that of courage--This includes, first, courage inlife--Courage not confined to military exploits--Quakers seldomintimidated or abashed--dare to say what they think--and to do whatthey believe to be right--This trait may arise from that of bearingtheir testimony--and from those circumstances which producedindependence of mind--and from the peculiar customs of the society_. 

Another trait in the character of the Quakers, which is nearly allied toindependence of mind, is courage. This courage is conspicuous both inlife and in the hour of death. That, which belongs to the formerinstance, I shall consider first. 

If courage in life were confined solely to military exploits, theQuakers would have no pretensions to this character. But courageconsists of presence of mind in many situations of peril different fromthose in war. It consists often in refusing to do that which is wrong, in spite of popular opinion. Hence the man, who refuses a challenge, andwhom men of honour would brand with cowardice on that account, may havemore real courage in so doing, and would have it in the estimation ofmoral men, than the person who sends it. It may consist also in aninflexible perseverance in doing that which is right, when persecutionis to follow. Such was the courage of martyrdom. As courage then mayconsist in qualities different from that of heroism, we shall see whatkind of courage it is that has been assigned to the Quakers, and how farthey may be expected to be entitled to such a trait. 

There is no question, in the first place, that Quakers have greatpresence of mind on difficult and trying occasions. To frighten or toput them off their guard would be no easy task. Few people have everseen an innocent Quaker disconcerted or abashed. 

They have the courage also to dare to say, at all times and in allplaces, what they believe to be right. 

I might appeal for the truth of this, as far as the early Quakers areconcerned, to the different conversations which George Fox had withOliver Cromwell, or to the different letters which be wrote to him asprotector, or to those which he afterwards wrote to king Charles thesecond. 

I might appeal again to the address of Edward Burroughs to the samemonarch. 

I might appeal again to the bold but respectful language, which theearly Quakers used to the magistrates, when they were carried beforethem, and to the intrepid and dignified manner in which they spoke totheir judges, in the coarse of the numerous trials to which they werebrought in those early times. 

I might appeal also to Barclay's address to the king, which stands atthe head of his Apology. 

"As it is inconsistent, says Barclay to king Charles the second, withthe truth I bear, so it is far from me to use this letter as an engineto flatter thee, the usual design of such works, and therefore I canneither dedicate it to thee, nor crave thy patronage, as if thereby Imight have more confidence to present it to the world, or be morehopeful of its success. To God alone I owe what I have, and that moreimmediately in matters spiritual, and therefore to him alone, and theservice of his truth, I dedicate whatever work he may bring forth in me, to whom only the praise and honour appertain, whose truth needs not thepatronage of worldly princes; his arm and power being that alone bywhich it is propagated, established, and confirmed. "

And farther on, he says, "Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity;thou knowest what it is to be banished thy native country, to beoverruled, as well as to rule, and to sit upon the throne; and, beingoppressed, thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppression is bothto God and man. If, after all these warnings and advertisements, thoudost not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him whoremembered thee in distress, and give up thyself to follow lust andvanity; surely great will be thy condemnation. "

And this courage to dare to say what they believe to be right, as it wasan eminent feature in the character of the primitive, so it isunquestionably a trait in that of the modern Quakers. They use noflattery even in the presence of the king; and when the nation hasaddressed him in favour of new wars, the Quakers have sometimes had thecourage to oppose the national voice on such an occasion, and to gobefore the same great personage, and in a respectful and dignifiedmanner, to deliver a religious petition against the shedding of humanblood. 

They have the courage also to dare to do as well as to say what theyconsider to be right. 

It is recorded of the early Quakers, that, in the times of the hottestpersecution, they stood to their testimony in the places appointed fortheir worship. They never assembled in private rooms, or held privateconventicles, employing persons to watch at the doors, to keep out spiesand informers, or to prevent surprise from the magistrates. But theyworshipped always in public, and with their doors open. Nor, when armedmen were sent to dissolve their meetings, did they ever fly, but, onthe summons to break up and depart, they sat motionless, and, regardlessof threats and blows, never left their devotions, but were obliged to bedragged out, one by one, from their places. And even when theirmeeting-houses were totally destroyed by the magistrates, they sometimesmet the next meeting-day, and worshipped publicly on the ruins, notwithstanding, they knew that they were subject by so doing, to fines, and scourges, and confinements, and banishment, and that, like manyothers of their members who had been persecuted, they might die inprison. 

This courage of the early Quakers has descended as far as circumstanceswill allow us to judge, to their posterity, or to those who profess thesame faith. For happily, on account of the superior knowledge which hasbeen diffused among us since those times, and on account of the progressof the benign influence of Christianity, both of which may be supposedto have produced among the members of our legislature a spirit ofliberality in religion, neither the same trials; nor the same number ofthem, can be afforded for the courage of the modern Quakers, as wereafforded for that of the Quakers of former days. But as far as there aretrials, the former exhibit courage proportioned to their weight. Thishas been already conspicuous in the bearing of their testimony, eitherin those cases where they run the hazard of suffering by opposing thecustoms of the world, or where, by refusing a compliance with legaldemands which they believe to be antichristian, they actually suffer. Nor are these sufferings often slight, when we consider that they may bemade, even in these days of toleration, to consist of confinement, asthe law now stands, for years, and it may happen even for life, inprison. 

This trait of courage in life, which has been attached to the characterof the Quakers, is the genuine offspring of the trait of "the bearing oftheir testimony. " For by their testimony it becomes their religion tosuffer, rather than comply with many of the laws and customs of theland. But every time they get through their sufferings, if they sufferconscientiously, they gain a victory, which gives them courage to lookother sufferings in the face, and to bid defiance to other persecutions. 

This trait is generated again by all those circumstances which have beenenumerated, as producing the quality of independence of mind, and it ispromoted again by the peculiar customs of the society. For a Quaker is asingular object among his countrymen. His dress, his language, and hiscustoms mark him. One person looks at him. Another perhaps derides him. He must summon resolution, or he cannot stir out of doors and becomfortable. Resolution, once summoned, begets resolution again, till atlength he acquires habits superior to the looks and frowns, andridicule, of the world. 

SECT. II. 

_The trait of courage includes also courage in death--This traitprobably--from the lives which the Quakers lead--and from circumstancesconnected with their religious faith_. 

The trait of courage includes also courage in death, or it belongs tothe character of the Quakers, that they shew great indifference withrespect to death, or that they possess great intrepidity, when sensibleof the approach of it. 

I shall do no more on this subject, than state what may be the causes ofthis trait. 

The dissolution of all our vital organs, and of the cessation to be, sothat we move no longer upon the face of the earth, and that our placesknow us no more, or the idea of being swept away suddenly into eternaloblivion, and of being as though we had never been, cannot fail ofitself of producing awful sensations upon our minds. But still moreawful will these be, where men believe in a future state, and where, believing in future rewards and punishments, they contemplate what maybe their allotment in eternity. There are considerations, however, whichhave been found to support men, even under these awful reflections, andto enable them to meet with intrepidity their approaching end. 

It may certainly be admitted, that, in proportion as we cling to thethings of the world, we shall be less willing to leave them, which mayinduce an appearance of fear with respect to departing out of life; andthat, in proportion as we deny the world and its pleasures, or mortifythe affections of the flesh, we shall be more willing to exchange ourearthly for spiritual enjoyments, which may induce an appearance ofcourage with respect to death. 

It may be admitted again, that, in proportion as we have filled ourmoral stations in life, that is, as we have done justly, and lovedmercy, and this not only with respect to our fellow-creature man, but tothe different creatures of God, there will be a conscious rectitudewithin us, which will supply us with courage, when we believe ourselvescalled upon to leave them. 

It may be admitted again, that, in proportion as we have endeavoured tofollow the divine commands, as contained in the sacred writings, and aswe have followed these through faith, fearless of the opinions andpersecutions of men, so as to have become sufferers for the truth, weshall have less fear or more courage, when we suppose the hour of ourdissolution to be approaching. 

Now, without making any inviduous comparisons, I think it will followfrom hence, when we consider the Quakers to be persons of acknowledgedmoral character, when we know that they deny themselves for the sake ofbecoming purer beings, the ordinary pleasures and gratifications of theworld, and when almost daily experience testifies to us, that theyprefer bearing their testimony, or suffering as a Christian body, to acompliance with customs, which they conceive the Christian religion todisapprove, that they will have as fair pretensions to courage in thehour of death, as any other people, as a body, from the same causes. 

There are other circumstances, however, which may be taken intoconsideration in this account, and, in looking over these, I find noneof more importance than those which relate to the religious creeds whichmay be professed by individuals or communities of men. 

Much, in the first place, will depend upon the circumstance, how far menare doubtful and wavering in their creeds, or how far they depend uponothers for their faith, or how far, in consequence of reasoning orfeeling, they depend upon themselves. If their creeds are not in theirown power, they will be liable to be troubled with every wind ofdoctrine that blows, and to be unhappy, when the thought of theirdissolution is brought before them. But the Quakers, having broken thepower or dominion of the priesthood, what terrors can fanaticism holdout to them, which shall appal their courage in their later hours?

It is also of great importance to men what may be the nature of theircreeds. Some creeds are unquestionably more comfortable to the mind thanothers. To those, who believe in the doctrine of election andreprobation, and imagine themselves to be of the elect, no creed cangive greater courage in the hour of death; and to those who either doubtor despair of their election, none can inspire more fear. But theQuakers, on the other hand, encourage the doctrine of perfection, orthat all may do the will of God, if they attend to the monitions of hisgrace. They believe that God is good, and just, and merciful; that hevisits all with a view to this perfection without exception of persons;that he enables all, through the sacrifice of Christ, to be saved; andthat he will make an allowance for all according to his attributes; forthat he is not willing that any should perish, but that all shouldinherit eternal life. 

CHAP. IX. 

_Last good trait is that of punctuality to words and engagements--Thisprobable from the operation of all those principles, which have producedfor the Quakers the character of a moral people--and from the operationof their discipline. _

The last good trait, which I shall notice in the character of theQuakers, is that of punctuality to their words and engagements. 

This is a very ancient trait. Judge Forster entertained this opinion ofGeorge Fox, that if he would consent to give his word for hisappearance, he would keep it. Trusted to go at large without any bail, and solely on his bare word, that he would be forth coming on a givenday, he never violated his promise. And he was known also to carry hisown commitment himself. In those days also, it was not unusual forQuakers to carry their own warrants, unaccompanied by constables orothers, which were to consign them to a prison. 

But it was not only in matters which related to the laws of the land, where the early Quakers held their words and engagements sacred. Thistrait was remarked to be true of them in their concerns in trade. Ontheir first appearance as a society, they suffered as tradesmen, because others, displeased with the peculiarity of their manners, withdrew their custom from their shops. But in a little time, the greatoutcry against them was, that they got the trade of the country intotheir hands. This outcry arose in part from a strict execution of allcommercial appointments and agreements between them and others, andbecause they never asked two prices for the commodities which they sold. And the same character attaches to them as a commercial body, thoughthere may be individual exceptions, at the present day. 

Neither has this trait been confined to them as the inhabitants of theirown country. They have carried it with them wherever they have gone. Thetreaty of William Penn was never violated. And the estimation, which theIndians put upon the word of this great man and his companions, continues to be put by them upon that of the modern Quakers in America, so that they now come in deputations, out of their own settlements, toconsult them on important occasions. 

The existence of this trait is probable both from general and fromparticular considerations. 

If, for example, any number of principles should have acted so forciblyand in such a manner upon individuals, as to have procured for them as abody the reputation of a moral people, they must have produced in them adisposition to keep their faith. [37]

[Footnote 37: This character was given by Pliny to the first Christians. They were to avoid fraud, theft, and adultery. They were never to denyany trust, when required to deliver it up, nor to falsify their word onany occasion. ]

But the discipline of the Quakers has a direct tendency to produce thisfeature in their character, and to make it an appendage of Quakerism. For punctuality to words and engagements is a subject of one of theperiodical enquiries. It is therefore publicly handed to the notice ofthe members, as a Christian virtue, that is expected of them, in theirpublic meetings for discipline. And any violation in this respect wouldbe deemed a breach, and cognizable as such, of the Quaker laws. 

CHAP. X. 

_Imperfect traits in the Quaker character--Some of these may be calledintellectually defective traits--First imputation of this kind is, thatthe Quakers are deficient in learning compared with other people--Thistrait not improbable on account of their devotion to trade--and onaccount of their controversies and notions about human learning--and ofother causes. _

The world, while it has given to the Quakers as a body, as it will havenow appeared, a more than ordinary share of virtue, has not been withoutthe belief that there are blemishes in their character. What thesetraits or blemishes are, may be collected partly from books, partly fromconversation, and partly from vulgar sayings. They are divisible intotwo kinds, into intellectually defective, and into morally defectivetraits; the former relating to the understanding, the latter to theheart. 

The first of the intellectually defective traits consists in theimputation, that the Quakers are deficient in the cultivation of theintellect of their children, or that, when they grow up in life, theyare found to have less knowledge than others in the higher branches oflearning. By this I mean, that they are understood to have but amoderate classical education, to know but little of the differentbranches of philosophy, and to have, upon the whole, less variety ofknowledge than others of their countrymen in the corresponding stationsof life. 

This trait seems to have originated with the world in two supposedfacts. The first is, that there has never been any literary writer ofeminence born in the society, Penn, Barclay and others having come intoit by convincement, and brought their learning with them. The second is, that the society has never yet furnished a philosopher, or produced anymaterial discovery. It is rather a common remark, that if the educationof others had been as limited as that of the Quaker, we should have beenprobably at this day without a Newton, and might have been strangers tothose great discoveries, whether of the art of navigation, or of thecirculation of the blood, or of any other kind, which have proved soeminently useful to the comfort, health, and safety of many of the humanrace. 

This trait will be true, or it will be false, as it is applied to thedifferent classes, which may be found in the society of the Quakers. Thepoor, who belong to it, are all taught to read, and are therefore bettereducated than the poor belonging to other bodies of men. They whospring from parents whose situation does not entitle them to rank withthe middle class, but yet keeps them out of the former, are generallyeducated, by the help of a[38] subscription, at Ackworth school, and maybe said to have more school learning than others in a similar situationin life. The rest, whatever may be their situation, are educated whollyat the expence of their parents, who send them either to private Quakerseminaries, or to schools in the neighbourhood, as they judge it to beconvenient or proper. It is upon this body of the Quakers that theimputation can only fall; and as far as these are concerned, I think itmay be said with truth, that they possess a less portion of what isusually called liberal knowledge than others in a corresponding stationin life. There may be here and there a good classical, or a goodmathematical scholar. But in general there are but few Quakers, whoexcel in these branches of learning. I ought, however, to add, that thischaracter is not likely to remain long with the society. For the youngQuakers of the present day seem to me to be sensible of the inferiorityof their own education, and to be making an attempt towards theimprovement of their minds, by engaging in those, which are the mostentertaining, instructive, and useful, I mean, philosophical pursuits. 

[Footnote 38: Their parents pay a small annual sum towards their boardand clothing. The rest is made up by a subscription among the society, and by the funds of the school. ]

That deficiency in literature and science is likely to be a trait in thecharacter of the Quakers, we may pronounce, if we take intoconsideration circumstances which have happened, and notions which haveprevailed, in this society. 

The Quakers, like the Jews of old, whether they be rich or poor, arebrought up, in obedience to their own laws, to some employment. They arecalled of course at an early age from their books. It cannot thereforebe expected of them, that they should possess the same literarycharacter as those who spend years at our universities, or whose time isnot taken up by the concerns of trade. 

It happens also in this society, that persons of the poor and middleclasses are frequently through industry becoming rich. While these weregaining but a moderate support, they gave their children but a moderateeducation. But when they came into possession of a greater substance, their children had finished their education, having grown up to men. 

The ancient controversy too, relative to the necessity of human learningas a qualification for ministers of the Gospel, has been detrimental tothe promotion of literature and science among the Quakers. Thiscontroversy was maintained with great warmth and obstinacy on bothsides, that is, by the early Quakers, who were men of learning, on theone hand, and by the divines of our universities on the other. The lesslearned in the society, who read this controversy, did not make theproper distinction concerning it. They were so interested in keeping upthe doctrine, that learning was not necessary for the priesthood, thatthey seemed to have forgotten that it was necessary at all. Henceknowledge began to be cried down in the society; and though theproposition was always meant to be true with respect to the priesthoodonly, yet many mistook or confounded its meaning, so that they gavetheir children but a limited education on that account. 

The opinions also of the Quakers relative to classical authors, havebeen another cause of impeding in some degree their progress inlearning, that is, in the classical part of it. They believe these tohave inculcated a system of morality frequently repugnant to that of theChristian religion. And the Heathen mythology, which is connected withtheir writings, and which is fabulous throughout, they conceive to havedisseminated romantic notions among youth, and to have made themfamiliar with fictions, to the prejudice of an unshaken devotedness tothe love of truth. 

CHAP. XI. 

_Second trait is, that they are a superstitious people--Circumstancesthat have given birth to this trait--Quakerism, where it is understood, is seldom chargeable with superstition--Where it is misunderstood, itleads to it--Subjects in which it may be misunderstood are those of theprovince of the Spirit--and of dress and language--Evils to bemisapprehended from a misunderstanding of the former subject. _

It may seem wonderful at first sight, that persons, who have discardedan undue veneration for the saints, and the saints days, and the relicsof the Roman Catholic religion, who have had the resolution to rejectthe ceremonials of Protestants, such as baptism and the sacrament of thesupper, and who have broken the terrors of the dominion of thepriesthood, should, of all others, be chargeable with superstition. Butso it is. The world has certainly fixed upon them the character of asuperstitious people. Under this epithet much is included. It isunderstood that Quakers are more ready than others to receive mysticaldoctrines, more apt to believe in marvellous appearances more willing toplace virtue in circumstances, where many would place imposition; andthat, independently of all this, they are more scrupulous with respectto the propriety of their ordinary movements, waiting for religiousimpulses, when no such impulses are expected by other religious people. 

This trait of superstition is an ancient trait in the character of theQuakers, and has arisen from the following causes. 

It has been long imagined, that where a people devote themselves soexclusively to the influence of the Spirit as the Quakers appear to do, they will not be sufficiently on their guard to make the properdistinctions between imagination and revelation, and that they will beapt to confound impressions, and to bring the divine Spirit out of itsproper sphere into the ordinary occurrences of their lives. And in thisopinion the world considers itself to have been confirmed by anexpression said to have been long in use among Quakers, which is, "thatthey will do such and such things if they have liberty to do them. " Nowby this expression the Quakers may mean only, that all human things areso uncertain, and so many unforeseen events may happen, that they daremake no promises, but they will do the things in question if no obstacleshould arise to prevent them. And this caution in language runs throughthe whole society; for they seldom promise but provisionally in anycase. But the world has interpreted the expression differently, andmaintains that the Quakers mean by it, that they will do such and suchthings, if they feel that they have liberty or permission from theSpirit of God. 

Two other circumstances, which have given birth to this trait in thecharacter of the Quakers, are the singularities of their dress andlanguage. For when they are spoken of by the world, they are usuallymentioned under the name of the idolatry or superstition of the Quakerlanguage, or the idolatry or superstition of the Quaker dress. 

Now this trait, which has originated in the three causes that have beenmentioned, is considered by the world to have been still more confirmedby a circumstance which happened but a few years ago, namely, that whenanimal magnetism was in fashion, there were more of this society workedupon by these delusions, than of any other. 

With respect to the truth of this trait, I believe it cannot easily bemade out, as for as animal magnetism is concerned. For thoughundoubtedly there were Quakers so superstitious as to be led away onthis occasion, yet they were very few in number, and not more inproportion than others of other religious denominations. The conduct ofthese was also considered as reprehensible by the society at large, andsome pains were taken to convince them of their error, and of theunsuitableness of such doctrines with the religion they professed. 

With respect to the truth of this trait, as it may have existed on otheroccasions, it may be laid down as a position generally true, that whereQuakers understand their own constitution, it can have no place amongthem. But where they do not understand it, there are few people amongwhom it is more likely to exist, as we may see from the followingaccount. 

It is the doctrine of Quakerism on the subject of the Spirit, that it isan infallible guide to men in their spiritual concerns. But I do not seewhere it is asserted by any of the Quaker writers, that it is to be aguide to man in all the temporal concerns of his life, or that he is todepreciate the value of human reason. George Fox was very apprehensivethat even in matters of religion, which constitute the immediateprovince of the divine Spirit, men might mistake their own enthusiasticfeelings for revelation; and he censured some, to use his ownexpression, "for having gone out into imaginations. " The society alsohave been apprehensive of the same consequences. Hence one among otherreasons for the institution of the office of elders. It is the duty ofthese to watch over the doctrine of the ministers to see that theypreach soundly, and that they do not mistake their own imaginations forthe Spirit of God, and mix his wisdom with the waywardness of their ownwills. They therefore, who believe in the doctrine of the agency of theSpirit, and at the same time in the necessity of great caution andwatchfulness that they may not confound its operations with that oftheir own fancies, will never incur the charge, which has been broughtagainst the body at large. But if there are others, on the other hand, who give themselves up to this agency without the necessary caution, they will gradually mix their impressions, and will, in time, refer mostof them to the same source. They will bring the Divine Being by degreesout of his spiritual province, and introduce him into all the trivialand worthless concerns of their lives. Hence a belief will arise, whichcannot fail of binding their minds in the chains of delusion andsuperstition. 

It is the doctrine of Quakerism again on the subject of dress, thatplainness and simplicity are required of those who profess the Christiancharacter; that any deviation from these is unwarrantable, if it be madeon the plea of conformity to the fashions of the world; that suchdeviation bespeaks the beginning of an unstable mind; and, if notnoticed, may lead into many evils. They therefore, who consider dress inthis point of view, will never fall into any errors of mind in theircontemplation of this subject. But if there are members, on the otherhand, who place virtue in the colour and shape of their cloathing, assome of the Jews did in the broad phylacteries on their garments, theywill place it in lifeless appearances and forms, and bring their mindsunder vassalage to a false religion. And in the same manner it may beobserved with respect to language, that if persons in the society lay anundue stress upon it, that is, if they believe truth or falsehood toexist inherently in lifeless words, and this contrary to the sense inwhich they know they will be understood by the world, so that they darenot pronounce them for religion's sake, they will be in danger ofplacing religion where it is not, and of falling into errors concerningit, which will be denominated superstition by the world. 

As I am now on the subject of superstition, as capable of arising fromthe three causes that have been mentioned, I shall dwell for a shorttime on some of the evils which may arise from one of them, or from amisunderstanding of the doctrine of the agency of the Spirit. 

I believe it possible, in the first place, for those who receive thisdoctrine without the proper limitations, that is, for those whoattribute every thing exclusively to the Spirit of God, and who draw noline between revelation and the suggestions of their own will, to beguilty of evil actions and to make the Divine Being the author of themall. 

I have no doubt, for example, that many of those, who engaged in thecrusades, considered themselves as led into them by the Spirit of God. But what true Quaker, in these days, would wish to make the Almighty theauthor of all the bloodshed in the wars that were undertaken on thisaccount?

The same may be said with respect to martyrdoms. For there is reason tobelieve, that many who were instrumental in shedding the blood of theirfellow-creatures, because they happened to differ from them in religiousopinion, conceived that they were actuated by the divine Spirit, andthat they were doing God service, and aiding the cause of religion bytheir conduct on such occasions. But what true Quaker would believe thatthe Father of justice and mercy was the author of these bloodypersecutions, or that, if men were now to feel an impulse in their ownminds to any particular action, they ought to obey it, if it were tolead them to do evil that good might come?

The same may be said with respect to many of the bad laws, which are tobe found in the codes of the different nations of the world. Legislatorsno doubt have often thought themselves spiritually guided when they madethem. And judges, who have been remarkable for appealing to the divineSpirit in the course of their lives, have made no hesitation to executethem. This was particularly the case with Sir Matthew Hale. If there beany one, whose writings speak a more than ordinary belief in the agencyof the Spirit of God, it is this great and estimable man. This spirit heconsulted not only in the spiritual, but in the temporal concerns, ofhis life. And yet he sentenced to death a number of persons, becausethey were reputed to be witches. But what true Quaker believes inwitchcraft? or does he not rather believe, that the Spirit of God, itrightly understood, would have protested against condemnation for acrime, which does not exist?

But the mischief, if a proper distinction be not made between the agencyof the Spirit and that of the will of man, may spread farther, and mayreach the man himself, and become injurious both to his health, hisintellect, and his usefulness, and the Divine Being may be made againthe author of it all. 

Many, we all know, notwithstanding their care and attention, have foundthat they have gone wrong in their affairs in various instances of theirlives, that is, events have shewn that they have taken a wrong course. But if there be those who suppose themselves in these instances to havebeen acted upon by the Spirit or God, what is more likely than that theymay imagine that they have lost his favour, and that looking uponthemselves as driven by him into the wrong road, they may fall into thebelief, that they are among the condemned reprobate, and pine away, deprived of their senses, in a state of irretrievable misery anddespair?

Others again may injure their health, and diminish their comfort andtheir utility in another way. And here I may remark, that if I have seenwhat the world would call superstition among the Quakers, it has beenconfined principally to a few females, upon whose constitution, moredelicate than that of men, an attention to undistinguished impressions, brought on in a course of time by a gradual depreciation of humanreason, has acted with considerable force. I fear that some of these, inthe upright intention of their hearts to consult the Almighty on alloccasions as the sole arbiter of every thing that is good, have fosteredtheir own infirmities, and gone into retirements so frequent, as to haveoccasioned these to interfere with the duties of domestic comfort andsocial good, and that they have been at last so perplexed with doubtsand an increasing multitude of scruples, that they have been afraid ofdoing many things, because they have not had a revelation for them. Thestate of such worthy persons is much to be pitied. What must be theirfeelings under such a conflict, when they are deserted by human reason?What an effect will not such religious doubts and perplexities haveupon their health? What impediments do they not throw in the way oftheir own utility?

I should be sorry if by any observations, such as the preceding, Ishould be thought to censure any one for the morality of his feelings. And still more sorry should I be, if I were to be thought to have anyintention of derogating from the character of the Supreme Being. I amfar from denying his omniscience, for I believe that he sees everysparrow that falls to the ground, and even more, that he knows theinnermost thoughts of men. I deny not his omnipresence, for I believethat he may be seen in all his works. I deny neither his general nor hisparticular providence, nor his hearing of our prayers, nor his rightdirection in our spiritual concerns, nor his making of all things worktogether for good to those who love him. Neither do I refuse to admithim either into our journies, or into our walks, or into our chambers, for he can make all the things we see subservient to our moralinstruction, and his own glory. But I should be sorry to have himconsidered as a clock, that is to inform us about the times of ourordinary movements, or to make him a prompter in all our worldlyconcerns, or to oblige him to take his seat in animal magnetism, or toreside in the midst marvellous delusions. Why should we expect arevelation in the most trivial concerns of our lives, where our reasonwill inform us? Why, like the waggoner, apply to Jupiter, when we mayremove the difficulty by putting our own shoulders to the wheels? If weare reasonable creatures, we can generally tell, whether we ought to goforwards or backwards, or to begin, or to postpone, whether our actionsare likely to be innocent or hurtful, or whether we are going on anerrand of benevolence or of evil. In fact, there can be no necessity forthis constant appeal to the Spirit in all our worldly concerns, while wepossess our reason as men. And unless some distinction be made betweenthe real agency of God and our own volitions, which distinction trueQuakerism suggests, we shall be liable to be tossed to and fro by everywind that blows, and to become the creatures of a superstition, that maylead us into great public evils, while it may be injurious to our healthand intellect, and to the happiness and utility of our lives. 

CHAP. XII. 

_Morally defective traits--First of these is that of obstinacy--Thiswas attached also to the early Christians--No just foundation for theexistence of this trait. _

I come now to the consideration of those which I have denominatedmorally defective traits. 

The first trait of this kind, which is attached to the character of theQuakers, is that of an obstinate spirit. 

This trait is a very ancient one. It was observed in the time of GeorgeFox, of the members of this society, that they were as "stiff as trees, "and this idea concerning them has come down to the present day. 

The origin of this trait must be obvious to all. The Quakers, as we haveseen, will neither pay tithes, nor perform military service, norilluminate their houses, like other people, though they are sure ofsuffering by their refusal to comply with custom in these cases. Now, when individuals, few in number, become singular, and differ from theworld at large, it is generally considered that the majority are in theright, and that the minority are in the wrong. But obstinacy may bedefined to be a perseverance in that which is generally considered to bewrong. 

This epithet has attached, and will attach to those who resist thepopular opinion, till men are better educated, or till they lose theirprejudices, or have more correct and liberal notions on religion. Theearly Christians were themselves accused of obstinacy, and this even bythe enlightened Pliny. He tells, us, that they would not use wine andfrankincense before the statues of the emperors; and that "there was noquestion that for such obstinacy they deserved punishment. "[39]

[Footnote 39: "Pervicaciam certe et inflexibitem obstinationem deberepuniri. "]

In judging of the truth of this trait, two queries will arise. First, whether the Quakers, in adhering rigidly to those singularities whichhave produced it, are really wrong as a body of Christians? And, secondly, whether they do not conscientiously believe themselves to beright?

In the case of the early Christians, which has been mentioned, we, wholive at this day, have no doubt that Pliny put a false estimate on theircharacter. We believe them to have done their duty, and we believe alsothat they considered themselves as doing it, when they refused divinehonours to the emperors. And the action, therefore, which Plinydenominated obstinacy, would, if it had been left to us to name it, havebeen called inflexible virtue, as arising out of a sense of theobligations imposed upon them by the Christian religion. 

In the same manner we may argue with respect to the Quakers. Who, forexample, if he will try to divest himself of the prejudices of custom, and of the policy of the world, feels such a consciousness of his ownpowers as positively to pronounce, that the notions of the Quakers areutterly false, as to the illicitness of wars under the Christian system?The arguments of the Quakers on this subject are quite as good, in myapprehension, as any that I have heard advanced on the other side of thequestion. These arguments too are unquestionably much more honourable toChristianity, and much more consistent with the nature and design of theGospel dispensation. They are supported also by the belief and thepractice of the earliest Christians. They are arguments again, whichhave suggested themselves to many good men, who were not Quakers, andwhich have occasioned doubts in some instances, and conviction inothers, against the prejudice of education and the dominion of custom. And if the event should ever come to pass, which most Christians expect, that men will one day or other turn their swords and their spears intoploughshares and pruning-hooks, they, who live in that day, will applaudthe perseverance of the Quakers in this case, and weep over theobstinacy and inconsistency of those who combated their opinions. 

But the great question after all is, whether the Quakers believethemselves in this or in any other of their religious scruples, to beright, as a Christian body? If there are those among them who do not, they give into the customs of the world, and either leave the societythemselves, or become disowned. It is therefore only a fair and a justpresumption, that all those who continue in the society, and who keep upto these scruples to the detriment of their worldly interest, believethemselves to be right. But this belief of their own rectitude, even ifthey should happen to be wrong, is religion to them, and ought to beestimated so by us in matters in which an interpretation of Gospelprinciples is concerned. This is but an homage due to conscience, afterall the blood that has been shed in the course of Christianpersecutions, and after all the religious light that has been diffusedamong us since the reformation of our religion. 

CHAP. XIII. 

SECT. I. 

_Next trait is that of a money-getting spirit--Probability of the truthof this trait examined--An undue eagerness after money not unlikely tobe often the result of the frugal and commercial habits of thesociety--but not to the extent, as insisted on by the world--Thiseagerness, wherever it exists, seldom chargeable with avarice. _

The next trait in the character of the Quakers is that of amoney-getting spirit, or of a devotedness to the acquisition of money intheir several callings and concerns. 

This character is considered as belonging so generally to theindividuals of this society, that it is held by the world to be almostinseparable from Quakerism. A certain writer has remarked, that theyfollow their concerns in pursuit of riches, "with a step as steady astime, and with an appetite as keen as death. "

I do not know what circumstances have given birth to this trait. Thatthe Quakers are a thriving body we know. That they may also appear, whenknown to be a domestic people, and to have discarded the amusements ofthe world, to be more in their shops and counting-houses than others, is probable. And it is not unlikely, that, in consequence of thisappearance, connected with this worldly prosperity, they may be thoughtto be more intent than others upon the promotion of their pecuniaryconcerns. There are circumstances, however, belonging to the characterand customs of the society, which would lead to an opposite conclusion. The Quakers, in the first place, are acknowledged to be a charitablepeople. But if so, they ought not to be charged, at least, with thatspecies of the money-getting spirit, which amounts to avarice. It isalso an undoubted fact, that they give up no small portion of theirtime, and put themselves to no small expence, on account of theirreligion. In country places they allot one morning in the week, and inthe towns generally two, besides the Sunday, to their religious worship. They have also their monthly meetings, and after these their quarterly, to attend, on account of their discipline. And this they do frequentlyat a great distance, and after a considerable absence as tradesmen, fromtheir homes. I do not mean to insinuate by this latter instance, thatmen become pious, and therefore proof against the influence of money, exactly in proportion as they attend their religious meetings, but that, where they are voraciously intent upon the getting of money, they couldhardly be expected to make such a sacrifice of their time. 

But whatever may be the appearance on either side, the question is, whether the imputation of the trait, which is now under ourconsideration, be founded in fact. What circumstances make in favour ofit? What circumstances make against it? And which of these preponderateon the whole?

We may say then, at the first sight, that the precepts of Quakerism makedecidedly against it. And we may say again, that it ought to beexpected, that all those principles and circumstances, which have aninfluence in the production of moral character, or of such a characteras belongs to the Quakers as a body, should work together either towardsits prevention or its cure. 

On the other hand, if we examine the situation of the society, we shallfind circumstances, the operation of which is directly in favour of sucha trait. 

And first, in looking into the human heart, we seem to discover acircumstance, which, on account of the situation alluded to, may operateas a spring in producing it. Men, generally speaking, love consequence. Now the Quakers, though they have consequence in their own society, havenone in the world. They can be neither legislators nor magistrates. Theycan take no titles to distinguish them. They pass therefore in theworld, like the common and undistinguished herd, except from thecircumstances of their dress. But riches give all men consequence. Andit is not clear to me, but that this circumstance may have its operationon the minds of some who are called Quakers, in contributing to theproduction of the money-getting spirit, inasmuch as it may procure thema portion of estimation, which they cannot otherwise have, while theyremain in their own body. 

In looking again into the human heart, we find another, and this apowerful spring, connected with the situation of the society, for theproduction of such a trait. 

The Quakers, as I have observed before, are mostly in trade. Now theyare generally a sedate, thoughtful, sober, diligent, and honest people. It is not then too much to say, with these qualifications, that theywill be as successful in trade as others. Hence their incomes will be asgreat, in proportion to their capitals, as those of others, from thesame source. 

But let us look for a moment at their outgoings. They neither spend norlose their money at cards, or at horse-races, or by any other species ofgaming. They do not waste their substance either in drinking at tavernsor at home. Not having, in general, an enlarged education, or a tastefor literature, they have no expensive libraries. They buy no costlypaintings. They neither powder their hair, nor dress in a splendidmanner. They use no extravagant furniture. They keep no packs of houndsfor their diversion. They are never seen at the theatres. They haveneither routes, balls, nor music meetings. They have neither expensiveliveries nor equipages. Hence it must follow, that their outgoings, asfar as their living is concerned, cannot in general be as great as thoseof others in a similar condition of life. But if their inlets aregreater than their outlets of money, when compared with those of otherpersons, a greater overplus of money beyond the expences of living, willbe the constant result, or there will be a greater increasingaccumulation of money, upon the whole, than falls within the possessionof others. Now a question arises here, founded on a knowledge of theinfirmity of our nature. Are men likely, in general, constituted as theyare, to see the golden idol constantly rising in dimensions before them, and to refrain front worshipping it, or, are they likely to see itwithout a corruption of their moral vision? It is observed[40] by one ofthe scriptural writers, "A merchant shall hardly keep himself from doingwrong, and a huckster shall not be free from sin. " And where is it, thatthis old saying, except the mind be strongly fortified by religion, willnot be found equally true in the present, as in former times? The truthis, that the old maxim, Creseit amor nummi quantum ipsa pecuniacreseit, is a just one. That is, it is true, "that the coming in ofmoney in an undue proportion begets the love of it", that the love ofmoney again leads to the getting of more; that the getting of more againgenerally increases the former love. And hence a round is kept up ofcircumstances and feelings, till a money-getting spirit creeps into thecharacter of him, who is placed in a situation so unfortunate for thepurity of his heart. 

[Footnote 40: Ecclesiasticus xxvi. 29. ]

These then are the acting and the counteracting circumstances on bothsides. Which of the two are likely to be predominant, we mustconjecture. When men have become full grown Quakers, the latter willlose their power. But where they have not (and it is to be presumed thatthere are many in the society who have not reached this stature, andmany again who bear only the name of their profession) they willfrequently prevail. I own I fear that precepts, though there may be ageneral moral bias, will not always be found successful against those, which are considered to be the most powerful of the temptations, towhich our nature is exposed. I own, when I consider that the Quakers, inconsequence of their commercial and frugal habits, have greaterpecuniary accumulations before their eyes than others in a similarcondition of life, when I consider how few are able to bear theseaccumulations without moral injury to themselves, and that even theearly Christians began to relax in their character when they begun tobe prosperous, I am of opinion, that there is some foundation far theexistence of such a spirit, though not to the extent, as insisted on bythe world; or, that there is in the society, notwithstanding the manybright and amiable exceptions that are to be found in it, greatereagerness after wealth than is consistent with its religious profession. And to this opinion I am inclined from another consideration, whichcannot be overlooked in the present case. The book of Extracts itselfacknowledges the existence of such a spirit, for it characterises itunder the name of "hastening to be rich, " and it calls it "a growingevil. "

But when I say that I so for accede to the opinion of the world, as toallow that the money-getting spirit may be fixed upon a part of thesociety, I feel that I ought to make a proper distinction concerning it. I must observe, that the money-getting spirit, wherever it may bechargeable upon Quakers, seldom belongs to that species which is calledavarice. It is by no means incongruous to suppose, that there may be inthe same person an unreasonable love of money, and yet a shew ofbenevolence. The money-getting spirit will have a different effect, asit operates upon different persons. Upon those, who have been brought upin an ignorant and unfeeling manner, it will operate to make them hoardtheir substance, and to keep it exclusively to themselves. But it willnot always hinder those who have been humanely educated, though it maylead them to unreasonable accumulations, from dispensing a portion oftheir gains. In the first instance it is highly criminal, because itkeeps the whole of its talent in a napkin. In the second, though lesscriminal, it is greatly to be deplored, but more particularly in aQuaker, who, making a higher profession of Christianity than manyothers, ought to give to the world the example of a purer mind. 

SECT. II. 

_Farther observations on the subject of the former trait--Practicablemethods suggested for its extirpation--These methods not destructive, but promotive, of the temporal interests of the members of this society, and consistent with the religion they profess. _

As the Quakers appear to me, in consequence of their commercial andfrugal habits, to be in danger of contracting a money-getting spirit, and as this spirit is the worst feature that can exist in the Quakercharacter, I shall allot a few pages to the farther consideration of thesubject, with a view of the prevention of such an evil. 

That it is the worst feature that can exist in the character of thesociety, I repeat. It is worse than a want of knowledge, or thansuperstition, because these relate to the understanding, while this isconfined to the heart. It renders the system of the moral education ofthe Quakers almost nugatory. For what is the use of keeping the mind ina state of spiritual purity by means of prohibitions, or by attemptingto shut it out from the knowledge of corruptive amusements, if it beafterwards to be rendered impure by the love of money? It occasions themagain to bear their testimony as it were against their own religion. Fora Quaker is not in the situation of on ordinary person. He looks uponhimself as a highly professing Christian; as one, who is not to conformto the fashions of the world; as one, who is to lead a life ofself-denial; as one, who is to go forward in virtue, his belief beingthat of a possibility of perfection even in the present life. Heconsiders himself too as a representative of the early Christians, andholds himself ready to follow them by the bearing of his testimony, intosuffering, and even unto death. But what Christian can harbour amoney-getting spirit, or be concerned in an extensive accumulation ofwealth? If a Quaker therefore should go into the common road, and falldown before the idol mammon, like any other ordinary person, how can theworld give him any pretension but to an ordinary religion?

My object in the present consideration of the subject, will be to shewthe Quakers in general, and those in particular who may need it, somepractical cure for this evil, and to convince them, that the mode ofeffecting it will not be detrimental to the temporal interests of theirfamilies, but promotive of their spiritual, and consistent with thereligion they profess. 

The first method, which I would recommend to those who are in trade, andwho know their own habits of life, and the extent of their families, would be to fix upon a certain sum, which they may think sufficient fora future decent and moderate competency, and to leave off business, assoon as this should be obtained. Such a step would be useful. It wouldbe making room for others to live as well as themselves. It would behonourable, for it would be generous. And it would operate as a certainpreventive of the money-getting spirit, as well as of the imputation ofit. For if such a retreat from trade, were laid down and known as ageneral custom of the society, the Quakers might bid their hearts risein defiance against the corruptions of money, and their reputationagainst the clamours of the world. 

This step, hard and difficult as it may appear to those who are thrivingin the world, is, notwithstanding, not a novel one, if we may judgeeither by the example of many of the pure minded Christians of otherdenominations, or by that of many estimable persons in this society. John Woolman, among many others, was uneasy on account of his business"growing cumbersome, " for so he expresses it, lest it should hurt thepurity of his mind. And he contracted it, leaving himself only enough ofit, and this by the labour of his own hands, for a decent support. Andhere I might mention other individuals of this society, if I had noobjection to offend the living by praise, who, following his example, have retired upon only a moderate competency, though in the way ofgreat accumulations, for no other reason than because they were afraid, lest such accumulations should interfere with their duty, or injuretheir character, as Christians. 

But if this measure should not be approved of under an idea that menought to have employments for their time, or that in these days ofincreasing taxes and of progressively expensive living, they cannotspecify the sum that may be sufficient for their future wants, I haveanother to propose, in consequence of which they may still follow theircommercial pursuits, and avoid the imputation in question. I mean thatthe Quakers ought to make it a rule, after the annual expences of livinghave been settled, to lay by but small savings. They ought never toaccustom their eyes to behold an undue accumulation of money, butliberally to deal it out in charity to the poor and afflicted inproportion to their gains, thus making their occupations a blessing tomankind. No other measure will be effectual but this, if the former benot resolved upon, while they continue in trade. Their ordinary charity, it is clear, will not do. Large as it may have been, it has not beenfound large enough to prove a corrective of this spirit in the opinionof the world. Indeed, it matters not how large a charitable donation mayseem, if we view it either as a check upon this spirit, or as an act ofmerit, but how large it is, when compared with the bulk of the savingsthat are left. A hundred pounds, given away annually in benevolence, mayappear something, and may sound handsomely in the ears of the public. But if this sum be taken from the savings of two thousand, it will belittle less than a reproach to the donor as a Christian. In short, noother way than the estimation of the gift by the surplus-saving will doin the case in question. But this would certainly be effectual to theend proposed. It would entirely keep down the money-getting spirit. Itwould also do away the imputation of it in the public mind. For it isimpossible in this case, that the word Quakerism should not becomesynonimous with charity, as it ought to be, if Quakerism be a more thanordinary profession of the Christian religion. 

Now these methods are not chimerical, but practicable. There can be noreasonable objection against them, because they allow of the acquisitionof a decent and moderate competency. The only one that can be startedwill be, that Quakers may injure the temporal interests of theirchildren, or that they cannot, upon this plan, leave them independent attheir deaths . .. 

That independence for children is the general aim of the world, I knowwell. But I know also, in reply to this objection, that Christianity hasno such word as independence in her book. For of what do people wish tomake their children independent? Certainly not of Providence, for thatwould be insanity indeed. Of the poor then shall I say? That isimpossible, for how could they get their daily bread? Of the rich, then, like themselves? That would be folly, for where would they form theirfriendships or their connubial connections, in which they must place aportion of the happiness of their lives? Do they wish then to make themindependent of society at large, so as not to do it good? That isagainst all religion. In short it is impossible, while we exist in thislife, to be independent one of another. We are bound by Christianity inone great chain, every link of which is to support the next; or the bandis broken. But if they mean by independence such a moneyed situation asshall place their children out of the reach of the frowns, and crosses, and vicissitudes of the world, so that no thought or care shall benecessary for the means of their own livelihood, I fear they areprocuring a situation for them, which will be injurious even to theirtemporal interests as men. 

The matter then seems to me to be brought to this question, whether itis better, I mean as a general proposition, to bring up children withthe expectation of such a moderate portion of wealth, that they shallsee the necessity of relying upon their own honest endeavours and theDivine support, or to bring them up with such notions of independence, that, in the pride and exultation of their hearts, they may be inducedto count themselves mighty, and to lose sight of the power andprovidence of God?

If we were to look into the world for an answer to this question, weshould find no greater calamity than that of leaving to children anaffluent independence. Such persons, when grown up, instead of becominga blessing, are generally less useful than others. They are frequentlyproud and haughty, fancying themselves omnipotent, they bid defiance tothe opinions of the virtuous part of the community. To the laws ofhonour and fashion they pay a precise obedience, but trample under foot, as of little consequence, the precepts of the Christian religion. Havingsensual gratifications in their power, they indulge to excess. Bydegrees they ruin their health and fortunes, and get wisdom byexperience, when it is too late to use it. How many young persons have Iknown, and I wish I could make a different statement, whose ruinoriginated wholly in a sense of their own independence of the world!

Neither, if we look into the society of the Quakers, shall we find adifferent account. It is undoubtedly true, though there are many amiableexceptions, that the worst examples in it are generally among thechildren of the rich. These presently take wings, and fly away, so that, falling into the corruptive and destructive fashions of the times, theirparents have only been heaping up riches; not knowing who were to gatherthem. And here it may be remarked, that the Quaker education, by meansof its prohibitions, greatly disqualifies its young members, who maydesert from the society, from acting prudently afterwards. They will be, in general, but children, and novices in the world. Kept within boundstill this period, what is more probable than that, when they break outof them, they will bunch-into excess. A great river may be kept in itscourse by paying attention to its banks, but if you make a breach inthese restrictive walls, you let it loose, and it deluges the plainsbelow. 

In short, whether we turn our eyes to the Quaker society, or to theworld at large, we cannot consider an affluent independence as among thetemporal advantages of youth. And as they, who only leave their childrena moderate portion of substance, so that they shall see the necessity ofrelying upon their own honest endeavours, and the Divine support, actwisely in their own generation, so they act only consistently with thereligion they profess. For what does the religion of the Quakers holdout to them as the best attainment in life? Is it not spiritualknowledge? Is it not that knowledge, which shall fit them best for theservice of their Maker? But such knowledge is utterly unattainable whilea money-getting spirit exists; for it has been declared by the highestauthority, that we cannot serve God and mammon. 

CHAP. XIV. 

_Another trait is that of a want of animation or affection--This anappearance only, and not a reality, arising from a proper subjugation ofthe passions--from the prohibitions relative to dress--and address--andthe amusements of the world. _

It is said next of the Quakers, that they are a cold and inanimatepeople; and that they have neither the ordinary affection, nor thegradation of affection, of other people. 

I may immediately pronounce upon this trait, that it is merely anoutward appearance. The Quakers have as warm feelings as the rest oftheir countrymen. Their love of their fellow-creatures, more conspicuousin them than in many others, as has been amply shewn, gives them a claimto the possession of warm and affectionate feeling. The Quakers too havethe character of a domestic people; but surely, if they do not possessaffection, and this in a very high degree, they must have miserablehomes. There is indeed a want of gradation in their affections, whichmay be traced upon some occasions. In making their wills, for example, they are not apt to raise up an eldest son to the detriment of the restof their offspring. And this certainly is a proof, that they do notpossess the gradation of affection of many other people! Happy is itfor their own comfort and the welfare of their families, that they givethis proof to the world of this equal affection for their children. 

That this trait is only an appearance, and not a reality, I shall shew, by staring many outward circumstances, in the Quaker constitution, whichmay be preventive of apparent animation, but which can have no influenceon the heart. 

We must all of us be sensible, that both opinions and customs have aninfluence on the warmth or coldness of our characters. Who would expect, if two faithful portraits could have been handed down to us fromantiquity, to find the same gravity or coldness of countenance andmanners in an Athenian, as in a Spartan? And in the same manner who canexpect, that there will not be a difference in the appearance of Quakersand other people?

The truth is, that the discipline and education of the Quakers producean appearance of a want of animation, and this outward appearance theworld has falsely taken as a symbol of the character of the heart. Canwe expect that a due subjugation of the passions, which is insisted uponin true Quaker families, will give either warmth to the countenance, orspirit to the outward manners? Do not the passions animate, and give atone to the characters of men? Can we see then the same variety ofexpression in the faces of the Quakers as in those of others on thisaccount? The actions of men, again, enliven their outward appearances, but Quakers, being forbidden to use the address of the world, can assumeno variety of action in their intercourse with others. The amusements, again, of the world, such as of music and the theatre, reach the mind, and, animating it, give a greater expression to the countenance, onwhich the contemplation afterwards produces a similar though a slightereffect. But in what Quakers can you see sensibility from the same cause?The dress too, of the members of this society gives them an appearanceof gravity and dulness. It makes them also shy of their fellow citizens. But gravity, and dulness, and shyness, have generally, each of them, theappearance of coldness of manners. 

CHAP. XV. 

_Another trait is that of evasiveness in speech--This an appearanceonly, arising from a peculiar regard to truth--and from a caution aboutthe proper use of words, induced by circumstances in the discipline, andby the peculiarities in the Quaker language. _

It is alleged against the Quakers, as another bad trait in theircharacter, that they are not plain and direct, but that they are evasivein their answers to any questions that may be asked them. 

There is no doubt but that the world, who know scarcely any thing aboutthe Quakers, will have some reason, if they judge from their outwardmanner of expression, to come to such a conclusion. There is often asort of hesitation in their speech, which has the appearance ofevasiveness. But though there may be such an appearance, their answersto questions are full and accurate when finally given; andunquestionably there is no intention in them either to hold back anything, or to deceive. 

This outward appearance, strange to relate, arises in part from anamiable trait in the character of the Quakers!! Their great desire tospeak the truth, and not to exceed it, occasions often a sort ofdoubtfulness of speech. It occasions them also, instead of answering aquestion immediately, to ask other questions, that they may see the truebearings of the thing intended to be known. The same appearance ofdoubt runs also through the whole society in all those words whichrelate to promises, from the same cause. For the Quakers, knowing theuncertainty of all human things, and the impossibility of fulfilling butprovisionally, seldom, as I have observed before, promise any thingpositively, that they may not come short of the truth. The desiretherefore of uttering the truth has in part brought this accusation upontheir heads. 

Other circumstances also to be found within the Quaker constitution havea tendency to produce the same effect. 

In their monthly and quarterly and annual meetings for discipline, theyare taught by custom to watch the propriety of the expressions that areused in the wording of their minutes, that these may accuratelyrepresent the sense of the persons present. And this habit of cautionabout the use of words in the affairs of their own society naturallybegets a caution concerning it also in their intercourse with the world. 

The peculiarities of their language produce also a similarcircumspection. For where people are restrained from the use ofexpressions which are gene rally adopted by others, and this in thebelief that, as a highly professing people, they ought to be watchfulover their words as well as their actions, a sort of hesitation willaccompany them, or a sort of pause will be perceptible, while they arechoosing as it were the proper words for a reply to any of the questionsthat may be asked them. 

CHAP. XVI. 

_Another trait is that of shyness--This an appearance only, arising fromthe former trait--and from that of coldness of manners--and from thegreat sobriety of the Quaker character. _

Another bad trait, which the world has fixed upon the Quakers, is thatof being a sly people. This trait has been long given them. We find itnoticed by Pope:

 "The Quaker sly, the Presbyterian sour. "

This charge is grounded on appearances. It arises in part from the lastmentioned trait in their character; for if men be thought cautious inthe use of their words, and evasive in their answers, whether they beso or not, they will be marked as sly. 

It arises again from the trait of want of animation or of coldness ofmanners. For if men of good understanding, in consequence of thesubjugation of their passions, appear always to be cool, they will havean appearance of wariness. 

It arises again from the great sobriety of the Quakers. For where menare always sober, they appear to be always on their guard, and men, whoare always on their guard, are reputed cunning. 

These circumstances of coolness and sobriety, when called into action, will only confirm the world in the opinion of the existence of the traitin question. For it will not be easy to deceive a man of but moderateunderstanding, who never loses his senses either by intoxication or bypassion. And what man, in such habits, will not make a better bargainthan one who is hot in his temper, or who is accustomed to beintoxicated?

Hence the trait arises from appearances, which are the result ofcircumstances, favourable to the morality of the Quaker character. 

CHAP. XVII. 

_Last bad trait is a disregard of truth--Apparent rise of thistrait--Falsehood of it probable from considerations on the language ofthe Quakers--from their prohibition of detraction--their rejection ofromantic books--their punctuality to words and engagements--and theirideas with respect to the unlawfulness of civil oaths. _

The last charge against the Quakers will be seen in a vulgar expression, which should have had no place in this book, if it had not been asaying in almost every body's mouth. The expression, is, "Though theywill not swear, they will lie. "

This trait has arisen in part from those different circumstances, whichhave produced the appearance of evasiveness. For if people are thoughtevasive, they will always be thought liars. Evasiveness and lying arealmost synonimous terms. It is not impossible also, if Quakers shouldappear to give a doubtful answer, that persons may draw falseconclusions from thence, and therefore may suppose them to have spokenfalsely. These two circumstances of an apparent evasiveness, andprobably of a deduction of conclusions from doubtful or imaginarypremises, have, I apprehend, produced an appearance, which the world hasinterpreted into evil. 

No trait, however, can be more false than this. I know of no people, whoregard truth more than the Quakers. Their whole system bends and directsto truth. One of the peculiarities of their language, or their rejectionof many of the words which other people use, because they consider themas not religiously appropriate to the objects of which they are thesymbols, serves as a constant admonition to them to speak the truth. 

Their prohibition of all slanderous reports, as mentioned in a formervolume, has a tendency to produce the same effect; for detraction isforbidden partly on the idea, that all such rumours on character may befalse. 

They reject also the reading of plays and novels, partly under a notion, that the subjects and circumstances in these are fictitious, and that ataste therefore, for the reading, of these, if acquired, mightfamiliarize their youth with fictions, and produce in them a romanticand lying spirit. 

It is a trait, again, in the character of the Quakers, as we have seen, that they are remarkable for their punctuality in the performance oftheir words and engagements. But such punctuality implies neither morenor less, than that the words spoken by Quakers are generally fulfilled;and, if they are generally fulfilled, then the inference is, that allsuch words have been generally truths. 

To this I may add, that the notions of the Quakers on the subject ofoaths, and their ideas of the character which it becomes them to sustainin life, must have a powerful effect upon them in inducing an attentionto the truth; for they consider Jesus Christ to have abolished civiloaths, because he wished to introduce a more excellent system than thatof old, that is, because he meant it to be understood by his disciples, that he laid such an eternal obligation upon them to speak truth, thatoaths were to be rendered unnecessary, where persons make a professionof his religion. 

CHAP. XVIII. 

SECT. I. 

_Character of the Quaker women--This differs a little from that of themen--Women share in the virtues of the former--but do not always partakeof all their reputed imperfections--are not chargeable with a want ofknowledge--nor with the money-getting spirit--Modesty a feature in theircharacter. _

Having now amply enquired into the character of the men, I shall say afew words on the subject of that of the women of this society. Forthough it might be supposed at the first sight (the Quakers being castas it were in one mould) that the same character would attach to both, yet it must be obvious, on farther consideration, that it cannot bewholly applicable to the female sex. 

It may be laid down as a position, that the women of this society sharein the virtues of the men. They possess their benevolence, theirindependence of mind, and the other good traits in their moralcharacter. But they do not always partake of all their reputedimperfections. 

The want of knowledge, which was reckoned among the failings of themen, can have no room as a charge against the women. 

For, first, let us compare the Quaker women with the Quaker men. Now itgenerally happens in the world, that men have more literary knowledgethan women, but this is not so generally the case in this society. Asthe women here are not taken from their books, like the men, at an earlyage, and put into trade, they have no bar, like these, to the fartherimprovement of their minds. They advance often in the acquisition ofknowledge, while the latter, in consequence of their attention tobusiness, are kept stationary. Hence it almost uniformly happens, thatthey are quite as well informed, and that they have as great a varietyof knowledge as these, so that they suffer no disparagement, as the womenof the world do, by a comparison with the other sex. 

Neither will the Quaker women be considered as deficient in knowledge, if compared with women of other religious denominations. It is too muchthe practice, but particularly in the higher circles, to educate femalesfor shew. We too seldom see a knowledge of the domestic duties. To dancewell, to sing well, and to play well, these are the usualaccomplishments that are insisted on, and they are insisted upon with anearnestness, as if they included all the valuable purposes of life. Thusthe best part of youth is spent in the acquirement of trivial things:or rather the acquirement of such things takes up so much time, as toleave but little for the moral and intellectual improvement of the mind. The great object, on the other hand, of the education of the Quakerfemales, is utility and not shew. They are taught domestic economy, orthe cares and employments of a house. They are taught to become goodwives and good mothers. Prohibited the attainments of music and dancing, and many of the corruptive amusements of the world, they have ample timefor the improvement of the understanding. Thus they have in general asgood an education as other females, as far as literary acquirements areconcerned; so that, whether they are compared with Quaker men, or withthe other women of the island, they will not incur the imputation of adeficiency of knowledge. 

It must be obvious too, that the money-getting spirit, which the worldhas fixed upon as a trait in the character of some of the men, canseldom be a trait in that of the women of this society. For men are theprincipals in trade. They lay their plans for the getting of money. Theysee the accumulating surplus rise. They handle it. They count it. Theyremember it. The women, on the other hand, see it only in thedisposition of their husbands or parents, who make probably a largerallowance for domestic wants or gratifications than before. Hence acharge cannot be so frequently brought against them of a want of thatspiritual mindedness, which is the great characteristic of Quakerism, asthey have but little to do with the mammon of the world. 

To these exceptions in Quaker women from the reputed imperfections ofQuaker men, I cannot help adding in this place, that the females of thissociety are peculiarly distinguishable for that which has been at alltimes considered as one of the brightest ornaments of their sex. Modestyis particularly conspicuous in their looks and in their whole outwarddemeanour. It is conspicuous in their conversation. It is conspicuousalso in their dress. And here it may not be improper to observe, that, whatever objections may be made to the Quaker apparel, it is estimable, as far as it gives this appearance of modesty to the females who wearit, or rather as far as it hinders them from wearing the loose andindelicate garments, which are frequently worn, without any scruple, bymany of the females of the world. 

SECT. II. 

_Quaker women, besides their private, have a public character--Lowlight in which women have been held--Importance given them bychivalry--and by the revival of learning in Europe--and by theintroduction of Christianity--but still held in an inferiorlight--Quakers have given them their due importance in society--Influenceof their public character on their minds. _

The Quaker women, independently of their private, have that which noother body of women have, a public character. This is a new era infemale history. I shall therefore make a few observations on this, before I proceed to another subject. 

It is melancholy, when we look into the history of women, to see the lowestimation in which they have been held from the earliest times. It ispossible, because they have not possessed the strength of constitution, that they may have been thought not to have had the intellect of men. Itis possible, because domestic cares and the rearing of children havebeen consigned to them, that other occupations may not have beenconsidered as falling within the province of their stations. Butwhatever may have been the causes, polygamy or concubinage hasunquestionably been the greatest, in hindering women from occupying anuseful, dignified, and important station in society. This custom hasheld them up as little better than slaves, or than living toys orplay-things. And this custom has prevailed over a great portion of theglobe from times of the earliest antiquity to the present day. 

Among the many circumstances which contributed to give importance towomen in Europe, we may reckon the introduction of chivalry. Honour andhumanity were the characteristics of this institution. Hence weaknesswas to be protected by it. And as weakness was more particularly the lotof women, so these became more peculiarly the objects of its care. Hencewomen began to feel a consequence, which had been hitherto denied them. They were treated with politeness and tenderness by all, and men beganto be even solicitous of their applause. But though this was the case, chivalry did not elevate them beyond a certain height. It rendered apolite attention to them essential. But this attention was an homage tothe weakness of females, and not to their intellect. It presupposed nocapacity of usefulness in them, for every thing, in fact, was to be donefor them, and they were to do but little for themselves. 

The revival of learning in the twelfth century was another cause ofadding to the importance of women. As men became more learned, theybegan to respect the power of the human understanding. They began to beacquainted, by means of history, with the talents of women in formerages. They began to give a better education to their families. Thesecircumstances produced a more enlarged opinion of female genius. Hencelearning became an instrument of giving new consequence to women. But itgave it to them on a principle different from that of chivalry: forwhereas chivalry insisted upon a polite attention to them on account ofthe weakness of their constitutions, learning insisted upon it onaccount of the strength of their understanding, or because they wereintellectual and reasonable beings. But that which contributed most tomake women important in society, was the introduction of the Christianreligion. By the mild spirit which it diffused, it produced a certainsuavity of behaviour towards them. By the abolition of polygamy itallowed of no division of a man's love among many women, but limited itto one. Thus it made one woman dearer than another, and of course everyindividual woman of consequence. By the abolition of polygamy, it addedto their consequence again, by raising them from the rank of slaves tothat of the companions of men. This importance it increased again by theinculcation of specific duties towards them, and by the doctrine, that, as all, without exception, were equally accountable for their actions, and the Divine Being was no respecter of persons, so all, whether men orwomen, were of equal importance in his sight. 

But though Christianity has operated, as it always will, where it isfelt in the heart, to the production of a tender attention to women, andto the procuring of an honourable station for them in society, we haveyet to lament, that this operation has not been more general, considering our public profession of this religion, than we find it atthe present day. Women are still seldom appreciated as they ought to be. They are still weighed in a different scale from men. Their education isstill limited, as if their understandings, notwithstanding thehonourable testimony which history has borne concerning them, wereincapable of high attainments. If homage be paid to their beauty, verylittle is paid to their opinions. Limits also are assigned to the sphereof their utility. To engage in other pursuits than they do would bethought strange. In short, the education they receive marks the inferiorsituation for which they are considered to be designed. Its tendency ismostly to outward shew. Formed like dolls or play-things, which aregiven to children to captivate by outside appearances, they aregenerally rendered incapable of exhibiting great talents, or ofoccupying an important station in life. 

But it seems to have been reserved for the Quakers us a religious body, to insist upon that full practical treatment and estimation of women, which ought to take place wherever Christianity is professed. They haveaccordingly given to the females of their own society their properweight in the scale of created beings. Believing them to have adequatecapacities, and to be capable of great usefulness, they have admittedthem to a share in the administration of almost all the offices whichbelong to their religious discipline, so that, independently of theirprivate, they have a public character, like the men. 

In the first volume, I had occasion to observe, when treating on thesubject of the discipline, that representatives were chosen by the menout of their own body to the different meetings which were then named. Just so it is with the Quaker women. Representatives are appointed outof these by the other women on similar occasions. I stated also that, atcertain times, the men assembled by themselves; that they discussed thebusiness that came before them; that they replied to those who supportedopposite opinions to their own; and that the young men were presentduring these discussions. So it is with the women. They sit in councilby themselves. They argue and reply in like manner. The young femalesare also present. I stated also, that during these meetings of the men, one of them held the office of drawing up and recording the minutes ofthe proceedings or resolutions that had taken place. The women alsoappoint one of their own body to the same office. I stated again, that, in these meetings of the men, some were chosen as a committee to act inparticular cases. So also are women chosen to act as a committee bytheir own meetings. I explained the nature of the office of overseer, and I observed that there were overseers among the men. There are alsooverseers among the women. I explained the nature of the office ofelder, and I observed that there were elders among the men. The womenhave their elders likewise. The men were said to preach as in othersocieties. The women are permitted to preach also. In short, if the menconsider themselves to be qualified for any office belonging theirreligious discipline, they believe their women to be equally capable ofholding the same. No distinction is made as to the powers of usefulnessbetween the men and the women of this society. There are few officesheld by men, but there is a corresponding one for those of the othersex. [41]

[Footnote 41: The principal exceptions are, that they are notcorrespondents, arbitrators, legislators, or on committees of appeal. ]

The execution of these and other, public offices, by which the Quakerwomen have an important station allotted them in society, cannot buthave an important influence on their minds. It gives them, in fact, anew cast of character. It imparts to them, in the first place, aconsiderable knowledge of human nature. It produces in them thought, andforesight, and judgment. It creates in them a care and concern for thedistressed. It elevates their ideas. It raises in them a sense of theirown dignity and importance as human beings, which sets them above everything that is little and trifling, and above all idle parade and shew. Fond as they are of the animal creation, you do not see them lavishingtheir caresses on lap-dogs, to the contempt of the poor and miserable oftheir own species. You never see them driving from shop to shop to makeup a morning's amusement, by examining and throwing out of order thevarious articles of tradesmen, giving them great trouble, and buyingnothing in return. You never find them calling upon those whom they knowto be absent from their homes, thus making their mimic visits, andleaving their useless cards. Nothing, in short, so ridiculous ordegrading, is known among them. Their pursuits are rational, useful, anddignified. And they may be said in general to exhibit a model for theemployment of time, worthy of the character they profess. 

MISCELLANEOUS PARTICULARSRELATIVE TO THEQUAKERS

_Quakers a happy people--Subordinate causes of this happiness--namely, their comfortable situation--their attachment to domestic life--theiralmost constant employment--this happiness not broken like that ofothers, by an interruption of the routine of constituted pleasures--orby anger and other passions or by particular enquiries and notions aboutreligion. _

If a person were to judge of the Quakers by the general gravity oftheir countenances, and were to take into consideration, at the sametime, the circumstance, that they never partook of the amusements of theworld, in which he placed a part of his own pleasures, he would beinduced to conclude, that they had dull and gloomy minds, and that theycould not be upon the whole a happy people. Such a conclusion, however, would be contrary to the fact. On my first acquaintance with them I wassurprised, seeing the little variety of their pursuits, at the happinesswhich they appeared to enjoy, but as I came to a knowledge of theconstitution and state of the society, the solution of the problembecame easy. 

It will not be difficult to develope the subordinate causes of thishappiness. [42] To shew the first of these, I shall view the society inthe three classes of the rich, the middle, and the poor. Of the rich, Imay observe, that they are not so affluent in general as the rich ofother bodies. Of the middle, that they are upon the whole in bettercircumstances than others of the same class in life. Of the poor, thatthey are not so poor as others in a similar condition. Now the rich inthe Quaker society have of course as many of the comforts of life intheir power as they desire. The middle classes in this society have moreof these than the middle classes of other denominations. The poor in thesame society have also more of these, in consequence of the handsomeprovision which is made for them, than others in a similar situationwith themselves. There is therefore upon the whole a greaterdistribution of the comforts of life, among all the ranks of thissociety, than is to be found in any other community, in proportion totheir numbers. But this superior state, in point of comfortablecircumstances, ought to be undoubtedly a source of superior happiness. For where the comforts of life are wanting, it is in vain to suppose mencan be happy, unless their minds are more than usually comforted bytheir religion. 

[Footnote 42: Religion, which includes positive virtues, and an absencefrom vices, joined to a peaceful conscience and a well grounded hope ofa better life, is the first and greatest cause of happiness, and maybelong to all. But I confine myself, in this chapter, to such causesonly as may be called subordinate, and in which the Quakers are moreparticularly concerned. ]

Another source of their happiness may be found in their domesticsituation. The Quakers, as I have observed before, in consequence ofdenying themselves the pleasures of the world, have been obliged tocherish those which are found in domestic life. In the fashionableworld, men and their wives seldom follow their pleasures together. Theyresemble the little wooden figures of the man and the woman, which, bymoving backwards and forwards in a small painted house, denote thechanges of the weather. While one of these is within, the other is outof doors. But this is not the case with the Quakers. The husband andwife are not so easily separable. They visit generally together. Theyare remarked as affectionate. You never hear of intrigues among them. They are long in each others society at a time, and they are more athome than almost any other people. For neither the same pleasures, northe same occupations, separate these as others. The husband is neverseen at a play, nor at a tavern, nor at a dance. Neither the naval northe military profession summons him abroad. He is seldom concerned invoyages as a mariner. Hence he must of necessity be much at home. Add tothis, that the Quakers have generally families, with the power ofproviding for them. But these circumstances render their homes agreeableto them, and increase their domestic delights. 

A third source of the happiness of the Quakers arises from thecircumstance of their being almost constantly employed. Few are somiserable as those who have nothing to do, or who, unable to findemployment, feel a dull vacuum in their time. And the converse of thisproposition is equally true, that the time of those flies pleasantlyaway, who can employ it rationally. But there is rarely such a beingamong the Quakers as a lazy person, gaping about for amusement. Theirtrades or callings occupy the greater portion of their time. Theirmeetings of discipline, as has been already shewn, occupy their timeagain. The execution of the various offices to which they may beappointed, such as of overseers, or elders, or committee-men, orarbitrators in disputes, occupies more. Few Quakers, but particularlythe more respectable, have many vacant hours. And here it may not beimproper to remark, that the discipline of the society, organized as itis, is productive of a cheerful and friendly intercourse of themembers, or of a sociable manner of spending their time, one withanother. The monthly meetings usually bring two or three particularmeetings together. The members of these, when they have dispatched theirbusiness, retire to the houses of their friends, where they take theirrefreshment, and indulge in the pleasures of conversation. The quarterlymeetings again bring the monthly meetings of the county into one. Hereagain, when the business is over, they partake of a similar repast. Hence a renewal of conversation and of friendship. The yearly meetingagain brings many, from the quarterly together. And here the Quakersfrom all parts of the kingdom have an opportunity of seeing andconversing with one another. I may add too, that many individuals in theinterim, who travel, whether on business or on pleasure, or on religiouserrands, enlarge this friendly intercourse; for few Quakers pass throughthe towns where Quakers live, without calling upon these, so that thereare many sources within the customs and constitution of the society, that are productive of cheerful hours. [43]

[Footnote 43: It may be mentioned here, that the Quakers acknowledgetheir relations to a much farther degree of consanguinity, than otherpeople. This relationship, where it can be distinctly traced, iscommemorated by the appellation of cousin. This custom therefore is acause of endearment when they meet, and of course of additionalpleasure. ]

But here it will probably be said, that these sources of happiness, which have been hitherto described, are common to many others. I grantthey are to individuals, but not to communities at large. No society hasprobably so many of the comforts of life in its power, number fornumber, and rank for rank, as that of the Quakers. None probably sowholly domestic. None, where the members of it have such frequentintercourse with each other, or where they are so connected in the bondsof brotherly love, and none, as far as I know men, who have suchconstant employment for their time. 

Having explained some of those, which may be considered as positivesources of happiness to the Quakers, I shall now shew what may be causesof unhappiness to others, and that the Quakers seldom partake of these. Such an exposition, however strange it may appear at the first sight, will be materially to the point. For though an exemption from the causesof the uneasiness of others can never be admitted as a proof of theexistence of positive enjoyment among the Quakers, yet if the latterhave solid sources of happiness of their own, and these are not in anymaterial degree diminished by the causes of the uneasiness of theformer, there will be left to them, because there will be no drawback, acertain portion of happiness with less alloy. And here it is obvious atthe first sight, that the Quakers have not the same, nor so many wantsas others, with respect to their pleasures, and that they do not admitthe same things to be component parts of them. Hence they have not thesame causes of uneasiness from the chance of interruption. Hence alsotheir happiness is more in their own power. What individual canannihilate the comforts which arise from their own industry, or theirdomestic enjoyments, or their friendly intercourse with each other, ortheir employments, which arise from their discipline, and from theirtrade and callings? But how easily are many of the reputed enjoyments ofthe world to be broken? Some people place their happiness in a routineof constituted pleasures. In proportion as these have been frequentlyresorted to, they will have got into the habit as the necessaryenjoyments of life. Take away then from persons in such habits the powerof these their ordinary gratifications, and you will make them languid, and even wretched. There will be a wide chasm, which they will not knowhow to fill up; a dull vacuum of time, which will make their existenceinsipid; a disappointment, which will carry with it a lacerating sting. In some of the higher circles of life, accustomed to such rounds ofpleasure, who does not know that the Sunday is lamented as the mostcruel interrupter of their enjoyments?--No shopping in the morning--notheatre or route in the evening--Nothing but dull heavy church staresthem in the face. But I will not carry this picture to the length towhich I am capable. I shall only observe that, where persons adopt aroutine of constituted pleasures, they are creating fictitious wants forthemselves, and making their own happiness subject to interruption, andputting it into the power of others. The Quakers, however, by the totalrejection of all the amusements included in the routine alluded to, knownothing of the drawbacks or disadvantages described. 

The Quakers again are exempt from several of the causes of uneasiness, which attach to the world at large. Some go to the gaming-table, andruin themselves and their families, and destroy the peace of theirminds. But the Quakers are never found injuring their fortunes or theirhappiness by such disreputable means. 

Others disturb the harmony of their lives by intemperate sallies ofpassion. It has been well observed, that, whatever may be the durationof a man's anger, so much time he loses of the enjoyment of his life. The Quakers, however, have but few miserable moments on this account. Adue subjugation of the passions has been generally instilled into themfrom early youth. Provocation seldom produces in them any intemperatewarmth, or takes away, in any material degree, from the apparentcomposure of their minds. 

Others again, by indulging their anger, are often hurried into actionsof which the consequences vex and torment them, and of which they oftenbitterly repent. But the Quakers endeavour to avoid quarrelling, andtherefore they often steer clear of the party and family feuds ofothers. They avoid also, as much as possible, the law, so that they haveseldom any of the lawsuits to harass and disturb them, which interruptthe tranquillity of others by the heavy expence, and by the lastingenmities they occasion. 

The Quakers again are exempt from many of the other passions whichcontribute to the unhappiness of the world at large. Some men have analmost boundless ambition. They are desirous of worldly honours, or ofeminent stations, or of a public name, and pursue these objects in theirpassage through life with an avidity which disturbs the repose of theirminds. But the Quakers scarcely know any such feeling as that ofambition, and of course scarcely any of the torments that belong to it. They are less captivated by the splendour of honours than any otherpeople, and they had rather live in the memory of a few valuablefriends, than be handed down to posterity for those deeds, whichgenerally constitute the basis of public character. 

Others again, who cannot obtain these honourable distractions, envythose who possess them. They envy the very coronet upon the coach, as itpasses by. But the Quakers can have no such feelings as these. They passin their pilgrimage through life regardless of such distinctions, orthey estimate them but as the baubles of the, day. It would be follytherefore to suppose, that they could be envious of that which they donot covet. 

The Quakers again are exempt from some of the occasions of uneasinesswhich arise to others from considerations on the subject of religion. Some people, for example, pry into what are denominated mysteries. Themore they look into these, the less they understand them, or rather, themore they are perplexed and confounded. Such an enquiry too, while itbewilders the understanding, generally affects the mind. But the Quakersavoid all such curious enquiries as these, and therefore they suffer nointerruption of their enjoyment from this source. Others again, by theadoption of gloomy creeds, give rise frequently to melancholy, and thuslay in for themselves a store of fuel for the torment of their ownminds. But the Quakers espouse no doctrines, which, while they conductthemselves uprightly, can interrupt the tranquillity of their lives. Itis possible there may be here and mere an instance where their feelingsmay be unduly affected, in consequence of having carried the doctrine ofthe influence of the Spirit, as far as it relates to their owncondition, beyond its proper bounds. But individuals, who may fell intoerrors of this nature, are, it is to be hoped, but few; because anymelancholy, which may arise from these causes, must be the effect, notof genuine Quakerism, but of a degenerate superstition. 

CHAP. II. 

_Good, which the Quakers have done as a society upon earth--by theirgeneral good example--by shewing that persecution for religion isineffectual--by shewing the practicability of the subjugation of thewill of man--the influence of Christianity on character--the inefficacyof capital punishments--the best object of punishment--thepracticability of living, either in a private or a public capacity, inharmony and peace--the superiority of the policy of the Gospel over thepolicy of the world. _

When we consider man as distinguished from other animals by the rationaland spiritual faculties which he possesses, we cannot but conceive it tobe a reproach to his nature, if he does not distinguish himself fromthese, or, if he does not leave some trace behind him, that he hasexisted rationally and profitably both to himself and others. But ifthis be expected of man, considered abstractedly as man, much more willit be expected of him, if he has had the advantages of knowing thedoctrines of Christianity, and the sublime example of the great Authorof that religion. And the same observation, I apprehend, will hold truewith respect to societies of men. For if they have done no good duringtheir existence, we cannot see how they can escape censure, or that itwould not have been better that they had not existed at all. Thisconsideration leads me to enquire, what good the Quakers have done sincetheir institution, as a society, upon earth. 

It was said of the Quakers in George Fox's time, after their characterhad been established, that, "if they did not stand, the nation would runinto debauchery. " By this I apprehend it was meant, that it was adesirable thing to have a people to look up to, who, residing in the'midst of a vicious community, professed to be followers of that whichwas right, and to resist the current of bad example in their own times;or that such a people might be considered as a leaven, that might leaventhe whole lump, but that, if this leaven were lost, the community mightlose one of its visible incitements to virtue. Now in this way theQuakers have had a certain general usefulness in the world. They havekept more, I apprehend, to first principles, than any other people. Theyhave afforded a moral example. This example ought to have been useful toothers. To those who were well inclined, it should have been as a torchto have lighted up their virtue, and it should have been a perpetualmonument for reproof to others, who were entering upon a career of vice. 

The first particular good, after the general one now stated, which theQuakers have done, has been, that they have shewn to those who have beenspectators of their conduct, that all persecution for matters ofreligion, as it is highly criminal in the eyes of the Supreme Being, soit is inadequate to the end proposed. This proposition, indeed, seems tobe tolerably Well understood at the present day. At least they whoseminds have been well informed, acknowledge it. The history of martyrdom, by which we learn how religion soars above all suffering, how thetorments inflicted on the body are unable to reach the mind, how themoral Governor of the world reigns triumphant upon earth, how tyrannyand oppression fall prostrate before virtue, losing their malignant aim, has been one, among other causes, of this knowledge. But as history isknown but to few, and is not remembered by all, the Quakers areparticularly useful by holding up the truth of the proposition to ourdaily sight, that is, by the example they continue to afford us ofbearing their testimony in all cases where the civil magistrate isconcerned on the one hand, and their consciences on the other. 

A second good, which the Quakers have done, is by shewing, as a wholebody, the power of Christianity in the subjugation of the will of men, and its influence on their character. 

They are living proofs, in the first instance, that human nature is notthe stubborn thing, which many have imagined it to be; that, however itmay be depraved, it is still corrigible; and that this correction isuniversally practicable, for that there are as various dispositions inthis society as in any other in proportion to its numbers. They shew, that Christianity can alter the temper, that it can level enmities, andthat there is no just occasion for any to despair. And they are livingproofs, in the second, as to what kind of character Christianity, whereit is rightly received, will produce; They are living proofs, that itcan produce sobriety, inoffensiveness, simplicity, charity, peace, andthe domestic and other virtues. Now though every private Christian canshew in himself an example of these effects, yet the Quakers shew it, not by producing solitary instances, but as a body; the temper of thegreat mass of their members being apparently cast in the same mould, andtheir character, as a society, being acknowledged to be that of a moralpeople. 

And here I cannot but stop for a moment to pay a just tribute to theQuaker system, as one of the best modes of the Christian Religion; forwhether the doctrines which belong to it, or whether the disciplinewhich it promotes, or whether both of them conjointly, produce theeffects which have been just related, certain it is, that they areproduced. [44] But that system of religion is surely the most excellent, which produces, first, the greatest, and, secondly, the most universaleffect upon those who profess it. For what is the use of any particularcreed, or where is the advantage of any one creed above another, if itcannot give the great characteristic marks of a Christian, a subjugatedmind and a moral character? What signifies the creed of any particulardescription of Christian professors, if it has no influence on theheart, or if we see professors among these giving way to their passions, or affording an inconsistent example to the world. 

[Footnote 44: Many of the Quakers in America, influenced by custom, Adopted the practice of holding slaves. But on a due recurrence to theirprinciples they gave freedom to these unconditionally, thus doinganother public good in the world, and giving another example of thepower of religion on the mind. ]

The Quakers have given, again, in the reforms, which, in the firstvolume, I described them to have introduced into legislation, abeautiful and practical lesson of jurisprudence to the governors of allnations. They have shewn the inefficacy of capital punishments; that thebest object in the punishment of offenders is their reformation; thatthis accords best with the genius and spirit of the Christian Religion;and that while such a system, when followed, restores the abandoned tousefulness in society, it diminishes the number of crimes. [45]

[Footnote 45: See Vol. I, Sect. 4, p. 198. ]

They have shewn again, by their own example, that it is not so difficultfor men to live peaceably together, as has been usually believed; andthey have exhibited the means by which they have effected this desirableend in life. And as they have proved, that this is practicable inprivate, so they have proved, as has appeared in this volume, that it ispracticable in public life, or, which is the same thing, they haveshewn, that in the intercourse which exists between nations, there is nonecessity for wars. 

They have shewn and established again by the two latter instances, bothof which relate to government, a proposition which seems scarcely to bebelieved, if we judge by the practice of statesmen, but the truth ofwhich ought for ever to be insisted upon, that the policy of the Gospelis superior to the policy of the world. 

This is a portion of the good which the Quakers have done since theirappearance as a society in the world. What other good they have done itis not necessary to specify. And as to what they would do, if they werepermitted to become universal legislators, it may be a pleasing subjectfor contemplation, but it does not fall within the limits of the presentchapter. 

CHAP. III. 

_General opinion, that the Quakers are on the decline as asociety--Observations upon this subject--Opinion believed, upon thewhole, to be true--Causes of this supposed declension--Mixedmarriages--Tithes--Pursuit of trade, as connected with the peculiarhabits of the society, and a residence in the towns--Education. _

I have often heard it suggested as matter for conversation, whether theQuakers were increasing or decreasing in their number, and the resulthas always been an opinion, that they were a declining body. 

When we consider the simplicity and even philosophy of the Quakerreligion, the preservation it affords against the follies anddifficulties of life, and the happiness to which it ultimately leads, weshall wonder that the progress of the society, in point of number, hasnot been greater than we find it. And when we consider, on the otherhand, how difficult it is to be a Quaker, how much it is against thetemper and disposition of man to be singular, or to resist the tide ofcustom and fashion, and to undergo an ordeal of suffering on theseaccounts, we shall wonder that it has not been long ago extinct. 

That many are disowned by the society, in consequence of which itsnumbers are diminished, is true. That others come into it from otherquarters, by which an increase is given to it, independently of its ownnatural population, is true also. But whether the new members exceed thedisowned, or the disowned the new, is the question to be resolved. Nowno people have had better opportunities of ascertaining this point, than the Quakers themselves. By means of their monthly meetings theymight with ease have instituted a census on a given day. They might haverenewed such a census. They might have compared the returns in everycase. But as no such census has ever been made, the Quakers themselves, though they have their ideas, cannot speak with particular accuracy, onthis subject. 

The general opinion, however, is, and the Quakers, I apprehend, will notdeny but lament it, that those who go out of the society are upon thewhole more numerous than those who come into it by convincement, andtherefore that there is, upon the whole, a decrease among them. 

Of the truth of this opinion, some have adduced as a proof, that thequarterly meetings have been reduced to three fourths of their originalnumber. But this is not to be considered as a certain criterion of thefact. For it is by no means uncommon to find, if the Quakers decrease inone county, that they increase in another. It has also been adduced, that many particular meetings have been broken up, or thatmeeting-houses in the country are standing deserted, or without Quakersto worship in them. But neither can this be considered as anyinfallible proof of the point. For it frequently happens, that if theQuakers become less numerous in any particular village, they become moreso in some of the towns of the same county. Thus no true judgment can beformed upon these principles. The Quaker population, in this respect, onaccount of its movements, resembles the sea, which, while it loses onone part of its shores or boundaries, gains upon another. 

There are, however, considerations, which may be more decisive of thefact. 

In the time of George Fox the number of those converted to hisprinciples was immense. [46] This number, if we consult all the factsthat might be adduced on the occasion, continued to be large in aftertimes. Now it must be observed, that the Quakers are a sober andtemperate people, that they generally marry at a proper age, and thatthey have large families. It is therefore impossible, if the descendantsof the early Quakers had continued in the society, that their numbershould not have been much larger than we find it at the present day, and, if so, there must have been a secession or an expulsion, amounting, notwithstanding all influx by conversion, to a decrease. 

[Footnote 46: Although the remark may be just, that in the time ofGeorge Fox "a great number were converted to his principles, " yet asmall portion of those were actually received into membership, and thesame remark may correctly be made even in the present day: as it isbelieved that immense numbers are convinced of the truth as held by theQuakers, but owing to their "not being willing to undergo an ordeal ofsuffering on account of their principles, " a small portion of thoseapply to be admitted into the society. AMERICAN EDITOR. ]

It is obvious again that the Quakers, in consequence of their industryand their frugal habits, must almost unavoidably grow rich. Now if thedescendants of the early Quakers had remained in the society, we shouldhave seen more overgrown fortunes in it, than among others in proportionto their numbers. But this is contrary to the fact. The very richest, asthe world now goes, would not be considered to be particularly rich; andit is a truth that those who are affluent among them have generally beenthe founders, by means of their industry and integrity, of their ownfortunes. 

It is, again, a matter of observation among the Quakers, now grown intoa truth, that if men grow rich in the society, their grand-childrengenerally leave it. But surely this amounts to a confession, that in aparticular part of the society there are the seeds of a regular andsuccessive decrease. 

That the Quakers then upon the whole are a declining body, there can beno doubt. [47] While I state it, I lament it. I lament that there shouldbe any diminution of number among those who have done so much good inthe world, and who have so justly obtained the reputation of a moralpeople. This consideration will lead me to enquire into the causes ofthis decline. It will impel me also to enquire into the means of remedy. How far I may be successful in the latter attempt, I am unable to say. But it will always be a pleasing consideration to me, to have tried toprevent the decrease of a virtuous people. 

[Footnote 47: Against this decrease we cannot set off any great increaseby admission into membership. The dress, the language, the fear of beingsingular, the discipline with its various restraints, the unwillingnessof men to suffer where suffering can be avoided, these and othercircumstances are great impediments in the way of an entrance into thissociety; and to this I may add, that applications for admission into itare not always complied with. ]

With respect then to the causes of this decline, to which I shallconfine myself in this chapter, they will be found in the causes ofdisownment. Now of these, some may be called original and immediate, andothers original and remote. 

Of original and immediate, the first is what the Quakers call mixedmarriage. It has been before stated, that those who marry out of thesociety are disowned, and the reasons for such disownments have beengiven. 

A second will be found in tithes. They who pay these are ultimatelydisowned. And they are disowned as well for the payment of lay-tithes, as of those which are ecclesiastical. 

Of the original and remote, a very prolific cause is the pursuit oftrade, connected as it is with the peculiar habits of the society, and aresidence in the towns. [48]

[Footnote 48: Owing perhaps to the causes alleged by the author, thesociety may have decreased in England, yet it is certain that in thiscountry the number of Quakers has very considerably increased. AMERICANEDITOR. ]

To shew this I must observe, first, that the poor, comparativelyspeaking, are seldom disowned, for they know that they[49] shall neverbe so well provided for in any other society. I must observe again, thatthe members of the middle classes are also, comparatively speaking, butseldom disowned. These must live by trade, but if so, they cannot bebetter off than as Quakers. The direct conclusion then, from theseobservations, will be, that the greater number of those who aredisowned, will be found among the rich, or among such as are growingrich. Hence it appears, that, as far as this original and remote causeis concerned, my enquiry must be, how it happens, that members of thisparticular class should be excluded from membership more than those ofany other. 

[Footnote 49: I by no means intend to say, that the poor do not remainin the society from an attachment to its principles, but that this maybe a political motive also. ]

In answer to this enquiry I must say, as I have observed before, thatQuakers in trade, having as good abilities, and as much diligence andintegrity as others, will succeed as well as others in it, but that, having less sources of outgoings, their savings will be generallygreater. Hence they will have before their eyes the sight of a greateraccumulation of wealth. But in proportion as such accumulation ofsubstance is beheld, the love of it increases. Now while this loveincreases, or while their hearts are unduly fixed on the mammon of theworld, they allow many little inconsistencies in their children toescape their reproof. But, besides this, as the religion and the love ofthe mammon of the world are at variance, they have a less spiritualdiscernment than before. Hence they do not see the same irregularitiesin the same light. From this omission to check these irregularities onthe one hand, and from this decay of their spiritual vision on theother, their children have greater liberties allowed them than others inthe same society. But as these experience this indulgence, or as theseadmit the customs and fashions of the world, they grow more fond ofthem. Now, as they live in towns, the spark that is excited is soonfanned into a flame. Fashions and fashionable things, which they cannotbut see daily before their eyes, begin to get the dominion. When theyare visited by wholesome advisers, they dislike the interference. Theyknow they shall be rich. They begin to think the discipline of thesociety a cruel restraint. They begin to dislike the society itself, and, committing irregularities, they are sometimes in consequencedisowned. But, if they should escape disownment themselves, they entailit generally upon their children. These are brought up in a still loosermanner than themselves. The same process goes on with these as withtheir parents, but in a still higher degree, till a conduct utterlyinconsistent with the principles of the society occasions them to beseparated from it. Thus in the same manner, as war, according to the oldsaying, begets poverty, and poverty peace, so the pursuit of trade, withthe peculiar habits of the society, leads to riches, riches to fashionand licentiousness, and fashion and licentiousness to disownment, sothat many Quakers educate their children as if there were to be noQuakers in the second generation from themselves. And thus, though, strictly speaking, irregularities are the immediate occasion of thesedisownments, they are ultimately to be attributed to the original andremote cause as now described. [50]

[Footnote 50: I hope I shall not be understood as involving the rich ina promiscuous censure. I know as amiable examples among these and amongtheir children, as among others of the society. But we must naturallyexpect more deviations among the rich, number for number, than amongothers. ]

That this is by no means an unreasonable account, I shall shew in somemeasure by an appeal to facts. The American Quakers sprang from theEnglish. The English, though drained in consequence, were stillconsiderable, when compared with the former. But it is remarkable, thatthe American Quakers exceed the English by at least five times theirnumber at the present day. Now it must undoubtedly be confessed, thatthe Americans have advantages, as far as this fact is concerned, whichthe English have not. They have no tithes as a cause of disownment. Their families also, I believe, increase more rapidly. Many personsalso, as will be the case in a country that is not fully settled, livein the neighbourhoods of the Quakers, but at a distance from those ofother religious denominations, and therefore, wishing to worshipsomewhere, seek membership with them. But I apprehend that a great causeof this disparity of number lies in this difference of the situation ofthe two, that whereas the great Quaker population in England is in thetowns with but a remnant in the country, the great Quaker population inAmerica is in the country with but a remnant in the towns. [51] And thatthe Americans themselves believe, that the place of the residence oftheir members is connected in some measure with the increase anddecrease of their society, it is fair to presume, from thiscircumstance, that, in several of the quarterly meetings in America, advice has been given to parents to bring up their children in thecountry, and, as little as possible, in the towns. 

[Footnote 51: The number of the Quakers is undoubtedly great in one ortwo of the cities in America, but the whole town-population is notgreat, when compared with the whole country-population there. ]

Another of the original and remote causes is education. This, as itbecomes promotive of the diminution of the society, is of two kinds. Thefirst may be called alien. The second is such as is afforded in thesociety itself. 

Some parents, growing rich, and wishing to give their children a bettereducation, than they can get in their own schools, send them to othersto be instructed. Now the result has not been desirable, where it hasbeen designed, that such children should be continued Quakers. For howis a poor solitary Quaker boy to retain the peculiarities belonging tohis religious profession, in the face of the whole school? Will not hisopinions and manners be drowned as it were in the torrent of theopinions and manners of the rest? How can he get out of this whirlpoolpure? How, on his return, will he harmonize with his own society? Willnot either he, or his descendants, leave it? Such an education may makehim undoubtedly both a good and an enlightened man, and so far one ofthe most desirable objects in life will have been accomplished, but itcertainly tends to destroy the peculiar institution of Quakerism. 

The education, which is afforded in the society itself, is divisibleagain into two kinds, into that which is moral or religious, and intothat which is literary or philosophical. 

It must undoubtedly be confessed, in looking into that which is moral orreligious, that sufficient care is not always taken with regard toyouth. We sometimes see fathers and sons, and mothers and daughters, sodifferent in their appearance and deportment, that we should scarcelyhave imagined them to be of the same family. I am not now speaking ofthose parents, who may live in the towns, and who may be more thanordinarily devoted to the mammon of the world, but of some who, livingboth in town and country, give an example of a liberal and amiablespirit, and of a blameless conduct to the world. That the former shouldneglect and lose sight of their offspring, when their moral vision isclouded by an undue eagerness after money, is not to be wondered at, butthat the latter should do it, is surprising. It is certainly true thatsome of these are too indulgent in their families, contrary to the planand manner of their own education, or that they do not endeavour to nipall rising inconsistencies in the bud. The consequence is, that theirchildren get beyond control in time, when they lament in vain theirdeparture from the simplicity of the society. Hence the real cause oftheir disownment, which occasionally follows, is not in the childrenrunning out of bounds, but in the parents running out of bounds in themanners of their children. And here I may add, that some parents, dwelling too much on the disuse of forms in religion, because suchdisuse is inculcated by their own doctrines, run into the oppositeextreme, and bring up their children in too much ignorance of thegeneral plan of Christianity, as it is laid down in the letter of thescriptures. 

With respect to education, as for it is literary or philosophical, it isfrequently sufficient for those upon whom it is bestowed. But it doesnot appear to me to be carried to its proper extent, in the case of thechildren of the rich, when I consider how friendly it might be madetowards the promotion of virtue. Some, we know, growing wealthy, havehad children when they were poorer, and, when in this poorer state, theyhave given them an education which has been suitable to it, notcalculating upon their future rise in life. But their children, havinghad such a limited education, have not had that which has been properfor their subsequent station in life. Others again, who have been bornin better circumstances, have, on account of an undue depreciation ofhuman knowledge, educated their children as improperly for theirstation as the former. The children then, in both these cases, have nothad an education sufficient, with the prospect of riches before them, tokeep them out of the way of harm. They have not had, in addition to anyreligious instruction, that taste given them for sublime pursuits, whichshould make them despise those which were frivolous. Thus many of thecorruptive opinions, fashions, and amusements of the world have charmedthem. Giving way to these, they have been overcome. When overcome, theyhave run into excesses, and for these excesses they have been disowned. But surely, with a better education, they would have thought all suchcorruptive opinions, fashions, and amusements, as below their notice, and unworthy of their countenance and support. 

CHAP. IV. 

_Supposed remedies for the diminution of some of thesecauses--Regulations in the case of mixed marriages--Measures to beadopted in the pursuit of trade--Education, as it is moral orreligious, to be more strictly enforced in some families--as it isliterary or philosophical, to be carried to a greater extent among thechildren of the rich--Object of this latter education--Nature of it asconsisting both knowledge and prohibitions--How it would operate againstthe fascinating allurements of the world, or to the end proposal. _

I Purpose now to suggest, as briefly as I can, such opinions, as, ifadopted, might possibly operate as remedies to some of the evils whichhave been described. In doing this I am aware of the difficulties thatawait me. I am sensible that I ought not to be too sanguine as to theresult of all my observations upon this subject and yet, I cannot butthink, that I may be successful in some of them. Arduous, however, asthe task, and dubious as my success may be, I am encouraged, on theprospect of being but partially useful, to undertake it. 

On the first of the original and immediate causes which have beenmentioned, I mean mixed marriages, I shall have but little to say. I donot see how it is possible, while the society means to keep up a duesubordination among its members, not to disown such as may marry out ofit. In mixed families, such as these marriages produce, it is in vain toexpect that the discipline can be carried on, as has been shewn in thesecond volume. And, without this discipline, the society would hardlykeep up, in the extensive manner it does, the character of a moralpeople. I think, however, that some good might be done by regulations tobe universally observed. Thus they, who are deputed to inform thedisowned of their exclusion from membership, should be of the mostamiable temper and conciliatory manners. Every unqualified person shouldbe excluded from these missions. Permission should be solicited for boththe married persons to be present on such occasions. It is difficult toestimate the good effect which the deputed, if of sweet and tenderdispositions, or the bad effects which the deputed, if of cold andaustere manners, might have upon those they visited, or what bias itmight give the one in particular, who had never been in membership, foror against the society. Permission also might be solicited, even whenthe mission was over for future friendly opportunities or visits, whichwould shew in the society itself a tender regard and solicitude for thewelfare of its former members. It is not at all improbable, from theimpression which such apparent regard and solicitude might occasion, that the children of the visited, though not members, might be broughtup in the rules of membership. And finally it appears to me to bedesirable, that the disowned, if they should give proof by their ownlives and the education of their children, of their attachment to theprinciples of the society, and should solicit restoration to membership, should be admitted into it again without any acknowledgment of pasterrors, and wholly as new and convinced members. 

With respect to the second of the immediate and original causes, whichis to be found in tithes, I may observe that it is, as for as I cancollect, but a small and an inferior one, few being disowned on thisaccount, and still fewer now than formerly. It would be desirable, however, few as these instances may be, to prevent them. But I fear thatno remedy can be pointed out, in which the Quakers would acquiesce, except it could be shewn, that a distinction might be made between thepayment of ecclesiastical and lay-tithes, which would not interfere withthe great tenets of the society on this subject. 

A third cause of disownment, but this belongs to the original andremote, was shewn to be the pursuit of trade, connected as it is withthe peculiar habits of the society and a residence in the towns. I maypropose as remedies for this, first, that parents should be careful toexhibit a good example to their children. Secondly, as I have beforeobserved, that they should prescribe to themselves moderation in theacquisition of wealth, either by relinquishing trade at a given time, orby dealing out the profits of it more liberally than common in the wayof benevolence, so that their children, in each case, may never have themisfortune of the prospect of a large moneyed independence before theireyes. Or lastly, that they should give them a better education thanthey do at present, on which subject, according to the prescribed orderof things, I am now to speak. 

A fourth cause then, but this belongs also to the original and remote, was shewn to exist in education. And education, as it was promotive ofthe diminution of the society, was of two kinds. 

With respect to that part of it which is alien, the remedy is easy. There has been great difficulty in procuring proper schoolmasters, Imean such as have been Quakers. Two reasons may be given for this. Thefirst is, that the society having been backward in affording dueencouragement to learning, few of any great literary acquisitions havebeen brought up in it. The second is, that persons have found, that theycould make much less of their time in such a line of employment than inthe way of trade. But surely the Quakers, as a body in comfortable andindependent circumstances, might easily remedy the evil. Does not a man, who devotes his time to the instruction of youth, deserve to be made ascomfortable as the man who sells silver utensils, or bracelets, orear-rings, or other articles of trade? Is there any comparison betweenthe moral usefulness of these? Is there any profession more useful thanthat which forms the youthful mind? or rather, is it not the mostimportant profession in the state?[52]

[Footnote 52: It is but justice to the Quakers to observe, that they aretaking more pains than formerly in the promotion of this object. I amtold that there are more private seminaries now kept by Quakers for theeducation of the youth of their own society, than even before theinstitution of Ackworth school. ]

With respect to the education which is acquired in the society itself, the remedy is not difficult. This education was shewn to be of twokinds. 

On that part of it, which is moral or religious, I may observe, that theremedy is in the parents themselves. The first thing to be recommendedis an universal vigilance over the disposition and manners of children, so that no censurable appearance, whether in temper or in conduct, maybe allowed to pass without suitable notice or reproof, or that the bud, which promises to be corruptive of morals, should no sooner make itsappearance, than it should be cut off. In cases of so much importance, as where the happiness both of parents and children is concerned, theformer should be peculiarly circumspect. They should not talk aboutthings, but insist upon them, on all proper occasions. They should notpoint out, but redress. They should not lop off the branches, but laythe axe to the root. And surely youth is the best season for suchwholesome interference. It is, in the first place, the season in whicha remedy is practicable; for we are assured, "if we train up a child inthe way he should go, that, when he is old, he will not depart from it. "It is, secondly, the season in which it is most practicable; for can wehope to bend the tree so easily to our form, as the sapling from whenceit came? and, thirdly, it is the season in which it is practicable only, for will not a small irregularity grow, if uncontrolled, to a greater?Will not one irregularity also, if not properly checked, give birth toothers? And may not these be so incorporated into the inner man in acourse of time, that it may be as difficult for parents to eradicatethem, as for the Ethiopian to change his colour, or the leopard hisspots? But surely the Quakers ought to know the impropriety of undueindulgences in their families, as well as any other people? Is not theearly subjugation of the will a doctrine more particularly adopted bythem as a society? Without such a subjugation do they not conceive themind to be in an unfit state to receive the admonitions of the pureprinciple, and of course to make a true proficiency in religion? Do theynot consider themselves also as a highly professing people, and do theynot know that the world expects more from them than from others? But howcan their children ever perpetuate this extraordinary character afterthem, or shew that their parents possessed it, unless they are broughtup in a peculiarly guarded manner? In addition to these observations itmay be recommended, that parents should be careful to give theirchildren what may be called a literal instruction in Christianity, incontradistinction to pure theism, or to those doctrines which theyconceive may come from the teachings of the Holy Spirit, so that theymay have a more intimate knowledge of all their principles, as aChristian body. 

With respect to that part of education which may consist of knowledgeas it is literary or philosophical, I conceive it might be attended withadvantage to carry it to a greater extent than has hitherto beenpractised in the society, but particularly the latter. Nothing is sodelightful to youth as experimental philosophy, by which they see thecauses of things unfolded to their view. No science takes theirattention more, or inclines them, in the farther pursuit of it, to besatisfied with home. And yet I doubt whether this branch of learning benot almost wholly neglected in the Quaker schools. The education whichis received in the society, as it consists of the two kinds of knowledgedescribed, is not, in my apprehension, carried far enough, so as to suitthe peculiar situation of the children of the rich. These are they, whoare most in danger. These are they, who, having the prospect of wealthbefore them, have the prospect of being able to procure destructivepleasures. These are they, who, having the prospect of independence, donot fear the opinion of the world or the loss of reputation in it, likethose, who have their livelihood to obtain by their own industry. Now itshould be the particular object of the education of these, as indeed itshould be of all rich persons, so to instruct them, that, while they areobliged to live in the world, they may be enabled to live out of it, ordeny it; so that, when seated amidst its corrupt opinions, amusements, and fashions, they should estimate them as below their notice, and asutterly unworthy of their countenance and support. 

I should be sorry if, in holding up this species of education to afarther encouragement, as a preservative of the morals of the childrenof rich parents amidst the various temptations of life, I were to bethought to endeavour to take away in any degree the necessity of theinfluence of the Holy Spirit on the mind of man, or to deny that thisSpirit ought not to be resorted to as the first and best guide, both byrich and poor, during their pilgrimage upon earth. For who can teach usbest to deny the world? Who can teach us best to estimate its pursuits?Who can instruct us best to resist its temptations? To the Divine Beingthen we are first to look up, as to him who can be the best author ofall our good, and the surest averter of all our evils, who can apply thebest remedy to the imperfections of our nature, and who, while he leadsus in safety, can lead us into the way of truth. But when we considerhow many are inattentive, on account of the cares, and pleasures, andfashions, and prejudices, and customs of the world, to the secretnotices of his grace, I cannot help considering that we may be allowedto have secondary and subordinate helps to our virtue. As the disciplineof the Quaker society may produce and preserve a certain purity of life, so may a literary and philosophical education operate to the same end. Such an education is in its general tendency a friend to the promotionof virtue and to the discouragement of vice. It sets us oftenunquestionably above many of the corruptive opinions and customs in themidst of which we live. It leads us also frequently to the contemplationof the Divine Being in all the variety of his works. It gives usamiable, awful, and sublime conceptions of him. As far, therefore, as itis capable of doing this, it is a useful, though it be only asubordinate source of our purity, and we may therefore adopt itinnocently. But we are never to forget, at the same time, that, thoughit may help us occasionally to resist corrupt temptations, and toencourage desirable propensities, yet it cannot do every thing for usthat is necessary, and that we are never to overlook, on this account, the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit. 

To shew in what the education, which under these limitations I am goingto propose, may consist, I shall revive the controversy between thephilosophical moralists and the Quakers, as described in the eighthchapter of the first volume. The philosophical moralists contended, thatknowledge was to be preferred, as being more to be relied upon thanprohibitions: that prohibitions were often causes of greater evils thanthey were intended to prevent; that they themselves were friends tooccasional indulgencies; that they saw nothing necessarily or inherentlymischievous in the amusements of the world; that it was not wise toanticipate danger by looking to distant prospects, where the things wereinnocent in themselves; that ignorance of vice was no guardian ofmorals; that causes, and not sub-causes, were to be contended against;and that there was no certain security but in knowledge and in a love ofvirtue. To this the Quakers replied, that prohibitions were sanctionedby divine authority; that as far as they related to the corruptamusements of the world, they were implied in the spirit ofChristianity; that the knowledge, which should be promotive of virtue, could not be inculcated without them; that knowledge again, if it wereto be acquired by the permission of occasional indulgences, or by beingallowed to pass through scenes which might be dangerous to virtue, would be more ruinous than ignorance by a prohibition of vice; thatignorance of vice was an essential in Christian morals; and thatprohibitions therefore were indispensably necessary, and better to berelied upon, than any corrupt knowledge, which might arise from anacquaintance with the customs of the world. 

This then was the state of the controversy, as described in the firstvolume. And in this state it was left. But, to explain the educationwhich I have in view, I shall now bring it to a conclusion. 

I must observe then, that the philosophical moralists had the advantageof the Quakers in this controversy, inasmuch as they supposed thatknowledge was a better safeguard to morals than a mere ignorance ofvice; but they failed in this, that they permitted this knowledge to beacquired by passing through scenes which might not be friendly tovirtue. Now this latter permission is inadmissible in a Christianeducation; for no Christian youth ought to be permitted to see or tohear that which ought not to be uttered or exhibited by a Christian. TheQuakers, on the other hand, had the advantage of the philosophicalmoralists, inasmuch as they considered ignorance to be better thancorrupted knowledge; but they failed in this, that they seemed to relyupon ignorance of vice as a safeguard against it, without a properportion of knowledge. The education then, to which I allude, ought toembrace the most valuable positions of both. It should consist ofknowledge, and it should consist of wise prohibitions also. Knowledgeand prohibitions are inseparable. While the mind is gaining knowledge, it should be kept innocent. And while it is kept innocent, it should begaining knowledge. Youth should have that kind of knowledge instilledinto them, by which they should discern the value of the prohibitionswhich are enjoined them. They should have such and so much knowledge, that if they were accidentally placed in the way of the thingsprohibited, they should be able to look them in the face, and passthrough them without injury. This is that education, which, withoutsuperseding the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit, has atendency to enable persons, while they live in the world, to live out ofit or deny it. 

But lest I should not be clearly understood upon this subject, I willexemplify how such an education would act or operate to the endproposed. 

And, first of all, knowledge may be acquired by reading. Now there aretwo kinds of reading, the one useful, the other dangerous. By thepremises, I am to adopt the first, and to prohibit the last. If then Iaccustom my child to the best and purest models of ancient and modernliterature, I give him a certain taste for composition. If I accustomhim to the purest and most amiable sentiments, as contained in these, Igive him a love of virtue. If I heighten these sentiments by beautifulselections from the more pure and amiable sentiments of Christianity, Iincrease that love. If I give him in my own conduct an example, he seesme practise that which I recommend. I give him then a taste for thepurest reading, and the choicest compositions, and I offer to hisnotice, at the same time, a certain system of morality, which he cannotbut gradually adopt as his own. Now I would ask, what influence could anovel have upon a mind formed in this manner, if thrown accidentally inhis way. If its composition were but moderate, as is the case with mostof them, it would not suit the taste of my child. If its sentiments wereimpure, it would disgust him. These would be so contrary to the tasteand to the feelings he had acquired, that the poison in such a book, like a ball, fired at a globular surface, would slide off withoutdetriment to the morals of my child. 

Knowledge again may be acquired in the course of amusements, and of suchas may be resorted to within doors. Now of these again there are twokinds, the innocent and the corruptive. By the premises I am to beconcerned with the first only. If then I accustom my child tomathematical and philosophical pursuits, if I incite him to experimentsin these, if I assist him in measuring the motions of the heavenlybodies, and in discovering the wisdom and power of Omnipotence asdisplayed in these, if I occasion him to be interested in, thecontemplation of such subjects, what have I done for my child? Have Inot called out his intellectual faculties? Have I not laid in him thefoundation of a serious and a thoughtful mind? Have I not accustomed himto solid things, in opposition to those that are light, and to sublimethings, in opposition to those that are frivolous? Have I not inculcatedin him a love for science? But take my child, after he has beenaccustomed to such thoughts and such subjects, to the theatre. Let thepantomime display its various attracting scenes to his view. And will henot think his entertainment low and superficial, in comparison of thatwhich he left at home. 

Knowledge again may be acquired by amusements which are out of doors. These again may be innocent or exceptionable. As before, I have nothingto do but with the former. If then I accustom my child to range thefields, as an employment promotive of his health, and connect thishealthy exercise with the entertainment of botanical pursuits, do Inot, in examining with him the shape, the colour, and the mechanism ofplants and flowers, confirm in him his former love of the works ofnature? Do I not confirm his former notion of the wisdom and power ofomnipotence? Do I not teach him by these, and the other pursuits whichhave been mentioned, that all recreations should be innocent, and thattime should be wisely employed? But hark! another amusement, and one ofthose which are followed out of doors, is at hand. The hounds are inview, and fast approaching. My son is accidentally solicited to jointhem. He would ask my permission, but I am absent. At length he goes. Hefollows them in wild tumult and uproar for an hour. He sees somegalloping over hedges and ditches like madmen, and hazarding theirpersons in a presumptuous manner. He sees others ride over thecultivated fields of their neighbours, and injure the rising corn. Hefinds that all this noise and tumult, all this danger and injury, areoccasioned by the pursuit of a little hare, whose pain is in proportionto the joy of those who follow it. Now can this diversion, educated asmy child has been, fascinate him? Will he not question its innocence?And will he not question its consistency as a natural pursuit, or as anemployment for his time?

It is thus then that knowledge will be found to operate as an artificialand innocent preservative against the destructive pleasures of theworld. But prohibitions without knowledge will be but of little avail, where there is a prospect of riches, and the power of gratifying anyimproper appetites as they may arise. But by knowledge we shall be ableto discover the beauty of things, so that their opposites, or the thingsprohibited, will cease to charm us. By knowledge we shall be able todiscern the ugliness of the things prohibited, so that we shall beenabled to loathe them, if they should come into our way. And thus aneducation, conducted upon the principles of knowledge, may operate tothe end proposed. 

CHAP. V. 

_Education continued, as consisting of knowledge and prohibitions--Good, which the Quakers have done by prohibitions, without any considerableknowledge--Greater good, which they would do with it--Knowledge then agreat desideratum in the Quaker education--Favourable state of thesociety for the communication of it with purity, or without detriment tomorals--In what this knowledge should consist--General advantages ofit--Peculiar advantages, which it would bring to the society. _

When we consider that men have all the same moral nature, we wonder, atthe first sight, at the great difference of conduct which they exhibitupon earth. But when we consider the power of education upon the mind, we seem to lose our surprize. If men in all countries were educatedalike, we should find a greater resemblance in their character. It is, in short, education, which makes the man. And as education appears to meto be of so much importance in life, I shall make it the subject of thisand the succeeding chapter. 

All education should have two objects in view, the opening of theunderstanding and the improvement of the heart. Of the two, the latteris most important. There cannot be a question, whether the person of themost desirable character be the virtuous or the learned man. Withoutvirtue knowledge loses half its value. Wisdom, without virtue, may besaid to be merely political; and such wisdom, whenever it belongs to aman, is little better than the cunning or craftiness of a fox. A man ofa cultivated mind, without an unshaken love of virtue, is but a dwarf ofa man. His food has done him no good, as it has not contributed to hisgrowth. And it would have been better, for the honour of literature, ifhe had never been educated at all. The talents of man, indeed, considering him as a moral being, ought always to be subservient toreligion. "All philosophy, says the learned Cudworth, to a wise man, toa truly sanctified mind, as he in Plutarch speaketh, is but matter fordivinity to work upon. Religion is the queen of all those inwardendowments of the soul: and all pure natural knowledge, all virgin andundeflowered arts and sciences, are her handmaids, that rise up and callher blessed. "

Now if the opening of the understanding, and the improvement of theheart, be the great objects to be attained, it will follow, that bothknowledge and wise prohibitions should always be component parts of theeducation of youth. The latter the Quakers have adopted ever since theinstitution of their society. The former they have been generallybackward to promote, at least to any considerable extent. That they havedone good, however, by their prohibitions, though unaccompanied by anyconsiderable knowledge, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge. Butthis goad has been chiefly confined to the children of those who haveoccupied middle stations in the society. Such children have undoubtedlyarrived at the true wisdom of life at an early age, as I described inthe first volume, and have done honour to the religion they professed. But prohibitions, without knowledge, have not been found to answer sowell among the children of those who have had the prospect of a largemoneyed independence before them, and who have not been afraid either ofthe bad opinion of their own society, or of the bad opinion of theworld. It has been shewn, however, that knowledge with prohibitionswould, in all probability, be useful to these; that it would have atendency to enable them, in the perilous situation in which they areplaced, to stand against the corrupt opinions and fashions, and whilethey were living in the world, to live out of it, or to deny it. 

Peculiarly situated as the Quakers are, they have opportunities, beyondany other people, of ingrafting knowledge into their system of educationwithout danger, or, in other words, of giving knowledge to theirchildren with the purity which Christianity would prescribe. The greatmisfortune in the world is, that a learned education is frequentlythought more of than a virtuous one; that youth, while they areobtaining knowledge, are not properly watched and checked; and that theyare suffered to roam at large in the pursuit of science, and tocultivate or not, at their own option, the science, if I may so call it, of religion. Hence it will happen, that, where we see learned men, weshall not always see these of the most exemplary character. But theQuakers have long ago adopted a system of prohibitions, as so manybarriers against vice, or preservatives of virtue. Their constitutionforbids all indulgences that appear unfriendly to morals. The Quakerstherefore, while they retain the prohibitions which belong to theirconstitution, may give encouragement to knowledge, without a fear thatit will be converted to the purposes of vice. 

The Quakers, again, have opportunities or advantages, which others havenot, in another point of view. In the great public seminary at Ackworth, which belongs to them, and which is principally for those who are of thepoor and middle classes, every thing is under the inspection andguidance of committees, which can watch and enforce an observance of anyrules that may be prescribed. Why then, if public seminaries wereinstituted for the reception of the children of the rich, or if the richwere to give encouragement to large private seminaries for the samepurposes, should they not be placed under the visiting discipline of thesociety? Why should they not be placed under the care of committeesalso? Why should not these committees see that the two great objects ofthe education proposed were going on at the same time, or that, whileknowledge was obtaining, discipline had not been relaxed. Why should notsuch seminaries produce future Penns, and Barclays, and others, who, while they were men capable of deep literary researches, should beexemplary for their virtue?

As knowledge then ought to form a part of the proposed education, on amuch larger scale than has been hitherto encouraged, I shall say a fewwords as to the component parts of it, and as to the general advantagesof these, and I shall afterwards speak to the advantages which thesociety in particular would derive from such a change. 

In the education I propose, I do not mean, in the slightest manner, tobreak in upon the moral system of the Quakers, as described in the firstvolume. I do not propose to them the polite arts. I do not recommendthem to make children musicians, or that they should learn, under thedancing-master, to step gracefully. I advise only such knowledge as willbe strictly innocent and useful. 

In the first place, I recommend a better classical education. Classicalknowledge gives the foundation both of particular and universal grammar. While it gives the acquisition of the dead languages, it is the root, and thereforce facilitates the acquisition of many of the living. Asmost of the technical terms in the professions and sciences are borrowedfrom these languages, it renders them easily understood. The study ofthe structure and combination of words and sentences calls forth thereflecting powers of youth, and expands their genius. It leads topenetration and judgement. It induces habits of diligence and patience. By means of this knowledge we have access to the sacred writings in thelanguages in which they were written, and we are therefore not liable tobe imposed upon, for the sense of them, by others. We become acquaintedalso, by means of it, with the sentiments and knowledge of the ancients. We see their thoughts and expressions. We acquire a literary taste. 

A knowledge of ancient history is necessarily conpected with the former. To this, however, should be added that of the modern. History, while itentertains us, instructs us morally. We cannot see the rise and fall ofempires, or the causes of their formation and dissolution, or read thehistories of good and bad men, without impressions of moral importanceto ourselves. 

A philosophical education is peculiarly important. By this I mean, ageneral knowledge of the mathematics, of mechanics, optics, hydrostatics, astronomy, chemistry, botany, and the like. The teachingof these should be accompanied by experiments. Experimental philosophy, as I observed before, is peculiarly interesting to youth. Such knowledgeteaches us the causes of things. Mysteries, hitherto hidden both in thegarden and in the field, and in the heaven and in the air, lie unfoldedto our view. Every walk we take, while the surface of the earth remainsas it is, and the canopy of the firmament is spread over us, gives itsthe opportunity, in all the innumerable objects presented to our view, of almost endless investigation and delight. And the deeper we go intothe hidden things of nature, and the more we unfold them, have we not abetter belief of the existence of the Creator, and grander notions ofthe symmetry, order, beauty, and wisdom of his works? Such knowledgeleads also, as it has always done, to discoveries, by which we may makeourselves useful to mankind. And, besides the utility, of which it maymake us capable, can discoveries of the principles of nature lessen oarlove and admiration of the first great Cause?

To philosophical knowledge should be added general reading. Such readingshould be of the purest kind. Of knowledge, acquired in this manner, itmaybe said, that it opens new sources of right views and sentiments, andthis even independently of Christianity, from which our most valuableinformation is derived. Thus at a time, when as a nation we professed tobe Christians, we shed the blood of the martyrs. Thus when even such menas the great Sir Matthew Hale, one of the brightest Christian patternsin our country, were at the head of it, we condemned persons to deathfor witchcraft. But knowledge superior to that of those times, hastaught us better things. By means of it we perceive, that persecutiondoes not destroy, but that it propagates opinions, and that the beliefof the existence of witchcraft is absurd. 

These then appear to me to be the general advantages, or such as areinseparable from education when composed of the various branches ofknowledge which have been described. I shall now endeavour to shew thepeculiar advantages, which the Quakers would derive from it. 

It will appear then, if we look back into the character of the Quakers, as described in this volume, that the world charges them, I mean themore affluent part of them, with having less learning, than others in asimilar rank of life. But surely the education I propose would removethis intellectual defect. 

The world again, as we have seen, has fixed another intellectual blemishupon them by the imputation of superstition. But how does superstitionenter, but where there is a want of knowledge? Does not all history beartestimony, that in proportion as men have been more or less enlightened, they have been less or more liable to this charge? It is knowledge then, which must banish this frightful companion of the mind. Whereverindividuals acknowledge, in a more extensive degree than others, theinfluence of the Divine Spirit in man, these, of all other people, willfind the advantages of it. Knowledge leads to a solution of things, asthey are connected with philosophy, or the theory of the human mind. Itenables men to know their first and their second causes, so as todistinguish between causes and occasions. It fixes the nature of actionand of thought; and, by referring effects to their causes, it oftenenables men to draw the line between the probability of fancy andinspiration. How many good men are there, who, adopting a similar creedwith that of the Quakers on this subject, make themselves uneasy, bybringing down the Divine Being, promiscuously and without duediscrimination, into the varied concerns of their lives? How many arethere, who attribute to him that which is easily explained by theknowledge of common causes? Thus, for instance, there are appearances innature, which a person of an uninformed mind, but who should adopt thedoctrine of the influence of the Spirit, would place among signs, andwonders, and divine notices, which others, acquainted with thephilosophy of nature, would almost instantly solve. Thus again there maybe occasions, which persons, carrying the same doctrine to an undueextent, might interpret into warning or prophetic voices, but which adue exercise of the intellect, where such exercise has been properlyencouraged, would easily explain. This reminds me of a singularoccurrence: A friend of mine was lately walking in a beautiful vale. Inapproaching a slate-quarry he heard an explosion, and a mass of stone, which had been severed by gunpowder, fell near him as he walked along. He went immediately to the persons employed. He represented theimpropriety of their conduct in not having given proper notice to suchas were passing by, and concluded by declaring emphatically, that theythemselves would be soon destroyed. It happened, but six weeksafterwards, that two of these men were blown to pieces. The words thenof my friend were verified. Now I have no doubt that ignorant persons, in the habit of referring every thing promiscuously to the Divineinterference, would consider my friend as a prophet, and his words as adivinely forewarning voice. But what did my friend mean? or where did heget his foresight on this occasion? The answer is, that my friend, beingaccustomed to the exercise of his rational faculties, concluded, that ifthe people in question were so careless with respect to those who shouldbe passing by in such times of danger, they would by custom becomecareless with respect to themselves, and that ultimately some mischiefwould befal them. It is knowledge, then, acquired by a due exercise ofthe intellectual powers, and through the course of an enlightenededucation, which will give men just views of the causes and effects ofthings, and which, while it teaches them to discover and acknowledge theDivine Being in all his wondrous works, and properly to distinguish himin his providences, preserves them from the miseries of superstition. 

The world again has fixed the moral blemish of the money-getting, spiritupon the Quaker character. But knowledge would step in here also as aconsiderable corrector of the evil. It would shew, that there were otherobjects besides money, which were worthy of pursuit. Nor would it pointout only new objects, but it would make a scale of their comparativeimportance. It would fix intellectual attachments, next to religion, inthe highest class. Thus money would sink in importance as a pursuit, orbe valued only as it was the means of comfort to those who had it, or ofcommunicating comfort to others. Knowledge also would be useful intaking off, to a certain degree, the corruptive effects of this spirit, for it would prevent it by the more liberal notions it would introduce, from leaving the whole of its dregs of pollution upon the mind. 

The Quakers again, as we have seen, have been charged with a want ofanimation, from whence an unjust inference has been drawn of thecoldness of their hearts. But knowledge would diminish this appearance. For, in the first place, it would enlarge the powers, and vary thetopics of conversation. It would enliven the speaker. It would give himanimation in discourse. Animation again would produce a greaterappearance of energy, and energy of the warmth of life. And there arefew people, whatever might be the outward cold appearance of the personwith whom they conversed, whose prejudices would not die away, if theyfound a cheerful and an agreeable companion. 

Another charge against the Quakers was obstinacy. This was shewn to beunjust. The trait, in this case, should rather have been put down asvirtue. Knowledge, however, would even operate here as a partial remedy. For while the Quakers are esteemed deficient in literature, theiropposition to the customs of the world, will always be characterized asfolly. But if they were to bear in the minds of their countrymen adifferent estimation as to intellectual attainments, the trait might bespoken of under another name. For persons are not apt to imputeobstinacy to the actions of those, however singular, whom they believeto have paid a due attention to the cultivation of their minds. 

It is not necessary to bring to recollection the other traits that werementioned, to see the operation of a superior education upon these. Itmust have already appeared, that, whatever may be the generaladvantages of learning, they would be more than usually valuable to theQuaker character. 

CHAP. VI. 

_Arguments of those of the society examined, who may depreciate humanknowledge--This depreciation did not originate with the firstQuakers--with Barclay--Penn--Ellwood--but arose afterwards--Reputeddisadvantages of a classical education--Its heathen mythology andmorality--Disadvantages of a philosophical one--Its scepticism--Generaldisadvantages of human learning--Inefficiency of all the argumentsadvanced. _

Having shewn the advantages, which generally accompany a superioreducation, I shall exhibit the disadvantages which may be thought toattend it, or I shall consider those arguments, which some persons ofthis society, who have unfortunately depreciated human learning, thoughwith the best intentions, might use against it, if they were to see thecontents of the preceding chapter. 

But, before I do this, I shall exonerate the first Quakers from thecharge of such a depreciation. These exhibited in their own persons thepracticability of the union of knowledge and virtue. While they wereeminent for their learning, they were distinguished for the piety oftheir lives. They were indeed the friends of both. They did notpatronize the one to the prejudice and expulsion of the other. [53]

[Footnote 53: George Fox was certainly an exception to this as ascholar. He was also not friendly to classical learning on account ofsome of the indelicate passages contained in the classical authors, which he and Farley and Stubbs, took some pains to cite, but, if thesehad been removed, I believe his objections would have ceased. ]

Barclay, in his celebrated apology, no where condemns the propriety orusefulness of human learning, or denies it to be promotive of thetemporal comforts of man. He says that the knowledge of Latin, Greek andHebrew, or of logic and philosophy, or of ethics, or of physics andmetaphysics, is not necessary. But not necessary for what? Mark his ownmeaning. Not necessary to make a minister of the Gospel. But where doeshe say that knowledge, which he himself possessed to such a considerableextent, was not necessary, or that it did not contribute to the innocentpleasures of life? What would have been the character of his own book, or what would have been its comparative value and usefulness, if he hadnot been able to quote so many authors to his purpose in their originaltexts, or to have detected so many classical errors, or to haveintroduced such apposite history, or to have drawn up his propositionswith so much logical and mathematical clearness and precision, or if hehad not been among the first literary characters of his day?

William Penn was equally celebrated with Barclay as a scholar. His worksafford abundant proof of his erudition, or of the high cultivation ofhis mind. Like the rest of his associates, he was no advocate forlearning, as a qualification for a minister of the Gospel, but he wasyet a friend to it, on the principle, that it enlarged theunderstanding, and that it added to the innocent pleasures of the mind. He entreated his wife, in the beautiful letter which he left her, beforehe embarked on his first voyage to America, "not to be sparing ofexpence in procuring learning for his children, for that by suchparsimony all was lost that was saved. " And he recommended also in thesame letter the mathematical or philosophical education which I havedescribed. 

Thomas Ellwood, a celebrated writer among the early Quakers, and thefriend of the great John Milton, was so sensible of the disadvantagesarising from a want of knowledge, that he revived his learning, withgreat industry, even after he had become a Quaker. Let us hear theaccount which he gives of himself in his own Journal. "I mentionedbefore, says he, that, when I was a boy, I made some progress inlearning, and that I lost it all again before I came to be a man. Norwas I slightly sensible of my last therein, till I came amongst theQuakers. But then I both saw my loss, and lamented it; and appliedmyself with the utmost diligence, at all leisure times to recover it. Sofalse I found that charge to be, which in those times was east as areproach upon the Quakers, that they despised and decried all humanlearning, because they denied it to be essentially necessary to a Gospelministry, which was one of the controversies of those times. "

"But though I toiled hard, and spared no pains to regain what I had oncebeen master of, yet I found it a matter of so great difficulty, that Iwas ready to say, as the noble eunuch to Philip, in another case, howcan I, unless I had some man to guide me?"

"This I had formerly complained of to my especial friend IsaacPennington, but now more earnestly; which put him upon considering andcontriving a means for my assistance. "

"He had an intimate acquaintance with Dr. Paget, a physician of note inLondon, and he with John Milton, a gentleman of great note for learning, throughout the learned world, for the accurate pieces he had Written onvarious subjects and occasions. "

"This person, having filled a public station in the former times, livednow a private and retired life in London; and, having wholly lost hissight, kept always a man to read to him, which usually was the son ofsome gentleman of his acquaintance, whom in kindness he took to improvein his learning. "

"Thus by the mediation of my friend Isaac Pennington with Dr. Paget, andof Dr. Paget with John Milton, was I admitted to come to him; not as aservant to him (which at that time he needed not) nor to be in the housewith him; but only to have the liberty of coming to his house at certainhours, when I would, and to read to him what books he should appoint me, which was all the favour I desired. "

By means of this extract, made from the life of Thomas Ellwood, we cometo three conclusions. First, that the early Quakers were generally menof eminent learning. Secondly, that they did not decry or depreciatehuman knowledge. And thirdly, that the calumny of such a depreciation bythem arose from the controversy which they thought it right to maintain, in which they denied it to be necessary as a qualification for a Gospelminister. 

This latter conclusion brings me round again to the point. And here Imust observe, that, though this famous controversy occasioned the firstQuakers to be unduly blamed on account of such a depreciation, yet itcontributed to make some of their immediate successors, as I stated in aformer volume, justly chargeable with it. But whether this was or wasnot the real cause, it is not material to the question. Many of thesociety, from came cause or other, did undoubtedly, in the ageimmediately succeeding that of their founders, begin to depreciate humanknowledge, the effects of which, though gradually dissipating, have notbeen wholly done away at the present day. The disadvantages, therefore, of human learning, or the arguments which would be advanced against itby those who may undervalue it, I shall now consider. 

These arguments may be divided into particular and general. On theformer I shall first speak. 

A classical education is considered to be objectionable, first, onaccount of the Heathen mythology that is necessarily connected with it. Its tendency, as it relates to fabulous occurrences, is thought to beunfavourable, as it may lead to a romantic propensity, and a turn forfiction. But surely the meaning of such occurrences cannot be wellmistaken. If they are represented to our view in fable, they have hadtheir foundation in truth. Many of them again are of such importance, that we could not wish to see them annihilated. Let us refer, forexample, to the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha. Is it not one among themany outward confirmations of the truth of the history of Moses? Or dowe not trace in it additional proofs of the deluge, and of the renewalof mankind?

Its tendency again, as it relates to the fabulous history of the Heathengods, their number, their offices, and their character, is considered asdegrading and exceptionable. I will concede this for a moment. But mayit not, on the other hand, be rendered instructive and useful? May notthe retention of such an history be accompanied with great moraladvantages to our children? The emperor Theodosius commanded the idoltemples to be destroyed. Instead of devoting them to the use of theChristians of those times, by which they might have been preserved tofuture generations, the most beautiful remains of antiquity werereduced to ruins. But would it not have been better, if Theodosius hadbrought good out of evil by retaining them? Would it not have been ahigh moral gratification to those who knew the fact, that temples, appropriated to the worship of idols, had been devoted to the service ofthe only true God? Would it not have been a matter of joy to these tohave reflected upon the improving condition of mankind? And, while theylooked up to these beautiful structures of art, might not the sight ofthem have contributed to the incitement of their virtue? If it be thetendency of the corrupt part of our nature to render innocent thingsvicious, it is, on the other hand, in the essence of our nature torender vicious things in process of time innocent, so that the veryremnants of idolatry may be made subservient to our moral improvement. "If, as I observed in the first volume, we were to find an alter whichhad been sacred to Moloch, but which had been turned into astepping-stone to help the aged and infirm upon their horses, why shouldwe destroy it? Might it not be made useful to our morality, as for as itcould be made to excite sorrow for the past and gratitude for thepresent?" And in the same manner the retention of the Heathen mythologymight be made serviceable. Ought it not, whenever we contemplate it, tomake us thankful, that we have not the dark and cheerless path of ourancestors to tread; that we have clearer light; that we have surerprospects; that we have a steadier ground of hope; and ought we not, ona contemplation of these superior advantages, brought to us byrevelation, to be roused into the practice of a superior virtue. 

Classical education again is considered as objectionable by the Quakerson account of the Heathen notions, which it may spread. Thus the highestreputation of man is placed in deeds of martial achievement, and amartial ardour is in consequence infused into youth, which it isdifficult to suppress. That such notions and effect are produced, therecan be no doubt; but how are we to avoid these whilst we are obliged tolive in the world? The expulsion of the classics would not expel them. Our own newspapers, which are open to all, spread the same opinions, andare instrumental of course in producing the same excitements, but theydo it in a much more objectionable way than the classical authors, thatis, they do it with less delicacy, and with a more sanguinary applause. But where, as I observed before, shall we retire from such impressions?Does not the recruiting drum propagate them in all our towns? Do not theringing of the bells, and the illuminations, which occasionally takeplace in the time of war, propagate them also? And do we not find these, both in war and in peace, the sentiments and impressions of the world?Our own notions then, our own writings, and our own customs, are more tobe blamed in this respect, than the literary compositions of ancienttimes. But this, of all others, ought to be least an objection with theQuakers to such an education; because, to their honour, they have aconstant counteraction of the effects of such sentiments and impressionsin the principles of their own constitution, and which counteractioncannot cease, while, by the bearing of their testimony, they live in acontinual protest against them. 

The last objection to a classical education is, that the system of theHeathen morality is generally too deficient for those who are to bebrought up as Christians. To this I answer, that it is quite as good asthe system of the morality of the world. I could procure purersentiments, and this generally from the Heathen authors usuallycalled[54] classical, than I can collect from many, even of the admiredpublications of our own times. The morality of the heathens is not sodeficient as many have imagined. If their best opinions were dulyselected and brought into one view, the only matter of surprise wouldbe, how, with no other than the law written upon the heart, they hadmade such sublime discoveries. It was principally in their theology, where the law written upon the heart could not reach, that the ancientswere deficient. They knew but little of the one true God. They did notknow that he was a Spirit, and that he was to be worshiped in spirit andin truth. They were ignorant of his attributes. They had learnt nothingof the true origin, nature, and condition of man, or of the scheme ofcreation and redemption. These things were undoubtedly hidden from theeyes of the ancient philosophers. And it was in knowledge of this kindchiefly, that their deficiency was apparent. But how is this particulardeficiency detrimental to youth, or how rather might it not be rendereduseful to them in the way described? What a sublime contrast doesknowledge, as exhibited by revelation, afford to the ignorance of thosetimes, and what joy and gratitude ought we not to feel in thecomparison? And this is the only use which can be made of theirmythology? For when we send youth to the classical authors, we send themto learn the languages, and this through a medium where the morality isboth useful and respectable, but we do not send them, living where theblessings of revelation are enjoyed, to be instructed in religion. 

[Footnote 54: It must however be acknowledged, that, amidst beautifulsentiments, such as are indelicate are occasionally interspersed. Butthe quakers might remedy this objection by procuring a new edition ofthe purest classics only, in which particular passages might be omitted. They might also add new Latin notes, founded on Christian principles, where any ideas were found to be incorrect, and thus make Heathenismitself useful, as a literal teacher of a moral system. The world, Ibelieve, would be obliged to the Quakers for such an edition, and itwould soon obtain in most of the schools of the kingdom. ]

The principal argument against a philosophical education, which is thenext subject for consideration, is, that men, who cultivate suchstudies, require often more proofs of things than can always be had, andthat, if these are wanting, they suspend their belief. And as this istrue in philosophy, so it may be true in religion. Hence personsaccustomed to such pursuits, are likely to become sceptics or infidels. To this I answer, that the general tendency of philosophy is favourableto religion. Its natural tendency is to give the mind grand and sublimeideas, and to produce in it a belief of the existence of one greatcause, which is not visible among men. Thus, for example, I find thatthe planets perform a certain round! They perform it with a certainvelocity. They do not wander at random, but they are kept to theirorbits. I find the forces which act upon them for this purpose. I find, in short, that they are subject to certain laws. Now, if the planetswere living agents, they might have prescribed these laws to themselves. But I know that this, when I believe them to consist of materialsubstances, is impossible. If then, as material substances, they aresubject to laws, such laws must have been given them. There must havebeen some lawgiver. In this manner then I am led to some other great, and powerful, and invisible Agent or Cause. And here it may be observed, that if philosophers were ever baffled in their attempts at discovery, or in their attempts after knowledge, as they frequently are, they wouldnot, on this account, have any doubt with respect to the being of a God. If they had found, after repeated discoveries, that the ideas acquiredfrom thence were repeatedly or progressively sublime, and that they ledrepeatedly or progressively to a belief of the existence of a superiorPower, is it likely that they would all at once discard this belief, because there researches were unsuccessful? If they were to do this, they would do it against all the rules of philosophizing, and againstthe force of their own habits. I say, that analogical is a part ofphilosophical reasoning, and that they would rather argue, that, as sucheffects had been uniformly produced, so they would probably still beproduced, if their researches were crowned with success. The tendencythen of philosophical knowledge is far otherwise than has been supposed. And it makes highly in favour of the study of these sciences, that thosewho have cultivated them the most, such as Newton, and Boyle, andothers, have been found among the ablest advocates for religion. [55]

[Footnote 55: I by no means intend to say, that philosophy leads to thereligion called Christianity, but that it does to Theism, which is thefoundation of it. ]

I come now, to the general arguments used by the Quakers against humanlearning, the first of which is, that they who possess it are too apt toreduce religion to reason, and to strip it of the influence of theSpirit. But this is contrary, as a general position, to all fact. Wefind no mention of this in history. The fathers of the church were themost eminent for learning in their own days, and these insisted upon theInfluence of the Spirit in spiritual concerns, as one of the firstarticles of their faith. The reformers, who succeeded these, were men ofextensive erudition also, and acknowledged the same great principle. Andnine-tenths, I believe, of the Christians of the present, day, amongwhom we ought to reckon nine-tenths of the men of learning also, adopt asimilar creed. 

Another general argument is, that learning is apt to lead to conceit andpride, or to a presumed superiority of intellect, in consequence ofwhich men raise themselves in their own estimation, and look down uponothers as creatures of an inferior order of race. To this I may answer, that as prodigies are daily produced in nature, though they may be butas one to a hundred thousand when compared with the perfect things oftheir own kind, so such phenomena may occasionally make their appearancein the world. But as far as my own experience goes, I believe the truetendency of learning to be quite the reverse. I believe the most learnedto be generally the most humble, and to be the most sensible of theirown ignorance. Men, in the course of their studies, daily find somethingnew. Every thing new shews them only their former ignorance, and howmuch there is yet to learn. The more they persevere, in theirresearches, the more they acknowledge the latter fact. The longer theylive, the more they lament the shortness of life, during which, man withall his industry, can attain so little, and that, when he is but justbeginning to know, he is cut off. They see, in short, their ownnothingness, and, however they may be superior in their attainments, they are convinced that their knowledge is, after all, but a shadow;that it is but darkness; that it is but the absence of light; and thatit no sooner begins to assume an appearance than it is gone. 

The last general argument against learning is, that it does not lead tomorality, or that learned men do not always exhibit an example of thebest character. In answer to this I must observe, that the naturaltendency of learning is to virtue. If learned men are not virtuous, Ipresume their conduct is an exception to the general effect of knowledgeupon the mind. That there are, however, persons of such unnaturalcharacter, I must confess. But any deficiency in their example is not tobe attributed to their learning. It is to be set down, on the otherhand, to the morally defective education they have received. They havenot been accustomed to wise restraints. More pains have been taken togive them knowledge, than to instruct them in religion. But where aneducation has been bestowed upon persons, in which their morals havebeen duly attended to, where has knowledge been found to be at variance, or rather where has it not been found to be in union, with virtue? Ofthis union the Quakers can trace some of the brightest examples in theirown society. Where did knowledge, for instance, separate herself fromreligion in Barclay, or in Penn, or in Burroughs, or in Pennington, orin Ellwood, or in Arscott, or in Claridge, or in many others who mightbe named. And as this has been the case in the Quaker society, where adue care has been taken of morals, so it has been the case where asimilar care has been manifested in the great society of the world. 

 "Piety has found Friends In the friends of Science, and true pray'r Has flow'd from lips wet with Castalian dews. Such was thy wisdom, Newton, childlike sage! Sagacious reader of the works of God, And in his word sagacious. Such too thine, Milton, whose genius had angelic wings, And fed on manna. And such thine, in whom Our British Themis gloried with just cause, Immortal Hale! for deep discernment prais'd And sound integrity not more, than fam'd For sanctity of manners undefil'd. " Cowper. 

It appears then, if I have reasoned properly, that the arguments usuallyadduced against the acquisition of human knowledge are but of littleweight. If I have reasoned falsely upon this subject, so have the earlyQuakers. As they were friends to virtue, so they were friends toscience. If they have at any time put a low estimate upon the latter, ithas been only as a qualification for a minister of the Gospel. Here theyhave made a stand. Here they have made a discrimination. But I believeit will no where be found, that they have denied, either that learningmight contribute to the innocent pleasures of life, or that it might bemade a subordinate and auxiliary instrument towards the promotion ofvirtue. 

CHAP. VII. 

_Conclusion of the work--Conclusionary remarks divided into twokinds--First, as they relate to those who may have had thoughts ofleaving the society--Advantages, which these may have proposed tothemselves by such a change--These advantages either religious ortemporal--The value of them considered. _

Having now gone through all the subjects, which I had prescribed tomyself at the beginning of this work, I purpose to close it. But as itshould be the wish of every author to render his production useful, Ishall add a few observations for this purpose. My remarks then, whichwill be thus conclusory, relate to two different sorts of persons. Theywill relate, first, to those who may have had thoughts of leaving thesociety, or, which is the same thing, who persist in a course ofirregularities, knowing beforehand, and not regretting it, that theyshall be eventually disowned. It will relate, secondly, to all otherpersons, or to those who may be called the world. To the former I shallconfine my attention in this chapter. 

I have often heard persons of great respectability, and these even inthe higher circles of life, express a wish, that they had been broughtup as Quakers. The steady and quiet deportment of the members of thissociety, the ease with which they appear to get through life, thesimplicity and morality of their character, were the causes whichproduced the expression of such a wish. "But why then, I have observed, if you feel such a disposition as this wish indicates, do you not becomeQuakers?" "Because, it has been replied, we are too old to be singular. Dressing with sufficient simplicity ourselves, we see no good reason foradopting the dress of the society. It would be as foolish in us tochange the colour and fashion of our clothing, as it would be criminalin the Quakers, with their notions, to come to the use of that whichbelongs to us. Endeavouring also to be chaste in our conversation, wecannot adopt their language. It would be as inconsistent in us to speakafter the manner of the Quakers, as it would be inconsistent in them toleave their own language for ours. But we wish we had been born Quakers. And, if we had been born Quakers, we would never have deserted thesociety. "

Perhaps they to whom I shall confine my remarks in this chapter, are notaware, that such sentiments as these are floating in the minds of many. They are not aware, that it is considered as one of the strongest thingsfor those who have been born in the society, and been accustomed to itsparticularities, to leave it. And least of all are they aware of theworthless motives, which the world attributes to them for an intendedseparation from it. 

There is, indeed, something seemingly irreconcileable in the thought ofsuch a dereliction or change. To leave the society of a moral people, can it be a matter of any credit? To diminish the number of those whoprotest against war, and who have none of the guilt upon their heads ofthe sanguinary progress of human destruction which is going on in theworld, is it desirable, or rather, ought it not to be a matter ofregret? And to leave it at a time, when its difficulties are over, is ita proof of a wise and a prudent choice? If persons had ever had it incontemplation to leave the society in its most difficult and tryingtimes, or in the days of its persecution, when only for the adoption ofinnocent singularities its members were insulted, and beaten, andbruised, and put in danger of their lives, it had been no matter ofsurprise: but to leave it, when all prejudices against them aregradually decreasing, when they are rising in respectability in the eyesof the government under which they live, and when, by the weight oftheir own usefulness and character, they are growing in the esteem ofthe world, is surely a matter of wonder, and for which it is difficultto account. 

This brings me to the point in question, or to the examination of thosearguments, which may at times have come into the heads of those who havehad thoughts of ceasing to be members of this society. 

In endeavouring to discover these, we can only suppose them to beactuated by one motive, for no other will be reasonable, namely, thatthey shall derive advantages from the change. Now all advantages areresolvable into two kinds, into such as are religious, and into such asare temporal. The first question then is, what advantages do they gainin the former case, or do they actually come into the possession of abetter religion?

I am aware that to enter into this subject, though but briefly, is anodious task. But I shall abstain from all comparisons, by which I mightoffend any. If I were to be asked which, among the many systems of theChristian religion, I should prefer, I should say, that I see in all ofthem much to admire, but that no one of them, perhaps, does wholly, orin every part of it, please me; that is, there is no one, in which I donot see some little difficulty, which I cannot solve, though this is noimpediment to my faith. But, if I were pressed more particularly uponthis point, I should give the following answer. I should say, that Ishould prefer that, which, first of all, would solve the greatest numberof difficulties, as far as scriptural texts were concerned, inconformity with the Divine attributes, which, secondly, would afford themost encouraging and consolatory creed, if it were equally well foundedwith any other; and which, thirdly, either by its own operation, or bythe administration of it, would produce the post perfect Christiancharacter. Let us then judge of the religion of the Quakers by thisstandard. 

That there are difficulties with respect to texts of scripture, must beadmitted; for if all men were to understand them alike, there would bebut one profession of the Christian religion. One man endeavours to makehis system comport wholly with human reason, and the consequence is, that texts constantly stare him in the face, which militate against it. Another discards reason, with a determination to abide literally bythat, which is revealed, and the consequence is, that, in his literalinterpretation of some passages, he leaves others wholly irreconcileablewith his scheme. Now the religion, of the Quakers has been explained, and this extensively. In its doctrinal parts it is simple. It isspiritual. It unites often philosophy with revelation. It explains agreat number of the difficult texts with clearness and consistency. Thatit explains all of them I will not aver. But these which it doesexplain, it explains in the strictest harmony with the love, goodness, justice, mercy, and wisdom of God. 

As to the creed of the Quakers, we have seen its effects. We have seenit to be both encouraging and consolatory. We have seen it producehappiness in life, and courage in death. The doctrine of the possibilityof human perfection, where it is believed, must be a perpetual stimulusto virtue, it must encourage hope and banish fear. But it may be said, that stimulative and consolatory as it may be, it wants one of the markswhich I have insisted upon, namely, a sound foundation. But surely they, who deny it, will have as many scriptural texts against them as they whoacknowledge it, and will they not be rendering their own spiritualsituation perilous? But what do the Quakers mean by perfection? Not theperfection of God, to which there are no limits, as has been beforeexplained, but that which arises to man from the possibility of keepingthe divine commands. They mean that perfection, such as Noah, and Job, and Zacharias, and Elizabeth, attained, and which the Jewish rabbiesdistinguished by the name of Redemption, and which they conceived to beeffected by the influence of the Holy Spirit, or that state of man inChristian morals, which, if he arrives at it, the Divine Being (outwardredemption having taken place by the sacrifice of Christ) is pleased toaccept as sufficient, or as the most pure state at which man, under thedisadvantages of the frailty of his nature, can arrive. And is not thisthe practicable perfection, which Jesus himself taught in these words, "Be ye perfect, even as your Father, which is in heaven is perfect. " Notthat he supposed it possible, that any human being could be as perfectas the Divine Nature. But he proposed, by these expressions, the highestconceivable model of human excellence, of which our natures werecapable, well knowing that the higher our aspirations the higher weshould ascend, and the sooner we should reach that best state ofhumanity that was attainable. And here it is, that Christianity, as arule of moral conduct, surpasses all others. Men, in general, look up tomen for models. Thus Homer makes one of his heroes, when giving counselto his son, say, "Always emulate the best. " Thus also we should say toour children, if a person of extraordinary character were to live in ourneighbourhood, "This is the pattern for your virture. " But Jesus Christsays, aim at perfection beyond that which is human, alluding to theattributes of God, and thus you will attain a higher excellence than thestudy of any other model can produce. 

With respect to the formation of man according to the model whichChristianity prescribes, the system of the Quakers is no where to beexcelled. No one, that we know of, is more powerful in the production ofa subjugated mind and of a moral character. By this I mean, that thereis none which is more universally powerful. It is the tendency ofChristianity, whatever denomination it may assume, to produce theseeffects. But there is full as general an appearance of these among theQuakers, as in any other Christian profession. 

It will appear then, that, if the three criterions, which have beenspecified, should be admitted to be those by which a judgment may beformed in the present case, they, who have had thoughts of leaving thesociety, will not be much better off by an exchange of their religion. 

Let us see next, what would be the greater temporal advantages, whichthey would obtain. These may be summed up in two essential ingredientsof happiness, in tranquillity of mind, in consequence of which we passthrough the troubles of life in the most placid manner, and in amoderate pecuniary independence, in consequence of which we know none ofthe wants and hardships, but enjoy the reasonable comforts of it. 

With respect to tranquillity of mind, we have shown this to beconstitutional with the Quakers. It arises from their domesticenjoyments, from seldom placing their pleasures or their fortunes in thepower of others, from freedom from the ambition and envyings of theworld, from the regulation of the temper, from avoiding quarrels andlawsuits, and from other causes. And with respect to a moderatepecuniary independence, we have shewn not only that this is the generalportion of the society, but that it is in the very nature of theirhabits to acquire it. Now these essential ingredients of happiness, orthese temporal advantages, do not belong to the present Quakers only. They have always belonged to Quakers; and they will be perpetuated as aninheritance to their children, as long as Quakerism lasts. By this Imean to say, that if any Quakers, now living, could be sure that theirdescendants would keep to the wholesome regulations of the society forten generations to come, they might have the comfort of believing, thattranquillity of mind would accompany them, as an effect of the laws andconstitution belonging it, and that at any rate an easy pecuniarysituation in life would be preserved to them. For if it be no difficultthing, with the natural habits of the society, to acquire anindependence, it is much easier to preserve that which has been leftthem. But will they, who have had it in contemplation to leave thesociety, be able to say this for their children, when they adopt theworld for their home? What certainty is there, that these willexperience tranquillity, unless they are seen, quite as far as manhood, in the habits of religion? Will the cares of the world, its ambition, its thirst after honours, and its unbridled affections and passions, give them no uneasiness? And can the fortunes transmitted to them, subject as they will be to its destructive fashions and pleasures, beinsured to them for even half of their times? How many have we seen, whohave been in the prime of health in the morning, who have fallen beforenight in the duel? And how many have we seen in a state of affluence atnight, who have been ruined by gaming in the morning?

But it is possible that they, who may have had thoughts of leaving thesociety; may picture to themselves another advantage, which I have notyet mentioned. It is possible, that there may be yet one which they maydistinguish by such a name. They may possibly think it to be a gain toget rid of the restraint of the discipline of the society, and to enjoythe freedom of the world. 

That the discipline is a restraint, I do not deny. But it must never beforgotten, that its object is moral good, and its effect thepreservation of a moral character. But, come you, who complain of thisheavy burden imposed upon you, and let us converse together for amoment, and let us see, if, when you relinquish it, you do not imposeupon yourself a worse. Are you sure that, when you get rid of thisdiscipline, you will not come under the discipline of fashion? And whois Fashion? Is she not of all mistresses the most imperious, andunreasonable, and cruel? You may be pleased with her for a while, butyou will eventually feel her chains. With her iron whip, brandished overyour head, she will issue out her commands, and you must obey them. Shewill drive you, without mercy, through all her corruptive customs, andthrough all her chameleon changes, and this against your judgment andagainst your will. Do you keep an equipage? You must alter the veryshape of your carriage, if she prescribes it. Is the livery of yourpostilion plain? You must make it of as many colours as she dictates. Ifyou yourself wear corbeau or raven colour to-day, you must change it, ifshe orders you, to that of puce, or the flea, to-morrow. But it is notonly, in your equipage and your dress, that she will put you under hercontrol. She will make you obedient to her in your address and manners. She will force upon you rules for your intercourse with others. She willpoint out to you her amusements, and make you follow them. She willplace you under her cruel laws of honour, from which she will disownyou, if you swerve. Now I beseech you, tell me, which you think youwould prefer, the discipline of the goddess Fashion, or that of the goodold mistress, which you may have wished to leave? The one kindly pointsout to you, and invites and warns you to avoid, every dangerousprecipice, that may be before you. The other is not satisfied, but withyour destruction. She will force you, for a single word, uttered in athoughtless moment, to run the hazard of your life, or to lose what shecalls your character. The one, by preserving you in innocence, preservesyou happy. The greater your obedience to her, the greater is yourfreedom; and it is the best species of freedom, because it is freedomfrom the pollutions of the world. The other awakens your conscience, andcalls out its stings. The more obedient you are to her, the greater isyour slavery, and it is the worst species of slavery, because it isoften slavery to vice. In consequence of the freedom which the onebestows upon you, you are made capable of enjoying nature and itsvarious beauties, and by the contemplation of these, of partaking of anendless feast. In consequence of the freedom which the one bestows uponyou, you are made capable of enjoying nature, and its various beauties, and, by the contemplation, of these, of partaking of an endless feast. In consequence of the slavery to which the other reduces you, you arecramped as to such enjoyments. By accustoming you to be pleased withridiculous and corruptive objects, and silly and corruptive changes, sheconfines your relish to worthless things. She palsies your vision, andshe corrupts your taste. You see nature before you, and you can take nopleasure in it. Thus she unfits you for the most rational of theenjoyments of the world, in which you are designed to live. 

CHAP. VIII. 

_Conclusory remarks, as they relate to those who compose the world atlarge--Advantages, which these may derive from the contents of thiswork--from a view of many of the customs--and of the principlesexplained in it--from seeing practically the influence of these customsand principles in the production of character and happiness--and fromseeing the manner of their operation, or how they produce the effectsdescribed. _

I shall now endeavour to make my conclusory remarks useful as they mayrelate to those who may be called the world. 

To state the object, which I have in view, I shall observe at once, thatmen are divided in opinion as to the lawfulness, or expediency, orwholesomeness of many of the customs, fashions, and accomplishments ofthe world. We find some encouraging in their families, and this withoutany hesitation, and to an almost unlimited extent, those which many, onaccount of religious considerations, have expelled. We find others againendeavouring to steer a course between the opinions and practice ofthese. The same diversity of sentiment prevails also with respect toprinciples. The virtuous or moral are adopted by some. The political byothers. That the political often obtain both in education and insubsequent life, there is no question. Thus, for example, a young man isthought by some to be more likely to make his way in the world with theaddress which fashionable accomplishments may give him, even if he be alittle dissipated, than one of strict virtue with unpolished manners. Thus again in actions and transactions, policy is often preferred toexpress and open declarations of the truth. Others again are of opinion, that the general basis of principle should be virtue, but that alatitude may be, allowed for a seasonable policy. Thus an education isgoing on under Christian parents, as if Christianity had objects inview, which were totally opposite to each other. 

It is in this point of view chiefly, that I can hope to be useful inthis conclusory part of my work. We have seen in the course of it bothcustoms and principles laid open and explained. We have seen thetendencies and bearings of these. We have seen them probed, and examinedby a moral standard. We have seen their influence on character andhappiness. We have seen the manner in which they act, or how theseeffects are produced. A revision therefore of these cannot but beuseful, but more particularly to parents, as it may enable some ofthese, in conjunction with the knowledge they possess, to form probablya more correct system than they may have had it in contemplation toadopt, for the education of their youth. 

The first advantage then, which those who compose the world at large mayderive from the contents of this work, will be from a review of some ofthe customs which have been censured in it. 

In looking into customs, the first that obtrudes itself upon our notice, is that of allowing to children those amusements, which, on account ofthe use of them, may be called gaming. A view is offered to us here, which is divested of all superstition. It is no where contended atrandom, in speaking against these, that their origin is objectionable. It is no where insisted upon, that there is evil in them consideredabstractedly by themselves, or that they may not be used innocently, orthat they may not be made the occasion of innocent mirth. The evil iscandidly stated to arise from their abuse. The nature of this evil isunfolded. Thus the malevolent passions, such as anger, envy, hatred, revenge, and even avarice, are stirred up, where they should beparticularly prevented, in the youthful breast. A spirit of gaming, which may be destructive of fortune, health, and morals, is engendered. A waste of time[56] is occasioned, inasmuch as other pursuits might befollowed, which would be equally amusing, but conducive to theimprovement of the mind. The nature of the abuse is unfolded likewise. It consists of making games of chance productive of loss and gain. Thusthey hold up speedy pecuniary acquisitions, and speedy repairs ofmisfortune. Thus they excite hope and fear, and give birth to pain anddisappointment. The prevention also of the abuse, and that alone whichcan be effectual, is pointed out. This consists of a separation ofemolument from chance, or of the adoption of the maxim, that no youthought to be permitted to lay a wager, or to reap advantage from anydoubtful event by a previous agreement on a moneyed stake. Now if thereader be not disposed to go the length which the Quakers do, by theabolition of such amusements, he will at least have had the advantage ofseeing that there may be evil in them, and where it lies, and theextent (if he will only look at the historical instances cited) to whichit may proceed, and its infallible prevention or its cure. 

[Footnote 56: This argument is usually applied to grown up people, butmay be applicable to youth, when we consider the ingenious inventions ofmodern times, such as maps of dissected geography, historical and othergames, which, while they afford pleasure, promote improvement. ]

The next subject which offers itself to our view, is music, and thiscomes before us in two forms, either as it is instrumental or vocal. 

With respect to instrumental, it is no where insisted upon that itsorigin is evil, or that it is not productive of a natural delight, orthat it does not soothe and tranquilize the passions, or that it may notbe innocently used, or that it may not be made, under limitations, acheerful companion in solitude. But it is urged against it, that it doesnot tend, like many other studies, to the improvement of the mind; thatit affords no solid ground of comfort either in solitude or affliction;that it is a sensual gratification; and that sensual gratifications, ifindulged in leisure hours, take up the time which should be devoted tothose of a higher nature, that is, intellectual and moral pursuits. Itis urged against it again, that, if abused, it is chargeable with acriminal waste of time, and a criminal impairing of health; that thisabuse, in consequence of proficiency being insisted upon (without whichit ceases to be delightful) is at the present day almost inseparablefrom its use; and that where the abuse of a thing, either in consequenceof fashion, or its own seductive nature, or any other cause, is eithernecessarily or very generally connected with the use of it, watchfulnessto avoid it is as much a duty in Christian morals, as it is a dutyagainst the common dangers of life. 

On vocal again we observe a proper distinction attempted. We find, thatthe singing is no more criminal than the reading of a song, being butanother mode of expressing it, and that, the morality of it thereforewill depend upon the words and sentiments it contains. If these areindelicate, or unchaste, or hold out false and corruptive ideas, as hasbeen shewn to be the case with a variety of songs, then singing may froman innocent become a vicious amusement. But it has been observed, thatyouth seldom make any discrimination or selection with respect to songs, but that they pick up all that come in their way, whatever may be theimpropriety of the words or sentiments, which they may contain. 

Now then, whether we speak of instrumental or vocal music, if the readershould not be willing totally to discard this science as the Quakersdo, he will at least have learnt some good from the observation whichthe work will have held out to him on this subject. He will see thatevil may unquestionably be produced by the cultivation of it. He willsee the absolute necessity of guarding his children against the learningof it to professional precision, as it is now unfortunately taught, tothe detriment of their health, and of the acquisition of more importantknowledge. He will see also the necessity of great vigilance withrespect to the purity of the words and sentiments which may be connectedwith it. 

The important subject, which is brought next before us, is that of thetheatre. Here we are taught, that, though dramatic pieces had nocensurable origin, the best of the ancient moralists condemned them. Weare taught, that, even in the most favourable light in which we can viewthem, they have been thought objectionable, that is, that where theyhave pretended to teach morality, they have inculcated rather therefined virtue of heathenism, than the strict though mild morality ofthe Gospel; and where they have attempted to extirpate vice, they havedone it rather by making it appear ridiculous, than by teaching men toavoid it as evil, or for the love of virtue. We are taught, that, as itis our duty to love our neighbour, and to be solicitous for hisspiritual welfare, we ought not, under a system which requiressimplicity and truth, to encourage him to be what he is not, or topersonate a character which is not his own. We are taught that it is thegeneral tendency of the diversions of the stage, by holding out falsemorals and prospects, to weaken the sinews of morality; by disqualifyingfor domestic enjoyments, to wean from a love of home; by accustoming tolight thoughts and violent excitement of the passions, to unfit for thepleasures of religion. We are taught that diversions of this natureparticularly fascinate, and that, if they fascinate, they suggestrepetitions. And finally we are taught, that the early Christians ontheir conversion, though before this time they had followed them asamong the desirable pleasures of their lives, relinquished them on theprinciples now explained. 

The next subject, which comes to us in order, is dancing. This is handeddown to us, under two appearances, either as it is simple, or as it isconnected with preparations and accompaniments. 

In viewing it in its simple state, it is no where contended, if it beencouraged on the principle of promoting such an harmonious carriage ofthe body, or use of the limbs, as maybe more promotive of health, thatit is objectionable, though it is supposed that it is not necessary forsuch purposes, and that, without music and its other usualaccompaniments, it would not be pleasant. Neither is it contended that asimple dance upon the green, if it were to arise suddenly and withoutits usual preparations, may not be innocent, or that if may not beclassed with an innocent game at play, or with innocent exercise in thefields, though it is considered, that it would hardly be worthy of thoseof riper years, because they who are acknowledged to have come to thestature of men, are expected to abandon amusements for pursuits ofusefulness, and particularly where they make any profession of theChristian name. 

In viewing it with its preparations, and with its subsequentaccompaniments, as usually displayed in the ball-room, we see it in aless favourable light. We see it productive, where it is habituallyresorted to, of a frivolous levity, of vanity and pride, and of alittleness of mind and character. We see it also frequently becoming theoccasion of the excitement of the malevolent passions, such as anger, envy, hatred, jealousy, malice, and revenge. We find it also frequentlyleading to[57] indisposition. We find lastly, that, in consequence ofthe vexation of mind, which may arise from a variety of causes, but moreparticularly from disappointment and the ascendency of some of thepassions that have been mentioned, more pleasure is generally perceivedin the anticipation of these amusements, than in the actual taste or useof them. 

[Footnote 57: Not only colds, head-aches, and a general lassitude, orethe result Of dancing in ball-rooms, but occasionally seriousindisposition. I have known the death of two young persons attributed toit by the physicians who attended them in their illness. ]

The subject of novels is presented next to our view. And here it hasappeared, that no objection can be truly adduced against these onaccount of the fictitious nature of their contents. Novels also are notall of them promiscuously condemned. It is contended, however, from avariety of causes which were shewn, that they are very generallycensurable. We are taught again, that the direct tendency of those whichare censurable is to produce conceit and affectation, a romantic spirit, and a perverted morality among youth. We are taught again, that, onaccount of the peculiar construction of these, inasmuch as they haveplot and character like dramatic compositions, they fascinate, and thisto such a degree, that youth wait for no selection, but devourpromiscuously all that come in their way. Hence the conclusion is, thatthe effects, alleged against novels, cannot but be generally produced. We are presented also with this fact, that, on account of the highseasoning and gross stimulants they contain, all other writings, howeveruseful, become insipid. Hence the novel reader, by becoming indisposedto the perusal of more valuable books, excludes himself from theopportunity of moral improvement, and, if immoral sentiments arecontracted, from the chance of any artificial corrective or cure. 

The diversions of the field offer themselves next to our notice. We aretaught, on the discussion which has arisen on this subject, that we arenot permitted to take away the lives of animals wantonly but only asthey may be useful for food, or as they may be dangerous to ourselvesand to the other animals which may belong to us, and that a condition isannexed to the original grant or charter, by which permission was givento kill, which is never to be dispensed with, or, in other words, thatwe are to take away their lives as speedily as we can. Hence rights havesprung up on the part of animals, and duties on the part of men, anybreach of which is the violation of a moral law. Hence the diversions ofthe field become often objectionable, because life is not thus takenaway as speedily as it might otherwise have been, and because food ornoxiousness is not often the object of the destruction of animals, butmere pleasure or sport. We are taught also to consider animals, not asmere machines, but as the creatures of God. We are taught also, that asthey were designed to have their proper share of happiness during thetime of their existence, any wanton interruption of this is aninnovation of their rights as living beings. And we are taught finally, that the organic nature of men and animals being the same, as far as afeeling of pain is concerned, the sympathy which belongs to our nature, and the divine law of doing as we would be done by, which will hold asfar as we can enter into the perceptions either of man or brutes, imposeupon us the duty of anticipating their feelings, and of treating them ina corresponding or tender manner. 

If we take a view of other customs, into which the Quakers have thoughtit right to introduce regulations with a view of keeping their memberspure and innocent, we learn other lessons of usefulness. Thus, forexample, the reader, if he does not choose to adopt their dress, mayobtain desirable knowledge upon this subject. He will see that the twogreat objects of dress are decency and comfort. He will see, thoughChristianity prescribes neither colour nor shape for the clothing, thatit is not indifferent about it. It enjoins simplicity and plainness, because, where men pay an undue attention to the exterior, they are indanger of injuring the dignity of their minds. It discards ornamentsfrom the use of apparel, because these, by puffing up the creature, maybe productive of vanity and pride. It forbids all unreasonable changeson the plea of conformity with fashion, because the following of fashionbegets a worldly spirit, and because, in proportion as men indulge thisspirit, they are found to follow the loose and changeable morality ofthe world, instead of the strict and steady morality of the Gospel. 

On the subject of language, though the reader may be unwilling to adoptall the singularities of the Quakers, he may collect a lesson that maybe useful to him in life. He may discover the necessity of abstainingfrom all expressions of flattery, because the use of these may bemorally injurious to himself by abridging the independence of his mind, and by promoting superstition; while it may be injurious to others, byoccasioning them to think more highly of themselves than they ought, andmore degradingly of their fellow-creatures. He may discover also thenecessity of adhering to the truth in all expressions, whether in hisconversation or in his letters; that there is always a consistency intruth, and an inconsistency in falsehood; that as expressions accordwith the essences, qualities, properties and characters of things, theyare more or less proper; and that an attempt to adhere to the truth isproductive of moral good, while a departure from it may lead into error, independently of its injury as a moral evil. 

With respect to the address, or the complimentary gestures or ceremoniesof the world, if he be not inclined to reject them totally as theQuakers do, he may find that there may be unquestionably evil in them, if they are to be adjudged by the purity of the Christian system. He mayperceive, that there may be as much flattery and as great a violation oftruth through the medium of the body, as through the medium of thetongue, and that the same mental degradation, or toss of dignifiedindependence of mind, may insensibly follow. 

On the subject of conversation and manners, he may learn the proprietyof caution as to the use of idle words; of abstaining from scandal anddetraction; of withholding his assent to customs when started, howeverfashionable, if immoral; of making himself useful by the dignity of thetopic he introduces, and by the decorum with which he handles it; ofnever allowing his sprightliness to border upon folly, or his wit uponlewdness, but to clothe all his remarks in an innocent and a simplemanner. 

From the subject of customs connected with meals, such as that, forexample, of saying grace, he may team that this is a devotional act;that it is not to be said as a mere ceremony, by thanking the SupremeBeing in so many words while the thoughts are roving on other subjects, but that it should be said with seriousness and feeling, and that itshould never come as an oblation from the tongue, except it come alsoan oblation from the heart. And on that which relates to the drinking oftoasts, he may see the moral necessity of an immediate extirpation ofit. He may see that this custom has not one useful or laudable end inview; that it is a direct imitation of Pagans in the worst way in whichwe can follow them--their enjoyment of sensual pleasures; that it leadsdirectly and almost inevitably to drunkenness, and of course to thedegradation of the rational and moral character. 

A second advantage, which they who compose the world may derive on thisoccasion, will be seen from a recapitulation of some of the principleswhich the work contains. The advantage in question will chiefly consistin this, that, whatever these principles may be, they may be said to besuch as have been adopted by a moral people, and this after seriousdeliberation, and solely on a religious ground. It is of greatimportance from whence principles come recommended to our notice. Ifthey come from the inconsiderate and worthless, they lose their value. If from the sober and religious, we receive them under the impression, that they may be promotive of our good. I shall give therefore a summaryof these, as they may be collected from the work. 

God has imparted to men a portion of his own Spirit, though he hasgiven it to them indifferent degrees. Without this Spirit it would beimpossible for them to discern spiritual things. Without this it wouldbe impossible for them to know spiritually, even that the Scriptureswere of divine authority, or spiritually to understand them. This Spiritperforms its office of a teacher by internal monitions, and, ifencouraged, even by the external objects of creation. It is also aprimary and infallible guide. It is given to all without exception. Itis given to all sufficiently. They who resist it, quench it, and this totheir own condemnation. They who encourage it receive it moreabundantly, and are in the way of salvation and redemption. This Spirittherefore becomes a Redeemer also. Redemption may he considered in twopoints of view, as it is either by outward or inward means, or as itrelates to past sins or to sins to come. Jesus Christ effectedredemption of the first kind, or that from past sins, while he waspersonally upon earth, by the sacrifice of himself. But it is thisSpirit, or Christ within, as the Quakers call it, which effects thelatter, or which preserves from future transgressions. It is this Spiritwhich leads, by means of its inward workings, to a new birth, andfinally to the highest perfection of which our nature is capable. Inthis office of an inward Redeemer, it visits all, so that all may besaved, if they will attend to its saving operations, God being notwilling that any should perish, but that all should inherit eternallife. 

This Spirit also qualifies men for the ministry. It qualifies women alsofor this office as well as men. It dictates the true season for silence, and the true season for utterance, both in public and private worship. 

Jesus Christ was man because he took flesh, and inhabited the body whichhad been prepared for him; but he was Divinity, because he was the Word. 

A resurrection will be effected, but not of the body as it is. Rewardsand punishments will follow, but guilt will not be imputed to men tillthey have actually committed sin. 

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are essentials of the Christian religion. They are not, however, essentials as outward ordinances, but only asthey are administered by the Holy Spirit. 

Civil government is for the protection of virtue and for the removal ofvice. Obedience should be paid to all its laws, where the conscience isnot violated in doing it. To defraud it in any manner of its revenues, or to take up arms on any consideration against it, is unlawful. But ifmen cannot conscientiously submit to any one or more of its ordinances, they are not to temporize, but to obey Jesus Christ rather than theirown governors in this particular case. They are, however, to be willingto submit to all the penalties which the latter may inflict upon themfor so doing. And as no Christian ought to temporize in the case of anylaws enjoined him by the government under which he lives, so neitherought he to do it in the case of any of the customs or fashions, whichmay be enjoined him by the world. 

All civil oaths are forbidden in Christianity. The word of everyChristian should be equivalent to his oath. 

It is not lawful to return evil for evil, nor to shed the blood of man. All wars are forbidden. 

It is more honourable, and more consistent with the genius and spirit ofChristianity, and the practice of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles, andof the primitive Christians, that men should preach the Gospel freely, than that they should live by it, as by a profession or by a trade. 

All men are brethren by creation. Christianity makes no difference inthis respect between Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bond andfree. No geographical boundaries, nor colour of the skin or person, nordifference of religious sentiment, can dissolve this relationshipbetween them. 

All men are born equal with respect to privileges. But as they fall intodifferent situations and ranks of life, they become distinguished. InChristianity, however, there is no respect of persons, or no distinctionof them, but by their virtue. Nobility and riches can never conferworth, nor can poverty screen from a just appropriation of disgrace. 

Man is a temple in which the Divinity may reside. He is therefore to belooked upon and treated with due respect. No Christian ought to lowerhis dignity, or to suffer him, if he can help it, to become theinstrument of his own degradation. 

Man is a being, for whose spiritual welfare every Christian should besolicitous, and a creature therefore worthy of all the pains that can bebestowed upon him for the preservation of his moral character. 

The first object in the education of man should be the propersubjugation of his will. 

No man ought to be persecuted or evil spoken of for a difference inreligious opinion. Nor is detraction or slander allowable in any case. 

Every religious community should consider the poor belonging to it asmembers of the same family, for whose wants and comforts it is a dutyto provide. The education also of the children of these should beprovided for. 

It is enjoined us to live in peace with all men. All quarrels thereforeare to be avoided between man and man. But if differences arise, theyare to be adjusted by arbitration, and not, except it be otherwiseimpossible, by going to law, and never by violence. 

If men offend against the laws, they should be prevented from doinginjuries in future, but never by the punishment of the loss of life. Thereformation of a criminal, which includes a prevention of a repetitionof such injuries, is the great object to be regarded in thejurisprudence of Christians. 

In political matters there is no safe reasoning but upon principle. Noman is to do evil that good may come. The policy of the Gospel is neverto be deserted, whatever may be the policy of the world. 

Trade is an employment, by means of which we are permitted to gain alivelihood. But all trades are not lawful. Men are responsible, asChristians, for engaging in those which are immoral, or far continuingin those which they may carry on either to the moral detriment ofthemselves or of others. Abstinence from hazardous enterprises by thefailure of which innocent persons might be injured, and honesty indealing, and punctuality to words and engagements, are essentials inthe prosecution of trade. 

Having made observations on the customs, and brought to the view of thereader some of the prominent principles of the Quakers, a thirdadvantage will arise from knowing the kind of character, which these inconjunction will produce. 

On this subject we might be permitted our conjectures. We might insistupon the nature and immediate tendencies of these customs andprinciples, and we might draw our conclusions from thence, or we mightstate how they were likely to operate, so as probably not to be far fromthe truth. But we are spared both the trouble of such a task, and arerelieved from the fear of having the accuracy of our conclusionsdoubted. The Quaker character has been made up from the acknowledgmentsof others. It has been shewn that they are a moral people; that they aresober, and inoffensive, and quiet; that they are benevolent to man inhis religious and temporal capacity; that they are kind ortender-hearted to animals; that they do not make sacrifices of theirconsciences to others; that in political affairs they reason uponprinciple; that they are punctual to their words and engagements; andthat they have independence of mind, and courage. Their character, as itis defective, has been explained also. It has been probed, and tried bya proper touchstone. Appearances have been separated from realities. Theresult has been, that a deficiency in literature and science, and thatsuperstition, and that an undue eagerness after money, has been fixedupon a portion of them. The two former, however, it is to berecollected, are only intellectually defective traits, and mayberemedied by knowledge. The latter, it is to be presumed, belongs ratherto individuals than to the society at large. But whatever drawbacks maybe made from the perfect by the imperfect qualities that have beenstated, there is a great preponderancy on the side of virtue. And where, when we consider the evil propensities of our nature, and the difficultyof keeping these in due order, are we to took for a fairer character?That men, as individuals, may be more perfect, both in and out of thesociety, is not to be denied. But where shall we find them purer as abody? and where shall we find a faulty character, where the remedy ismore easily at hand?

The next advantage will be in seeing the manner of the operation ofthese customs and principles, or how they act. To go over the wholecharacter of the Quakers with this view would be both tedious andunnecessary. I shall therefore only select one or two parts of it for mypurpose. And first, how do these customs and principles producebenevolence? I reply thus: The Quakers, in consequence of theirprohibitions against all public amusements, have never seen man in thecapacity of a hired buffoon or mimic, or as a purchasable plaything. Hence they have never viewed him in a low and degrading light. Inconsequence of their tenet on war, they have never viewed him as anenemy. In consequence of their disciplinary principles, they have viewedhim as an equal. Hence it appears, that they have no prejudices againsthim from causes which often weigh with others, either on account ofrank, or station, or many of the customs of the world. Now I conceive, that the dereliction of prejudice against man is as necessary, as afirst measure, to the production of benevolence towards him, as thedereliction of vice towards the production of virtue. We see then theirminds free from bias on this subject. But what is there on the otherside to operate actively towards the promotion of this trait? They viewman, in the first place, as the temple in which the Divinity may reside. This procures him respect. Secondly, as a being for whose spiritualwelfare they ought to be solicitous. This produces a concern for him. And thirdly, as a brother. This produces relationship. We see then theground cleared. We see all noxious weeds extirpated. We see good seedsown in their places; that is, we see prejudices removed from the heart, and we see the ideas of respect, concern, and relationship implanted init. Now it is impossible that these ideas, under these circumstances, should not as naturally and immediately produce a general benevolence toman, as common seeds, when all obstructive weeds are removed, shouldproduce their corresponding saplings or flowers. 

How again are these customs and principles of the Quakers promotive ofindependence of mind? I answer thus: There is a natural independence ofmind in man, but it is often broken and weakened. Some men injure it bythe solicitation and acceptance of honours, and pensions, and places;others by flattery and falsehood; others by customs of obeisance; othersby their obedience to fashion. But the independence of mind of theQuakers is not stunted in its growth by the chiding blasts of suchcircumstances and habits. It is invigorated, on the other hand, by theirown laws. No servility is allowed either in word or gesture. Neitherthat which is written, nor that which is uttered, is to please thevanity of the persons addressed, or to imply services never intended tobe performed. The knee is not to be bent to any one. It is strengthenedagain and made to shoot by their own maxims. Is it possible to be in thehabit of viewing all men as equal in privileges, and no one as superiorto another but by his virtue, and not to feel a disposition that mustsupport it? Can the maxim of never doing evil that good may come, whencalled into exercise, do otherwise than cherish it? And can reasoningupon principle have any other effect than that of being promotive ofits growth?

These then are the ways in which these customs and principles operate. Now the advantage to be derived from seeing this manner of theiroperation, consists in this: First, that we know to a certainty, thatthey act towards the production of virtue. Knowing again what thesecustoms and principles are, we know those which we are bound to cherish. We find also, that there are various springs which act upon the moralconstitution for the formation of character. We find some of these greatand powerful, and others inferior. This consideration should teach usnot to despise even those which are the least, if they have but atendency to promote our purity. For if the effect of any of them be onlysmall, a number of effects of little causes or springs, when addedtogether, may be as considerable as a large one. Of these again weobserve, that some are to be round where many would hardly have expectedthem. This consideration should make us careful to look into all ourcustoms and principles, that we may not overlook any one which we mayretain for our moral good. And as we learn the lesson of becomingvigilant to discover every good spring, and not to neglect the least ofthese, however subtle its operation, so we learn the necessity ofvigilance to detect every spring or cause, and this even the least, whether in our customs or our principles, if it should in its tendencybe promotive of vice. 

And in the same manner we may argue with respect to other productions ofthese customs and principles of the Quakers. As we have seen the latterlead to character, so we have seen them lead to happiness. The manner oftheir operation to this end has been also equally discernible. As wevalue them because they produce the one, so we should value them becausethey produce the other. We have seen also which of them to value. And weshould be studious to cherish the very least of these, as we should becareful to discard the least of those which are productive of real andmerited unhappiness to the mind. 

And now, having expended my observations on the tendencies of thecustoms and principles of the Quakers, I shall conclude by expressing awish, that the work which I have written may be useful. I have a wish, that it may be useful to those who may be called the world, by givingthem an insight into many excellent institutions, of which they werebefore ignorant, but which may be worthy of their support and theirpatronage. I have a wish also, that it may be useful to the Quakersthemselves, first, by letting them see how their own character may beyet improved; and secondly, by preserving them, in some measure, bothfrom unbecoming remarks, and from harsh usage, on the part of theirfellow-citizens of a different denomination from themselves. For surelywhen it is known, as I hope it is by this time, that they have moral andreligious grounds for their particularities, we shall no longer heartheir scruples branded with the name of follies and obstinacies, or seemagistrates treating them with a needless severity, but giving[58] them, on the other hand, all the indulgences they can, consistently with theexecution of the laws. In proportion as this utility is produced, mydesign will be answered in the production of the work, and I shallreceive pleasure in having written it. And this pleasure will be subjectonly to one drawback, which will unavoidably arise in the present case;for I cannot but regret that I have not had more time to bestow upon it, or that some other person has not appeared, who possessing an equalknowledge of the Quakers with myself, but better qualified in otherrespects, might have employed his talents more to the advantage of thesubjects upon which I have treated in these volumes. 

[Footnote 58: Some magistrates, much to their honour, treat them withtenderness; and no people are more forward than the Quakers inacknowledging any attention that may be shewn them, but particularlywhere their religious scruples may be concerned. ]

END OF THE THIRD VOLUME