[112] Robert Barclay, _An Apology for the True Christian Divinity; being
an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the
People Called Quakers_ (Philadelphia: Friends' Book Store, 1908),
Proposition XIV, Section VI, 480.
[113] A. Ruth Fry, _Quaker Ways: An Attempt to Explain Quaker Beliefs
and Practices and to Illustrate them by the Lives and Activities of
Friends of Former Days_ (London: Cassell, 1933), 126, 131.
[114] Quoted by Margaret E. Hirst, _The Quakers in Peace and War: an
Account of Their Peace Principles and Practice_ (New York: George H.
Doran, 1923), 115-116.
[115] Quoted in Fry, _Quaker Ways_, 128-129.
[116] Hirst, 327; Rufus M. Jones, _The Quakers in the American Colonies_
(London: Macmillan, 1923), 3-135.
Coercion or Persuasion?
A man who is willing to undergo imprisonment and even death itself
rather than to cease doing what he believes is right knows in his own
heart that coercion is not an effective means of persuasion. The early
Quakers saw this clearly. Barclay stated his conviction in these words:
"This forcing of men's consciences is contrary to sound reason, and
the very law of nature. For man's understanding cannot be forced by
all the bodily sufferings another man can inflict upon him,
especially in matters spiritual and super-natural: 'Tis argument,
and evident demonstration of reason, together with the power of God
reaching the heart, that can change a man's mind from one opinion
to another, and not knocks and blows, and such like things, which
may well destroy the body, but never can inform the soul, which is
a free agent, and must either accept or reject matters of opinion
as they are borne in upon it by something proportioned to its own
nature."[117]
And William Penn said more simply, "Gaols and gibbets are inadequate
methods for conversion: this forbids all further light to come into the
world."[118]
Other religious groups who went through experiences comparable to those
of the Friends came to similar conclusions. The Church of the Brethren,
founded in 1709 in Germany, took as one of its leading principles that
"there shall be no force in religion," and carried it out so faithfully
that they would not baptize children, on the ground that this act would
coerce them into membership in the church before they could decide to
join of their own free will. The Brethren have refused to take part in
war not only because it is contrary to the spirit of Christian love, and
destroys sacred human life, but also because it is coercive and
interferes with the free rights of others.[119]
For the person who believes in the practice of positive goodwill towards
all men, the refusal to use coercion arises from its incompatibility
with the spirit of positive regard for every member of the human family,
rather than being a separate value in itself. In social situations this
regard may express itself in various ways. It may have a desirable
result from the point of view of the practitioner, but again we must
emphasize that he does what he does on the basis of principle; the
result is a secondary consideration.