CHAPTER XVI.

Sect. I.--_Two suppers, the one instituted by Moses, the other by Jesus

Christ--The first called the passover--Ancient and modern manner of its

celebration._

Sect. II.--_Second, enjoined by Jesus at Capernaum--This wholly, of a

spiritual nature--Way in which this may be enjoyed._

Sect. III.--_Quakers say that Jesus instituted no new supper distinct

from that of the passover, and which was to render null and void that

enjoined at Capernaum, at a rite of the Christian church--No such

institution to be collected from St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. John._

Sect. IV.--_Nor from St. Luke--St. Luke only says, that all future

passovers of the Disciples with Christ were to be spiritual--but if, as

Jews, they could not all at once abdicate the passover to which they had

been educated, they were to celebrate it with a new meaning--But no

acknowledged permission of it to others._

Sect. V.--_Nor from St. Paul--St. Paul only says that the passover, as

spiritualized by Jesus, was allowed to his disciples, or to the Jewish

converts, who could not all at once lay aside their prejudices

concerning it, but that it was to last only for a time--Different

opinions about this time--That of the Quakers concerning it._

Sect. VI.--_Had a new supper, distinct from that of the passover, been

intended as a ceremonial of the Christian church, it would have been

commanded to others besides the disciples, and its duration would not

have been limited--Reasons from St. Paul, to show that he himself did

not probably consider it as a Christian ordinance--Whereas the supper

enjoined at Capernaum, was to be eternal--and universal--and an

essential with all Christians._

PECULIAR CUSTOMS

OF THE

_QUAKERS_.

(CONTINUED)

VOL. II B.

PECULIAR CUSTOMS

OF THE

QUAKERS.

CHAP. I.

SECTION I.

_Marriage--Quakers differ in many respects from others, on the subject

of Marriage--George Fox introduced Regulations concerning it--Protested

against the usual manner of the celebration of it--Gave an example of

what he recommended--Present regulations of the Quakers on this

subject._

In the continuation of the Customs of the Quakers, a subject which I

purpose to resume in the present volume, I shall begin with that of

Marriage.

The Quakers differ from others in many of their regulations concerning

this custom. They differ also in the manner of the celebration of it.

And, as they differ in these respects, so they experience generally a

different result. The Quakers, as a married, may be said to be a happy,

people. Hence the detailers of scandal, have rarely had it in their

power to promulgate a Quaker adultery. Nor have the lawyers had an

opportunity in our public courts of proclaiming a Quaker divorce.

George Fox suggested many regulations on this subject. He advised, among

other things, when persons had it in contemplation to marry, that they

should lay their intention before the monthly meetings, both of the men

and women. He advised also, that the consent of their parents should be

previously obtained, and certified to these. Thus he laid the foundation

for greater harmony in the approaching union. He advised again, that an

inquiry should be made, if the parties were clear of engagements or

promises of marriage to others, and, if they were not, that they should

be hindered from proceeding. Thus, he cut off some of the causes of the

interruption of connubial happiness, by preventing uneasy reflections,

or suits at law, after the union had taken place. He advised also, in

the case of second marriages, that any offspring resulting from the

former, should have their due rights and a proper provision secured to

them, before they were allowed to be solemnized. Thus he gave a greater

chance for happiness, by preventing mercenary motives from becoming the

causes of the union of husbands and wives.

But George Fox, as he introduced these and other salutary regulations on

the subject of Marriage, so he introduced a new manner of the

celebration of it. He protested against the manner of the world, that

is, against the formal prayers and exhortations as they were repeated,

and against the formal ceremonies, an they were practised by the Parish

Priest. He considered that it was God, who joined man and woman before

the fall; and that in Christian times, or where the man was truly

renovated in heart, there could be no other right or honourable way of

union. Consistently with this view of the subject, he observed, that in

the ancient scriptural times, persons took each other in marriage in the

assemblies of the Elders; and there was no record, from the Book of

Genesis to that of Revelations, of any marriage by a Priest. Hence it

became his new society, as a religious or renovated people, to abandon

apostate usages, and to adopt a manner that was more agreeable to their

new state.

George Fox gave in his own marriage, an example of all that he had thus

recommended to the society. Having agreed with Margaret Fell, the widow

of Judge Fell, upon the propriety of their union as husband and wife,

he desired her to send for her children. As soon as they were come, he

asked them and their respective husbands,[1] "If they had any thing

against it, or for it, desiring them to speak? and they all severally

expressed their _satisfaction therein_. Then he asked Margaret, if she

had fulfilled and performed her husband's Will to her children? She

replied, the _children know that_. Whereupon he asked them, whether, if

their mother married, they should not lose by it? And he asked Margaret,

whether she had done any thing in lieu of it, which might answer it to

the children? The children said, _she had answered it to them_, and

desired him to _speak no more about that_. He told them, that he was

plain, and that he would have all things done plainly; for he sought not

any outward advantage to himself. So, after he had acquainted the

children with it, their intention of marriage was laid before Friends,

both privately and publicly;" and afterwards a meeting being appointed

for the accomplishment of the marriage, in the public Meeting-house at

Broad Mead, in Bristol, they took each other in marriage, in the plain

and simple manner as then practised, and which he himself had originally

recommended to his followers.

[Footnote 1: G. Fox's Journal, Vol. 2. p. 135.]

The regulations concerning marriage, and the manner of the celebration

of it, which obtained in the time of George Fox, nearly obtain among the

Quakers of the present day.

When marriage is agreed upon between two persons, the man and the woman,

at one of the monthly meetings, publicly declare their intention, and

ask leave to proceed. At this time their parents, if living, must either

appear, or send certificates to signify their consent. This being done,

two men are appointed by the men's meeting, and two women are appointed

by that of the women, to wait upon the man and woman respectively, and

to learn from themselves, as well as by other inquiry, if they stand

perfectly clear from any marriage-promises and engagements to others. At

the next monthly meeting the deputation make their report. If either of

the parties is reported to have given expectation of marriage to any

other individual, the proceedings are stopped till the matter be

satisfactorily explained. But if they are both of them reported to be

clear in this respect, they are at liberty to proceed, and one or more

persons of respectability of each sex, are deputed to see that the

marriage be conducted in an orderly manner.

In the case of second marriages, additional instructions are sometimes

given; for if any of the parties thus intimating their intentions of

marrying should have children alive, the same persons, who were deputed

to inquire into their clearness from all other engagements, are to see

that the rights of such children be legally secured.

When the parties are considered to be free, by the reports of the

deputation, to proceed upon their union, they appoint a suitable day for

the celebration of it, which is generally one of the week-day meetings

for worship. On this day they repair to the Meeting-house with their

friends. The congregation, when seated, sit in silence. Perhaps some

minister is induced to speak. After a suitable time has elapsed, the man

and the woman rise up together, and, taking each other by the hand,

declare publicly, that they thus take each other as husband and wife.

This constitutes their marriage. By way, however, of evidence of their

union, a paper is signed by the man and woman, in the presence of three

witnesses, who sign it also, in which it is stated that they have so

taken each other in marriage. And, in addition to this, though, it be

not a necessary practice, another paper is generally produced and read,

stating concisely the proceedings of the parties in their respective

Meetings for the purpose of their marriage, and the declaration made by

them, as having taken each other as man and wife. This is signed by the

parties, their relations, and frequently by many of their friends, and

others present. All marriages of other Dissenters are celebrated in the

established churches, according to the ceremonies of the same. But the

marriages of the Quakers are valid by law in their own Meeting-houses,

when solemnised in this simple manner.

SECT. II.

_Quakers, marrying out of the Society, to be disowned--That regulation

charged with pride and cruelty--Reasons for this disownment are--That

mixed Marriages cannot be celebrated without a violation of same of the

great Principles of the Society--That they are generally productive of

disputes and uneasiness to those concerned--and that the discipline

cannot be carried on in such families._

Among the regulations suggested by George Fox, and adopted by his

followers, it was determined that persons, belonging to the society,

should not intermarry with those of other religious professions. Such an

heterogeneous union was denominated a _mixed marriage_; and persons,

engaging in such mixed marriages, were to be disowned.

People of other denominations have charged the Quakers with a more than

usually censurable pride, on account of their adoption of this law. They

consider them as looking down upon the rest of their fellow-creatures,

as so inferior or unholy, as not to deign or to dare to mix in alliance

with them, or as looking upon them in the same light as the Jews

considered the Heathen, or the Greeks the Barbarian world. And they have

charged them also with as much cruelty as pride, on the same account. "A

Quaker, they say, feels himself strongly attached to an accomplished

woman; but she does not belong to the society. He wishes to marry, but

he cannot marry her on account of its laws. Having a respect for the

society, he looks round it again, but he looks round it in vain. He

finds no one equal to this woman; no one, whom he could love so well. To

marry one in the society, while he loves another out of it better, would

be evidently wrong. If he does not marry her, he makes the greatest of

all sacrifices, for he loses that which he supposes would constitute a

source of enjoyment to him for the remainder of his life. If he marries

her, he is expelled the society; and this, without having been guilty of

an immoral offence."

One of the reasons, which the Quakers give for the adoption of this law

of disownment in the case of mixed marriages, is, that those who engage

in them violate some of the most important principles of the society,

and such indeed as are distinguishing characteristics of Quakerism from

the religion of the world.

It is a religious tenet of the Quakers, as will be shown in its proper

place, that no appointment of man can make a minister of the gospel, and

that no service, consisting of an artificial form of words, to be

pronounced on stated occasions, can constitute a religious act; for that

the spirit of God is essentially necessary to create the one, and to

produce the other. It is also another tenet with them, that no minister

of a christian church, ought to be paid for his Gospel-labours. This

latter tenet is held so sacred by the Quakers, that it affords one

reason among others, why they refuse payment of tithes, and other

demands of the church, preferring to suffer loss by distraints for them,

than to comply with them in the usual manner. Now these two principles

are essentials of Quakerism. But no person, who marries out of the

society, can be legally married without going through the forms of the

established church. Those therefore who submit to this ceremony, as

performed by a priest, acknowledge, according to the Quakers, the

validity of an human appointment of the ministry. They acknowledge the

validity of an artificial service in religion. They acknowledge the

propriety of paying a Gospel-minister for the discharge of his office.

The Quakers, therefore, consider those who marry out of the society, as

guilty of such a dereliction of Quaker-principles, that they can be no

longer considered as sound or consistent members.

But independently of the violation of these principles, which the

Quakers take as the strongest ground for their conduct on such an

occasion, they think themselves warranted in disowning, from a

contemplation of the consequences, which have been known to result from

these marriages.

In the first place, disownment is held to be necessary, because it acts

as a check upon such marriages, and because, by acting as such a check,

it prevents the family-disputes and disagreements which might otherwise

arise; for such marriages have been found to be more productive of

uneasiness than of enjoyment. When two persons of different religious

principles, a Quaker for example, and a woman of the church, join in

marriage, it is almost impossible that they should not occasionally

differ. The subject of religion arises, and perhaps some little

altercation with it, as the Sunday comes. The one will not go to church,

and the other will not go to meeting. These disputes do not always die

with time. They arise, however, more or less, according to

circumstances. If neither of the parties set any value upon their

religious opinions, there will be but little occasion for dispute. If

both of them, on the other hand, are of a serious cast, much will depend

upon the liberality of their sentiments: but, generally speaking, it

falls to the lot of but few to be free from religious prejudices. And

here it may be observed, that points in religion also may occasionally

be suggested, which may bring with them the seeds of temporary

uneasiness. People of other religious denominations generally approach

nearer to one another in their respective creeds, than the Quakers to

either of them. Most christians agree, for example, in the use of

Baptism in some form or other, and also in the celebration of the Lord's

Supper. But the Quakers, as will be shown in this volume, consider these

ordinances in a spiritual light, admitting no ceremonials in so pure a

system as that of the Christian religion.

But these differences, which may thus soon or late take their rise upon

these or other subjects, where the parties set a value on their

respective religious opinions, cannot fail of being augmented by new

circumstances in time. The parties in question have children. The

education of these is now a subject of the most important concern. New

disputes are engendered on this head, both adhering to their respective

tenets as the best to be embraced by their rising offspring. Unable at

length to agree on this point, a sort of compromise takes place. The

boys are denied, while the girls are permitted, baptism. The boys,

again, are brought up to meeting, and the girls to church, or they go

to church and meeting alternately. In the latter case, none of the

children can have any fixed principles. Nor will they be much better off

in the former. There will be frequently an opposition of each other's

religious opinions, and a constant hesitation and doubt about the

consistency of these. There are many points, which the mothers will

teach the daughters as right, or essential, but which the fathers will

teach the sons as erroneous or unimportant. Thus disputes will be

conveyed to the children. In their progress through life other

circumstances may arise, which may give birth to feelings of an

unpleasant nature. The daughters will be probably instructed in the

accomplishments of the world. They will be also introduced to the

card-room, and to assemblies, and to the theatre, in their turn. The

boys will be admitted to neither. The latter will of course feel their

pleasures abridged, and consider their case as hard, and their father as

morose and cruel. Little jealousies may arise upon this difference of

their treatment, which may be subversive of filial and fraternal

affection. Nor can religion be called in to correct them; for while the

two opposite examples of father and mother, and of sisters and brothers,

are held out to be right, there will be considerable doubts as to what

are religious truths.

The Quakers urge again in behalf of their law against mixed marriages,

that if these were not forbidden, it would be impossible to carry on the

discipline of the society. The truth of this may be judged by the

preceding remarks. For if the family were divided into two parties, as

has been just stated, on account of their religion, it would be but in a

kind of mongrel-state. If, for instance, it were thought right, that the

Quaker-part of it should preserve the simplicity of the Quaker-dress,

and the plainness of the Quaker-language, how is this to be done, while

the other part daily move in the fashions, and are taught as a right

usage, to persist in the phrases of the world? If, again, the

Quaker-part of it are to be kept from the amusements prohibited by the

society, how is this to be effected, while the other part of it speak of

them from their own experience, with rapture or delight? It would be

impossible, therefore, in the opinion of the Quakers, in so mixed a

family, to keep up that discipline, which they consider as the

corner-stone of their constitutional fabric, and which may be said to

have been an instrument in obtaining for them the character of a moral

people.

SECT. III.

_But though persons are thus disowned, they may be restored to

membership--Generally understood, however, that they must previously

express their repentance for their marriages--This confession of

repentance censured by the world--But is admissible without the

criminality supposed--The word repentance misunderstood by the world._

But though the Quakers may disown such as marry out of their society, it

does not follow that these may not be reinstated as members. If these

should conduct themselves after their disownment in an orderly manner,

and, still retaining their attachment to the society, should bring up

their children in the principles and customs of it, they may, if they

apply for restoration, obtain it, with all their former privileges and

rights.

The children also of such as marry out of the society, though they are

never considered to be members of it, may yet become so in particular

cases. The society advises that the monthly meetings, should extend a

tender care towards such children, and that they should be admitted

into membership at the discretion of the said meetings, either in

infancy or in maturer age.

But here I must stop to make a few observations, on an opinion which

prevails upon this subject. It is generally understood that the Quakers,

in their restoration of disowned persons to membership, require them

previously and publicly to acknowledge, that they have _repented_ of

their marriages. This obligation to make this public confession of

repentance, has given to many a handle for heavy charges against them.

Indeed I scarcely know, in any part of the Quaker-system, where people

are louder in their censures, than upon this point. "A man, they say,

cannot express his penitence for his marriage without throwing a stigma

upon his wife. To do this is morally wrong, if he has no fault to find

with her. To do it, even if she has been in fault, is indelicate. And

not to do it, is to forego his restoration to membership. This law

therefore of the Quakers is considered to be immoral, because it may

lead both to hypocrisy and falsehood."

I shall not take up much time in correcting the notions that have gone

abroad on this subject.

Of those who marry out of the society, it may be presumed that there are

some, who were never considered to be sound in the Quaker-principles,

and these are generally they who intermarry with the world. Now they,

who compose this class, generally live after their marriages, as happily

out of the society as when they were in it. Of course, these do not

repent of the change. And if they do not repent, they never sue for

restoration to membership. They cannot, therefore, incur any of the

charges in question. Nor can the society be blamed in this case, who, by

never asking them to become members, never entice them to any

objectionable repentance.

Of those again, who marry out of the society, there may be individuals,

so attached to its communion, that it was never imagined they would have

acted in this manner. Now of these, it may in general be said, that they

often bitterly repent. They find, soon or late, that the opposite

opinions and manners, to be found in their union, do not harmonize. And

here it may be observed, that it is very possible, that such persons may

say they repent without any crimination of their wives. A man, for

instance, may have found in his wife all the agreeableness of temper,

all the domestic virtue and knowledge, all the liberality of religious

opinion, which he had anticipated; but in consequence of the mixed

principles resulting from mixed marriages, or of other unforeseen

causes, he may be so alarmed about the unsteady disposition of his

children and their future prospects, that the pain which he feels on

these accounts may overbalance the pleasure, which he acknowledges in

the constant prudence, goodness, solicitude, and affection, of his wife.

This may be so much the case, that all her consolatory offices may not

be able to get the better of his grief. A man, therefore, in such

circumstances, may truly repent of his marriage, or that he was ever the

father of such children, though he can never complain as the husband of

such a wife.

The truth, however, is, that those who make the charge in question, have

entirely misapplied the meaning of the word _repent_. People are not

called upon to express their sorrow, for _having married the objects of

their choice_, but for _having violated those great tenets of the

society_, which have been already mentioned, and which form

distinguishing characteristics between Quakerism and the religion of the

world. Those, therefore, who say they repent, say no more than what any

other persons might be presumed to say, who had violated the religious

tenets of any other society to which they might have belonged, or who

had flown in the face of what they had imagined to be religious truths.

SECT. IV.

_Of persons, disowned for marriage, the greater proportion is said to

consist of women--Causes assigned for this difference of number in the

two sexes._

It will perhaps appear a curious fact to the world, but I am told it is

true, that the number of the women, disowned for marrying out of the

society, far exceeds the number of the men, who are disowned on the same

account.

It is not difficult, if the fact be as it is stated, to assign a reason

for this difference of number in the two sexes.

When men wish to marry, they wish, at least if they are men of sense, to

find such women as are virtuous; to find such as are prudent and

domestic, and such as have a proper sense of the folly and dissipation

of the Fashionable world; such in fact as will make good mothers and

good wives. Now if a Quaker looks into his own society, he will

generally find the female part of it of this description. Female Quakers

excel in these points. But if he looks into the world at large, he will

in general find a contrast in the females there. These, in general, are

but badly educated. They are taught to place a portion of their

happiness in finery and show: utility is abandoned for fashion: The

knowledge of the etiquette of the drawing-room usurps the place of the

knowledge of the domestic duties: A kind of false and dangerous taste

predominates: Scandal and the card-table are preferred to the pleasures

of a rural walk: Virtue and Modesty are seen with only half their

energies, being overpowered by the noxiousness of novel-reading

principles, and by the moral taint which infects those who engage in the

varied rounds of a fashionable life. Hence a want of knowledge, a love

of trifles, and a dissipated turn of mind, generally characterize those

who are considered as having had the education of the world.

We see therefore a good reason why Quaker-men should confine themselves

in their marriages to their own society. But the same reason, which thus

operates with Quaker-men in the choice of Quaker-women, operates with

men who are not of the society, in choosing them also for their wives.

These are often no strangers to the good education, and to the high

character, of the Quaker-females. Fearful often of marrying among the

badly educated women of their own persuasion, they frequently address

themselves to this society, and not unfrequently succeed.

To this it may be added, that if Quaker-men were to attempt to marry out

of their own society, they would not in general be well received. Their

dress and their manners are considered as uncouth in the eyes of the

female-world, and would present themselves as so many obstacles in the

way of their success. The women of this description generally like a

smart and showy exterior. They admire heroism and spirit. But neither

such an exterior, nor such spirit, are to be seen in the Quaker-men. The

dress of the Quaker-females, on the other hand, is considered as neat

and elegant, and their modesty and demeanor as worthy of admiration.

From these circumstances they captivate. Hence the difference, both in

the inward and outward person, between the men and the women of this

society, renders the former not so pleasing, while it renders the latter

objects of admiration, and even choice.

CHAP. II.

SECTION I.

_Funerals--Most nations have paid extravagant attention to their

dead--The moderns follow their example--This extravagance, or the

pageantry of funerals, discarded by the Quakers--Their reasons for

it--Plainness of Quaker-funerals._

If we look into the history of the world, we shall find, from whatever

cause it has arisen, whether from any thing connected with our moral

feelings, such as love, gratitude, or respect, or from vanity, or

ostentation, that almost all nations, where individuals have been able

to afford it, have incurred considerable expense in the interment of

their dead. The Greeks were often very extravagant in their funerals.

Many persons, ornamented with garlands, followed the corpse, while

others were employed in singing and dancing before it. At the funerals

of the great, among the Romans, couches were carried, containing the

waxen or other images of the family of the deceased, and hundreds joined

in the procession. In our own times, we find a difference in the manner

of furnishing or decorating funerals, though but little in the intention

of making them objects of outward show. A bearer of plumes precedes the

procession. The horses employed are dressed in trappings. The hearse

follows ornamented with plumes of feathers, and gilded and silvered with

gaudy escutcheons, or the armorial bearings of the progenitors of the

deceased. A group of hired persons range themselves on each side of the

hearse and attendant carriages, while others close the procession. These

again are all of them clad in long cloaks, or furnished, in regular

order, with scarfs and hat-bands. Now all these outward appendages,

which may be called the pageantry of funerals, the Quakers have

discarded, from the time of their institution, in the practice of the

burial of their dead.

The Quakers are of opinion, that funeral processions should be made, if

any thing is to be made of them, to excite serious reflections, and to

produce lessons of morality in those who see them. This they conceive to

be best done by depriving the dead body of all ornaments and outward

honours. For, stripped in this manner, they conceive it to approach the

nearest to its native worthlessness or dust. Such funerals, therefore,

may excite in the spectator a deep sense of the low and debased

condition of man. And his feelings will be pure on the occasion, because

they will be unmixed with the consideration of the artificial

distinctions of human life. The spectator too will be more likely, if he

sees all go undistinguished to the grave, to deduce for himself the

moral lesson, that there is no true elevation of one above another, only

as men follow the practical duties of virtue and religion. But what

serious reflections, or what lessons of morality, on the other hand, do

the funerals of the world produce, if accompanied with pomp and

splendour? To those who have sober and serious minds, they produce a

kind of pity, that is mingled with disgust. In those of a ludicrous

turn, they provoke ludicrous ideas, when they see a dead body attended

with such extravagant parade. To the vulgar and the ignorant no one

useful lesson is given. Their senses are all absorbed in the show; and

the thoughts of the worthlessness of man, as well as of death and the

grave, which ought naturally to suggest themselves on such occasions,

are swallowed up in the grandeur and pageantry of the procession.

Funerals, therefore, of this kind, are calculated to throw honour upon

riches, abstractedly of moral merit; to make the creature of as much

importance when dead as when alive; to lessen the humility of man; and

to destroy, of course, the moral and religious feelings that should

arise upon such occasions. Add to which, that such a conduct among

christians must be peculiarly improper; for the christian dispensation

teaches man, that he is "to work out his salvation with fear and

trembling." It seems inconsistent, therefore, to accompany with all the

outward signs of honour and greatness the body of a poor wretch, who has

had this difficult and awful task to perform, and who is on his last

earthly journey, previously to his appearance before the tribunal of the

Almighty to be judged for the deeds which he has committed in the flesh.

Actuated by such sentiments as these, the Quakers have discarded all

parade at their funerals. When they die, they are buried in a manner

singularly plain. The corpse is deposited in a plain coffin. When

carried to the meeting-house or grave-yard, it is attended by relations

and friends. These have nothing different at this time in their external

garments from their ordinary dress. Neither man nor horse is apparelled

for the purpose. All pomp and parade, however rich the deceased may have

been, are banished from their funeral processions. The corpse, at

length, arrives at the meeting-house[2]. It is suffered to remain there

in the sight of the spectators. The congregation then sit in silence, as

at a meeting for worship. If any one feels himself induced to speak, he

delivers himself accordingly; if not, no other rite is used at this

time. In process of time the coffin is taken out of the meeting-house,

and carried to the grave. Many of the acquaintances of the deceased,

both Quakers and others, follow it. It is at length placed by the side

of the grave. A solemn, silent pause, immediately takes place. It is

then interred. Another shorter pause then generally follows. These

pauses are made, that the "spectators may be more deeply touched with a

sense of their approaching exit, and their future state." If a minister

or other person, during these pauses, have any observation or

exhortation to make, which is frequently the case, he makes it. If no

person should feel himself impressed to speak, the assembled persons

depart. The act of seeing the body deposited in the grave, is the last

public act of respect which the Quakers show to their deceased

relations. This is the whole process of a Quaker-funeral.

[Footnote 2: It is sometimes buried without being carried there.]

SECT. II.

_Quakers use no vaults in their burying-grounds--Relations sometimes

buried near each other, but oftener otherwise--They use no tomb-stones

or monumental inscriptions--Reasons for this disuse--But they sometimes

record accounts of the lives, deaths, and dying sayings, of their

Ministers._

The Quakers, in the infancy of their institution, were buried in their

gardens, or orchards, or in the fields and premises of one another. They

had at that time no grave-yards of their own; and they refused to be

buried in those of the church, lest they should thus acknowledge the

validity of an human appointment of the priesthood, the propriety of

payment for gospel-labour, and the peculiar holiness of consecrated

ground. This refusal to be buried within the precincts of the church,

was considered as the bearing of their testimony for truth. In process

of time they raised their own meeting-houses, and had their respective

burying places. But these were not always contiguous, but sometimes at a

distance from one another, The Quakers have no sepulchres or arched

vaults under ground for the reception of their dead. There has been here

and there a vault, and there is here and there a grave with sides of

brick; but the coffins, containing their bodies, are usually committed

to the dust.

I may observe also, that the Quakers are sometimes buried near their

relations, but more frequently otherwise. In places where the

Quaker-population is thin, and the burial ground large, a relation is

buried next to a relation, if it be desired. In other places, however,

the graves are usually dug in rows, and the bodies deposited in them,

not as their relations lie, but as they happen to be opened in

succession without any attention to family connexions. When the first

grave in the row is opened and filled, the person who dies next, is put

into that which is next to it; and the person who dies next, occupies

that which is next to the second[3]. It is to many an endearing thought,

that they shall lie after their death, near the remains of those whom

they loved in life. But the Quakers, in general, have not thought it

right or wise to indulge such feelings. They believe that all good men,

however their bodies may be separated in their subterraneous houses of

clay, will assuredly meet at the resurrection of the just.

[Footnote 3: By this process a small piece of ground is longer in

filling, no room being lost, and the danger and disagreeable necessity

of opening graves before the bodies in them are decayed, is avoided.]

The Quakers also reject the fashions of the world in the use of

tomb-stones and monumental inscriptions. These are generally supposed to

be erected out of respect to the memory or character of the deceased.

The Quakers, however, are of opinion, that this is not the proper manner

of honouring the dead. If you wish to honour a good man, who has

departed this life, let all his good actions live in your memory; let

them live in your grateful love and esteem; so cherish them in your

heart, that they may constantly awaken you to imitation. Thus you will

show, by your adoption of his amiable example, that you really respect

his memory. This is also that tribute, which, if he himself could be

asked in the other world how he would have his memory respected in this,

he would prefer to any description of his virtues, that might be given

by the ablest writer, or handed down to posterity by the ablest monument

of the sculptor's art.

But the Quakers have an objection to the use of tomb-stones and

monumental inscriptions, for other reasons. For, where pillars of

marble, abounding with panegyric, and decorated in a splendid manner,

are erected to the ashes of dead men, there is a danger, lest, by making

too much of these, a superstitious awe should be produced, and a

superstitious veneration should attach to them. The early Christians, by

making too much of the relics of their saints or pious men, fell into

such errors.

The Quakers believe, again, that if they were to allow the custom of

these outward monuments to obtain among them, they might be often led,

as the world is, and by the same causes, to a deviation from the truth;

for it is in human nature to praise those whom we love, but more

particularly when we have lost them. Hence, we find often such

extravagant encomiums upon the dead, that if it were possible for these

to be made acquainted with them, they would show their disapprobation of

such records. Hence we find also, that "as false as an epitaph," has

become a proverbial expression.

But even in the case where nothing more is said upon the tomb-stone than

what Moses said of Seth, and of Enos, and of Cainan, and others, when he

reckoned up the genealogy of Adam, namely, that "they lived and that

they died," the Quakers do not approve of such memorials. For these

convey no merit of the deceased, by which his example should be

followed. They convey no lesson of morality: and in general they are not

particularly useful. They may serve perhaps to point out to surviving

relations, the place where the body of the deceased was buried, so that

they may know where to mark out the line for their own graves. But as

the Quakers in general have overcome the prejudice of "sleeping with

their fathers," such memorials cannot be so useful to them.

The Quakers, however, have no objection, if a man has conducted himself

particularly well in life, that a true statement should be made

concerning him, provided such a statement would operate as a lesson of

morality to others; but they think that the tomb-stone is not the best

medium of conveying it. They are persuaded that very little moral

advantage is derived to the cursory readers of epitaphs, or that they

can trace their improvement in morals to this source. Sensible, however,

that the memorials of good men may be made serviceable to the rising

generation, ("and there are no ideas, says Addison, which strike more

forcibly on our imaginations, than those which are raised from

reflections upon the exits of great and excellent men,") they are

willing to receive accounts of the lives, deaths, and remarkable dying

sayings, of those ministers in their own society, who have been eminent

for their labours. These are drawn up by individuals, and presented to

the monthly meetings, to which the deceased belonged. But here they must

undergo an examination before they are passed. The truth of the

statement, and the utility of the record, must appear. It then falls to

the quarterly meetings to examine them again, and these may alter, or

pass, or reject them, as it may appear to be most proper. If these

should pass them, they are forwarded to the yearly meeting. Many of

them, after this, are printed; and, finding their way into the bookcases

of the Quakers, they become collected essays of morality, and operate as

incitements to piety to the rising youth. Thus the memorials of men are

made useful by the Quakers in an unobjectionable manner; for the

falsehood and flattery of epitaphs are thus avoided; none but good men

having been selected, whose virtues, if they are recorded, can be

perpetuated with truth.

SECT. III.

_They discard also mourning garments--These are only emblems of

sorrow--and often make men pretend to be what they are not--This

contrary to Christianity--Thus they may become little better than

disguised pomp, or fashionable forms--This instanced in the changes and

duration of common mourning--and in the custom also of court-mourning

--Ramifications of the latter._

As the Quakers neither allow of the tomb-stones, nor the monumental

inscriptions, so they do not allow of the mourning garments of the

world.

They believe there can be no true sorrow but in the heart, and that

there can be no other true outward way of showing it than by fulfilling

the desires, and by imitating the best actions, of those whom men have

lost and loved. "The mourning, says William Penn, which it is fit for a

Christian to have on the departure of beloved relations and friends,

should be worn in the mind, which is only sensible of the loss. And the

love which men have had to these, and their remembrance of them, should

be outwardly expressed by a respect to their advice, and care of those

they have left behind them, and their love of that which they loved."

But mourning garments, the Quakers contend, are only emblems of sorrow.

They will therefore frequently be used, where no sorrow is. Many persons

follow their deceased relatives to the grave, whose death, in point of

gain, is a matter of real joy; witness young spendthrifts, who have been

raising sum after sum on expectation, and calculating with voracious

anxiety, the probable duration of their relations' lives. And yet all

these follow the corpse to the grave, with white handkerchiefs, mourning

habits, slouched hats, and dangling hat-bands. Mourning garments,

therefore, frequently make men pretend to be what they are not. But no

true or consistent Christian can exhibit an outward appearance to the

world, which his inward feelings do not justify.

It is not contended here by the Quakers, that because a man becomes

occasionally a hypocrite, this is a sufficient objection against any

system; for a man may be an Atheist even in a Quaker's garb. Nor is it

insinuated, that individuals do not sometimes feel in their hearts, the

sorrow which they purpose to signify by their clothing. But it is

asserted to be true, that men who use mourning habits as they are

generally used, do not wear them for those deceased persons only whom

they loved, and abstain from the use of them where they had no esteem,

but that they wear them promiscuously on all the occasions which have

been dictated by fashion. Mourning habits therefore, in consequence of a

long system of etiquette, have become, in the opinion of the Quakers,

but little better than _disguised pomp_, or _fashionable forms_.

I shall endeavour to throw some light upon this position of the Quakers,

by looking into the practice of the world.

In the first place, there are seasons there, when full mourning, and

seasons when only half mourning, is to be worn. Thus the habit is

changed, and for no other reason, than that of conformity with the laws

of fashion. The length of this time also, or season of mourning, is made

to depend upon the scale of men's affinity to the deceased; though

nothing can be more obvious, than that men's affection for the living,

and that their sorrow for them when dead, cannot be measured by this

standard. Hence the very time that a man shall mourn, and the very time

that he shall only half-mourn, and the very time that he shall cease to

mourn, is fixed for him by the world, whatever may be the duration of

his own sorrow.

In court-mourning also, we have an instance of men being instructed to

mourn, where their feelings are neither interested nor concerned. In

this case, the _disguised pomp_, spoken of by the Quakers, will be more

apparent. Two princes have perhaps been fighting with each other for a

considerable portion of their reigns. The blood of their subjects has

been spilled, and their treasures have been exhausted. They have

probably had, during all this time, no kind disposition one towards

another, each considering the other as the aggressor, or as the author

of the war. When both have been wearied out with expense, they have made

peace. But they have still mutual jealousies and fears. At length one of

them dies. The other, on receiving an express relative to the event,

orders mourning for the deceased for a given time. As other potentates

receive the intelligence, they follow the example. Their several levees

or drawing-rooms, or places of public audience, are filled with

mourners. Every individual of each sex, who is accustomed to attend

them, is now habited in black. Thus a round of mourning is kept up by

the courtiers of Europe, not by means of any sympathetic beating of the

heart, but at the sound, as it were, of the postman's horn.

But let us trace this species of mourning farther, and let us now more

particularly look at the example of our own country for the elucidation

of the point in question. The same Gazette, which gave birth to this

black influenza at court, spreads it still farther. The private

gentlemen of the land undertake to mourn also. You see them accordingly

in the streets, and in private parties, and at public places, in their

mourning habits. Nor is this all. Military officers, who have fought

against the armies of the deceased, wear black crapes over their arms in

token of the same sorrow.

But the fever does not stop even here. It still spreads, and in tracing

its progress, we find it to have attacked our merchants. Yes, the

disorder has actually got upon _change_. But what have I said? Mourning

habits upon change! Where the news of an army cut to pieces, produces

the most cheerful countenances in many, if it raises the stocks but an

half per cent. Mourning habits upon change, where contracts are made for

human flesh and blood! Where plans that shall consign cargoes of human

beings to misery and untimely death, and their posterity to bondage, are

deliberately formed and agreed upon! O sorrow, sorrow! what hast thou

to do upon change, except in the case of commercial losses, or

disappointed speculation! But to add to this _disguised pomp_, as the

Quakers call it, not one of ten thousand of the mourners, ever saw the

deceased prince; and perhaps ninety nine in the hundred, of all who

heard of him, reprobated his character when alive.

CHAP. III.

_Occupations of the Quakers--Agriculture declining among them--Probable

reasons of this decline--Country congenial to the quietude of mind

required by their religion--Sentiments of Cowper--Congenial also to the

improvement of their moral feelings--Sentiments of William

Penn--Particularly suited to them as lovers of the animal creation._

The Quakers generally bring up their children to some employment. They

believe that these, by having an occupation, may avoid evils, into which

they might otherwise fall, if they had upon their hands an undue

proportion of vacant time. "Friends of all degrees, says the book of

extracts, are advised to take due care to breed up their children in

some useful and necessary employment, that they may not spend their

precious time in idleness, which is of evil example, and tends much to

their hurt."

The Quakers have been described to be a domestic people, and as

peculiarly cherishing domestic happiness. Upon this principle it is,

combined with the ties of their discipline and peculiar customs, that

we scarcely find any of this society quitting their country, except for

America, to reside in foreign parts. If it be a charge against the

Quakers, that they are eager in the pursuit of wealth, let it at least

be mentioned in their favour, that, in their accumulation of it, they

have been careful not to suffer their knowledge to take advantage of the

ignorance of others, and to keep their hands clear of the oppression,

and of the blood of their fellow-creatures.

In looking among the occupations of the Quakers, we shall find some, who

are brought up as manufacturers and mechanics; but the number of these

is small.

Others, but these are few, follow the sea. There may be here and there a

mate or captain in the coasting employ. In America, where they have

great local and other advantages, there may be more in the seafaring

line. But, in general, the Quakers are domestic characters, and prefer

home.

There are but few also, who follow the professions. Their education and

their religion exclude them from some of these. Some, however, are to be

found in the department of medicine: and others, as conveyancers, in the

law.

Several of the Quakers follow agriculture. But these are few, compared

with the rest of the society, or compared with the number of those who

formerly followed a rural life. Almost all the Quakers were originally

in the country, and but few of them in the towns. But this order of

things is reversing fast. They are flocking into the towns, and are

abandoning agricultural pursuits.

The reasons, which may be given for this change, may be the following.

It is not at all unlikely but that tithes may have had some influence in

producing it. I am aware, however, it will be said, that a Quaker,

living in the country, and strongly principled against these, would

think it a dereliction of his duty to leave it on this account, and

would remain upon the principle, that an abode there, under the annual

exercise of his testimony, would, in a religions point of view, add

strength to his strength. But it must be observed; on the other hand,

that where men are not obliged to remain under grievous evils, and can

get rid of them, merely by changing their occupation in life, and this

honourably, it is in human nature to do it. And so far tithes, I

believe, have had an influence, in driving the Quakers into the towns.

Of later years, as the society has grown thinner in the country, I

believe new reasons have sprung up; for the Quakers have had less

opportunity of society with one another. They have been subjected, also

to greater inconvenience in attending their religious meetings. Their

children also have been more exposed to improper connexions in marriage.

To which it may be added, that the large and rapid profits frequently

made in trade, compared with the generally small and slow returns from

agricultural concerns, may probably have operated with many, as an

inducement to such a change.

But whatever reasons may have induced them to quit the country, and to

settle in the towns, no temporal advantages can make up to them, as a

society, the measure of their loss. For when we consider that the

Quakers never partake of the amusements of the world; that their worldly

pleasures are chiefly of a domestic nature; that calmness, and quietude,

and abstraction from worldly thoughts, to which rural retirement is

peculiarly favourable, is the state of mind which they themselves

acknowledge to be required by their religion, it would seem that the

country was peculiarly the place for their habitations.

It would seem, also as if, by this forsaking of the country, they had

deprived themselves of many opportunities of the highest enjoyment of

which they are capable as Quakers. The objects in the country are

peculiarly favourable to the improvement of morality in the exercise of

the spiritual feelings. The bud and the blossom, the rising and the

falling leaf, the blade of corn and the ear, the seed time and the

harvest, the sun that warms and ripens, the cloud that cools and emits

the fruitful shower; these, and an hundred objects, afford daily food

for the religious growth of the mind. Even the natural man is pleased

with these. They excite in him natural ideas, and produce in him a

natural kind of pleasure. But the spiritual man experiences a sublimer

joy. He sees none of these without feeling both spiritual improvement

and delight. It is here that he converses with the Deity in his works:

It is here that he finds himself grateful for his goodness--that he

acknowledges his wisdom--that he expresses his admiration of his power.

The poet Cowper, in his contemplation of a country life, speaks forcibly

on this subject.

"O friendly to the best pursuits of man,

Friendly to _thought_, to _virtue_, and to _peace_,

Domestic life, in rural leisure pass'd!

Few know thy value, and few taste thy sweets;

Though many boast thy favours, and affect

To understand and choose these for their own

But foolish man _forgoes his proper bliss_,

Ev'n as his first progenitor, and quits,

Though plac'd in Paradise, (for earth has still

Some traces of her youthful beauty left,)

_Substantial happiness_ for _transient joy_.

Scenes form'd for _contemplation_, and to _nurse_

The _growing seeds of wisdom_, that suggest

By every pleasing image they present,

Reflections, _such as meliorate the heart,

Compose the passions, and exalt the mind."_

William Penn, in the beautiful letter which he left his wife and

children before his first voyage to America, speaks also in strong terms

upon the point in question.

"But agriculture, says he, is especially in my eye. Let my children be

husbandmen and housewives. This occupation is industrious, healthy,

honest, and of good example. Like Abraham and the holy ancients, who

pleased God, and obtained a good report, this leads to consider the

_works of God_, and _nature of things that are good_, and diverts the

mind from _being taken up_ with the _vain arts and inventions of a

luxurious world_." And a little farther on he says, "_Of cities and

towns, of concourse beware_. The _world is apt to stick close_ to those,

who have _lived and got wealth there_. A _country life and estate_, I

like best for my children. I prefer a decent mansion of a hundred pounds

a year, to ten thousand pounds in London, or such like place, _in the

way of trade_."

To these observations it may he added, that the country, independently

of the opportunity it affords for calmness and quietude of mind, and the

moral improvement of it in the exercise of the spiritual feelings, is

peculiarly fitted for the habitation of the Quakers, on account of their

peculiar love for the animal creation. It would afford them a wide range

for the exercise of this love, and the improvement of the benevolent

affections. For tenderness, if encouraged, like a plant that is duly

watered, still grows. What man has ever shown a proper affection for the

brute creation, who has been backward in his love of the human race?

CHAP. IV.

SECT. I.

_Trade--Trade seldom considered as a question of morals--But Quakers

view it in this light--Prohibit the slave-trade--Privateering

--Manufactories of weapons of war--Also trade where the revenue is

defrauded--Hazardous enterprises--Fictitious paper--Insist upon

punctuality to words and engagements--Advise an annual inspection of

their own affairs--Regulations in case of bankruptcy._

I stated in the last chapter, that some of the Quakers, though these

were few in number, were manufacturers and mechanics; that others

followed the sea; that, others were to be found in the medical

profession, and in the law; and that others were occupied in the

concerns of a rural life. I believe with these few exceptions, that the

rest of the society may be considered as engaged in trade.

Trade is a subject, which seldom comes under the discussion of mankind

as a moral question. If men who follow it, are honest and punctual in

their dealings, little is thought of the nature of their occupations,

or of the influence of these upon their minds. It will hardly, however,

be denied by moralists, that the buying and selling of commodities for

profit, is surrounded with temptation, and is injurious to pure,

benevolent, or disinterested feelings; or that where the mind is

constantly intent upon the gaining of wealth, by traffic, it is

dangerously employed. Much less will it be denied, that trade is an

evil, if any of the branches of it through which men acquire their

wealth, are productive of mischief either to themselves or others. If

they are destructive to the health of the inferior agents, or to the

morality of any of the persons concerned in them, they can never be

sanctioned by Christianity.

The Quakers have thought it their duty, as a religious body, to make

several regulations on this subject.

In the first place they have made it a rule, that no person,

acknowledged to be in profession with them, shall have any concern in

the slave-trade.

The Quakers began to consider this subject, as a Christian body, so

early as in the beginning of the last century. In the year 1727, they

passed a public censure upon this trade. In the year 1758, and

afterwards in the year 1761, they warned and exhorted all in profession

with them "to keep their hands clear of this unrighteous gain of

oppression." In the yearly meeting of 1763, they renewed their

exhortation in the following words: "We renew our exhortation, that

Friends every where be especially careful to keep their hands clear of

giving encouragement in any shape to the slave-trade; it being evidently

destructive of the natural rights of mankind, who are all ransomed by

one Saviour, and visited by one divine light in order to salvation; a

traffic calculated to enrich and aggrandize some upon the miseries of

others; in its nature abhorrent to every just and tender sentiment, and

contrary to the whole tenour of the Gospel."

In the same manner, from the year 1763, they have publicly manifested a

tender concern for the happiness of the injured Africans, and they have

not only been vigilant to see that none of their own members were

concerned in this impious traffic, but they have lent their assistance

with other Christians in promoting its discontinuance.

They have forbidden also the trade of privateering in war. The Quakers

consider the capture of private vessels by private persons, as a robbery

committed on the property of others, which no human authority can make

reconcileable to the consciences of honest individuals. And upon this

motive they forbid it, as well as upon that of their known profession

against war.

They forbid also the trade of the manufacturing of gun-powder, and of

arms or weapons of war, such as swords, guns, pistols, bayonets, and the

like, that they may stand clear of the charge of having made any

instrument, the avowed use of which is the destruction of human life.

They have forbidden also all trade, that has for its object the

defrauding of the king either of his customs or his excise. They are not

only not to smuggle themselves, but they are not to deal in such goods

as they know, or such as they even suspect, to be smuggled; nor to buy

any article of this description, even for their private use. This

prohibition is enjoined, because all Christians ought "to render to

Caesar the things that are Caesars," in all cases where their

consciences do not suffer by doing it: because those, who are accessory

to smuggling, give encouragement to perjury and bloodshed, these being

frequently the attendants of such unlawful practices; and because they

do considerable injury to the honest trader.

They discourage also concerns in "hazardous enterprises," in the way of

trade. Such enterprisses are apt to disturb the tranquillity of the

mind, and to unfit if for religious exercise. They may involve also the

parties concerned, and their families, in ruin. They may deprive them

again of the means of paying their just debts, and thus render them

injurious to their creditors. Members, therefore, are advised to be

rather content with callings which may produce small but certain

profits, than to hazard the tranquillity of their minds, and the

property of themselves and others.

In the exercise of those callings which are deemed lawful by the

society, two things are insisted upon: first, that their members "never

raise and circulate any fictitious kind of paper credit, with

endorsements and acceptances, to give it an appearance of value without

an intrinsic reality:" secondly, that they should be particularly

attentive to their words, and to the punctual performance of their

engagements, and on no account delay their payments beyond the time they

have promised. The society have very much at heart the enforcement of

the latter injunction, not only because all christians are under an

obligation to do these things, but because they wish to see the high

reputation of their ancestors, in these respects, preserved among those

of their own day. The early Quakers were noted for a scrupulous

attention to their duty, as Christians, in their commercial concerns.

One of the great clamours against them, in the infancy of their

institution, was, that they would get all the trade. It was nothing but

their great honour in their dealings, arising from religious principle,

that gave birth to this uproar, or secured them a more than ordinary

portion of the custom of the world in the line of their respective

trades.

Among other regulations made by the Quakers on the subject of trade, it

is advised publicly to the members of the society, to inspect the state

of their affairs once a year. And lest this advice should be

disregarded, the monthly meetings are directed to make annual

appointments of suitable Friends to communicate it to the members

individually. But independently of this public recommendation, they are

earnestly advised by their book of extracts, to examine their situations

frequently. This is done with a view, that they may see how they stand

with respect to themselves and the world at large; that they may not

launch out into commercial concerns beyond their strength, nor live

beyond their income, nor go on longer in their business than they can

pay their debts.

If a Quaker, after this inspection of his affairs, should find himself

unable to pay his just debts, he is immediately to disclose his affairs

to some judicious members of the society, or to his principal creditors,

and to take their advice how he is to act; but to be particularly

careful not to pay one creditor in preference to another.

When a person of the society becomes a bankrupt, a committee is

appointed by his own monthly meeting, to confer with him on his affairs.

If the bankruptcy should appear, by their report, to have been the

result of misconduct, he is disowned. He may, however, on a full

repentance, (for it is a maxim with the society, that "true repentance

washes put all stains,") and by a full payment of every man his own, be

admitted into membership again; or if he has begun to pay his creditors,

and has made arrangements satisfactory to the society for paying them,

he may be received as a member, even before the whole of the debt is

settled.

If it should appear, on the other hand, that the bankruptcy was the

unavoidable result of misfortune, and not of imprudence, he is allowed

to continue in the society.

But in either of these cases, that is, where a man is disowned and

restored, or where he has not been disowned at all, he is never

considered as a member, entitled to every privilege of the society,

till he has paid the whole of the debts. And the Quakers are so strict

upon this point, that if a person has paid ten shillings in the pound,

and his creditors have accepted the composition, and the law has given

him his discharge, it is insisted upon that he pays the remaining ten as

soon as he is able. No distance of time will be any excuse to the

society for his refusal to comply with this honourable law. Nor will he

be considered as a full member, as I observed before, till he has paid

the uttermost farthing; for no collection for the poor, nor any legacy

for the poor, or for other services of the society, will be received

from his purse, while any thing remains of the former debt. This rule of

refusing charitable contributions on such occasions, is founded on the

principle that money, taken from a man in such a situation, is taken

from his lawful creditors; and that such a man can have nothing to give,

while he owes any thing to another.

It may be observed of this rule or custom, that as it is founded in

moral principle, so it tends to promote a moral end. When persons of

this description see their own donations dispensed with, but those of

the rest of the meeting taken, they are reminded of their own situation,

and of the desirableness of making the full satisfaction required. The

custom, therefore, operates as a constant memento, that their debts are

still hanging over them, and prompts to new industry and anxious

exertion for their discharge. There are many instances of Quakers, who

have paid their composition as others do, but who, after a lapse of many

years, have surprised their former creditors by bringing them the

remaining amount of their former debts. Hence the Quakers are often

enabled to say, what few others can say on the same subject, that they

are not ultimately hurtful to mankind, either by their errors, or by

their misfortunes.

SECT. II.

_But though the Quakers have made these regulations, the world find

fault with many of their trades or callings--Several of these

specified--Standard proposed by which to examine them--Some of these

censurable by this standard--and given up by many Quakers on this

account, though individuals may still follow them._

But though the Quakers have made these beautiful regulations concerning

trade, it is manifest that the world are not wholly satisfied with their

conduct on this subject. People charge them with the exercise of

improper callings, or of occupations inconsistent with the principles

they profess.

It is well known that the Quakers consider themselves as a highly

professing people; that they declaim against the follies and vanities of

the world; and that they bear their testimony against civil customs and

institutions, even to personal suffering. Hence, professing more than

others, more is expected from them. George Fox endeavoured to inculcate

this idea into his new society. In his letter to the yearly meeting in

1679, he expresses himself as follows: "The world also does expect more

from Friends than from other people, because they profess more.

Therefore you should be more just than others in your words and

dealings, and more righteous, holy, and pure, in your lives and

conversations; so that your lives and conversations may preach. For the

world's tongues and mouths have preached long enough; but their lives

and conversations have denied what their tongues have professed and

declared." I may observe, therefore, that the circumstance of a more

than ordinary profession of consistency, and not any supposed immorality

on the part of the Quakers, has brought them, in the instances alluded

to, under the censure of the world. Other people, found in the same

trades or occupations, are seldom noticed as doing wrong. But when men

are set as lights upon a hill, blemishes will be discovered in them,

which will be overlooked among those who walk in the vale below.

The trades or occupations which are usually condemned as improper for

Quakers to follow, are numerous. I shall not therefore specify them all.

Those, however, which I purpose to select for mention, I shall accompany

with all the distinctions which equity demands on the occasion.

The trade of a distiller, or of a spirit-merchant, is considered as

objectionable if in the hands of a Quaker.

That of a cotton manufacturer, who employs a number of poor children in

the usual way, or in a way which is destructive to their morals and to

their health, is considered as equally deserving of censured.[4]

[Footnote 4: Poor children are frequently sent by parishes to

cotton-mills. Little or no care is taken of their morals. The men, when

grown up, frequently become drunken, and the girls debauched. But the

evil does not stop here. The progeny of these, vitiated by the

drunkenness and debauchery of their parents, have generally diseased and

crippled constitutions, which they perpetuate to a new generation; after

which the whole race, I am told, generally becomes extinct. What

Christian can gain wealth at the expense of the health, morals, and

happiness of his fellow-creatures?]

There is a calling which is seldom followed by itself: I mean the

furnishing of funerals, or the serving of the pall. This is generally in

the hands of Cabinet-makers, or of Upholsterers, or of woollen-drapers.

Now if any Quaker should be found in any of these occupations, and if he

should unite with these that of serving the pall, he would be considered

by such an union, as following an objectionable trade. For the Quakers

having discarded all the pomp, and parade, and dress, connected with

funerals, from their own practice, and this upon moral principles, it

is insisted upon, that they ought not to be accessary to the promotion

of such ceremonials among others.

The trade of a printer, or bookseller, when exercised by a Quaker, has

not escaped the animadversions of the world. A distinction, however,

must be made here. They who condemn this calling, can never do it

justly, but in supposed cases. They must suppose, for example, that the

persons in question follow these callings generally, or that they do not

make an exception with respect to the printing or selling of such books

as may convey poison to the morals of those who read them.

A Quaker-tailor is considered as a character, which cannot consistently

exist. But a similar distinction must be made here as in a former case.

The world cannot mean that if a Quaker confines himself to the making of

clothes for his own society, he is reproachable for so doing; but only

if he makes clothes for every one without distinction, following, as he

is ordered, all the varying fashions of the world.

A Quaker-hatter is looked upon in the same light as a Quaker-tailor. But

here a distinction suggests itself again. If he make only plain and

useful hats for the community and for other Quakers, it cannot be

understood that he is acting inconsistently with his religious

profession. The charge can only lie against him, where he furnishes the

hat with the gold and the silver-lace, or the lady's riding-hat with its

ornaments, or the military hat with its lace, cockade, and plumes. In

this case he will be considered as censurable by many, because he will

be looked upon as a dealer in the superfluities condemned by his own

religion.

The last occupation I shall notice is that of a silversmith. And here

the censure will depend upon a contingency also. If a Quaker confines

himself to the selling of plain silver articles for use, little

objection can be raised against his employ. But if, in addition to this,

he sells goldheaded canes, trinkets, rings, ear-rings, bracelets,

jewels, and other ornaments of the person, he will be considered as

chargeable with the same inconsistency as the follower of the former

trade.

In examining these and other occupations of the Quakers, with a view of

seeing how far the objections which have been advanced against them are

valid, I own I have a difficult task to perform. For what standard shall

I fix upon, or what limits shall I draw upon this occasion? The

objections are founded in part upon the principle, that Quakers ought

not to sell those things, of which their own practice shows that they

disapprove. But shall I admit this principle without any limitation or

reserve? Shall I say without any reserve, that a Quaker-woman, who

discards the use of a simple ribbon from her dress, shall not sell it to

another female, who has been constantly in the habit of using it, and

this without any detriment to her mind? Shall I say again, without any

reserve, that a Quaker-man who discards the use of black cloth, shall

not sell a yard of it to another? And, if I should say so, where am I to

stop? Shall I not be obliged to go over all the colours in his shop, and

object to all but the brown and the drab? Shall I say again, without any

reserve, that a Quaker cannot sell any thing which is innocent in

itself, without inquiring of the buyer its application or its use? And

if I should say so, might I not as well say, that no Quaker can be in

trade? I fear that to say this, would be to get into a labyrinth, out of

which there would be no clew to guide us.

Difficult, however, as the task may seem, I think I may lay down three

positions, which will probably not be denied, and which, if admitted,

will assist us in the determination of the question before us. The first

of these is, that no Quaker can be concerned in the sale of a thing,

which is evil in itself. Secondly, that he cannot encourage the sale of

an article, which he knows to be essentially, or very generally, that

is, in seven cases out of ten, productive of evil. And, thirdly, that he

cannot sell things which he has discarded from his own use, if he has

discarded them on a belief that they are specifically forbidden by

Christianity, or that they are morally injurious to the human mind.

If these positions be acknowledged, they will give ample latitude for

the condemnation of many branches of trade.

A Quaker-bookseller, according to these positions, cannot sell a profane

or improper book.

A Quaker spirit-merchant cannot sell his liquor but to those whom he

believes will use it in moderation, or medicinally, or on proper

occasions.

A Quaker, who is a manufacturer of cotton, cannot exercise his

occupation but upon an amended plan.

A Quaker-silversmith cannot deal in any splendid ornaments of the

person.

The latter cannot do this for the following reasons. The Quakers reject

all such ornaments, because they believe them to be specifically

condemned by Christianity. The words of the apostles Paul and Peter,

have been quoted both by Fox, Penn, Barclay, and others, upon this

subject. But surely, if the Christian religion positively condemns the

use of them in one, it condemns the use of them in another. And how can

any one, professing this religion, sell that, the use of which he

believes it to have forbidden? The Quakers also have rejected all

ornaments of the person, as we find by their own writers, on account of

their immoral tendency; or because they are supposed to be instrumental

in puffing up the creature, or in the generation of vanity and pride.

But if they have rejected the use of them upon this principle, they are

bound, as Christians, to refuse to sell them to others. Christian love,

and the Christian obligation to do as we would wish to be done by,

positively enjoin this conduct. For no man, consistently with this

divine law and obligation, can sow the seeds of moral disease in his

neighbour's mind.

And here I may observe, that though there are trades, which may be

innocent in themselves, yet Quakers may make them objectionable by the

manner in which they may conduct themselves in disposing of the articles

which belong to them. They can never pass them off, as other people do,

by the declaration that they are the fashionable articles of the day.

Such words ought never to come out of Quakers' mouths; not so much

because their own lives are a living protest against the fashions of the

world, as because they cannot knowingly be instrumental in doing a moral

injury to others. For it is undoubtedly the belief of the Quakers, as I

had occasion to observe in a former volume, that the following of such

fashions, begets a worldly spirit, and that in proportion as men indulge

this spirit, they are found to follow the loose and changeable morality

of the world, instead of the strict and steady morality of the gospel.

That some such positions as these may be fixed upon for the farther

regulation of commercial concerns among the Quakers, is evident, when we

consider the example of many estimable persons in this society.

The Quakers, in the early times of their institution, were very

circumspect about the nature of their occupations, and particularly as

to dealing in superfluities and ornaments of the person. Gilbert Latey

was one of those who bore his public testimony against them. Though he

was only a tailor, he was known and highly respected by king James the

Second. He would not allow his servants to put any corruptive finery

upon the clothes which he had been ordered to make for others. From

Gilbert Latey I may pass to John Woolman. In examining the Journal of

the latter I find him speaking thus: "It had been my general practice to

buy and sell things really useful. Things that served chiefly to please

the vain mind in people, I was not easy to trade in; seldom did it; and

whenever I did, I found it weaken me as a Christian." And from John

Woolman I might mention the names of many, and, if delicacy did not

forbid me, those of Quakers now living, who relinquished or regulated

their callings, on an idea, that they could not consistently follow them

at all, or that they could not follow them according to the usual manner

of the world. I knew the relation of a Quaker-distiller, who left off

his business upon principle. I was intimate with a Quaker-bookseller. He

did not give up his occupation, for this was unnecessary; but he was

scrupulous about the selling of an improper book. Another friend of

mine, in the society, succeeded but a few years ago to a draper's shop.

The furnishing of funerals had been a profitable part of the employ. But

he refused to be concerned in this branch of it, wholly owing to his

scruples about it. Another had been established as a silversmith for

many years, and had traded in the ornamental part of the business, but

he left it wholly, though advantageously situated, for the same reason,

and betook himself to another trade. I know other Quakers, who have held

other occupations, not usually objectionable by the world, who have

become uneasy about them, and have relinquished them in their turn.

These noble instances of the dereliction of gain, where it has

interfered with principle, I feel it only justice to mention in this

place. It is an homage due to Quakerism; for genuine Quakerism will

always produce such instances. No true Quaker will remain in any

occupation, which he believes it improper to pursue. And I hope, if

there are Quakers, who mix the sale of objectionable with that of the

other articles of their trade, it is because they have entered into this

mixed business, without their usual portion of thought, or that the

occupation itself has never come as an improper occupation before their

minds.

Upon the whole, it must be stated that it is wholly owing to the more

than ordinary professions of the Quakers, as a religious body, that the

charges in question have been exhibited against such individuals among

them, as have been found in particular trades. If other people had been

found in the same callings, the same blemishes would not have been so

apparent. And if others had been found in the same, callings, and it

had been observed of these, that they had made all the beautiful

regulations which I have shown the Quakers to have done on the subject

of trade, these blemishes would have been removed from the usual range

of the human vision. They would have been like the spots in the sun's

disk, which are hid from the observation of the human eye, because they

are lost in the superior beauty of its blaze. But when the Quakers have

been looked at solely as Quakers, or as men of high religious

profession, these blemishes have become conspicuous. The moon, when it

eclipses the sun, appears as a blemish in the body of that luminary. So

a public departure from publicly professed principles will always be

noticed, because it will be an excrescence or blemish, too large and

protuberant, to be overlooked in the moral character.

CHAP. V.

_Settlement of differences--Quakers, when they differ, abstain from

violence--No instance of a duel--George For protested against going to

law, and Recommended arbitration-Laws relative to arbitration--Account

of an arbitration-society, at Newcastle upon Tyne, on Quaker-principles

--Its dissolution--Such societies might be usefully promoted._

Men are so constituted by nature, and their mutual intercourse is such,

that circumstances must unavoidably arise, which will occasion

differences. These differences will occasionally rouse the passions;

and, after all, they will still be to be settled. The Quakers, like

other men, have their differences. But you rarely see any disturbance of

the temper on this account. You rarely hear intemperate invectives. You

are witness to no blows. If in the courts of law you have never seen

their characters stained by convictions for a breach of the

marriage-contract, or the crime of adultery; so neither have you seen

them disgraced by convictions for brutal violence, or that most

barbarous of all Gothic customs, the duel.

It is a lamentable fact, when we consider that we live in an age,

removed above eighteen hundred years from the first promulgation of

Christianity, one of the great objects of which was to insist upon the

subjugation of the passions, that our children should not have been

better instructed, than that we should now have to behold men, of

apparently good education, settling their disputes by an appeal to arms.

It is difficult to conceive what preposterous principles can actuate

men, to induce them to such a mode of decision. Justice is the ultimate

wish of every reasonable man in the termination of his casual

differences with others, But, in the determination of cases by the

sword, the injured man not unfrequently falls, while the aggressor

sometimes adds to his offence, by making a widow or an orphan, and by

the murder of of a fellow-creature. But it is possible the duellist may

conceive that he adds to his reputation by decisions of this sanguinary

nature. But surely he has no other reputation with good men, than that

of a weak, or a savage, or an infatuated creature; and, if he fells, he

is pitied by these on no other motive than that of his folly and of his

crime. What philosopher can extol his courage, who, knowing the bondage

of the mind while under the dominion of fashion, believes that more

courage is necessary in refusing a challenge, than in going into the

field? What legislator can applaud his patriotism, when he sees him

violate the laws of his country? What Christian his religion, when he

reflects on the relative duties of man, on the law of lore and

benevolence that should have guided him, on the principle that it is

more noble to suffer than to resist, and on the circumstance, that he

may put himself into the doubly criminal situation of a murderer and a

suicide by the same act?

George Fox, in his doctrine of the influence of the spirit as a divine

teacher, and in that of the necessity of the subjugation of the passions

in order that the inward man might be in a fit state to receive its

admonitions, left to the society a system of education, which, if acted

upon, could not fail of producing peaceable and quiet characters; but

foreseeing that among the best men differences would unavoidably arise

from their intercourse in business and other causes, it, was his desire

that these should be settled in a Christian manner. He advised therefore

that no member should appeal to law; but that he should refer his

difference to arbitration, by persons of exemplary character in the

society. This mode of decision appeared to him to be consistent with the

spirit of Christianity, and with the advice of the apostle Paul, who

recommended that all the differences among the Christians of his own

time should be referred to the decision of the saints, or of such other

Christians, as were eminent for their lives and conversation.

This mode of decision, which began to take place among the Quakers in

the time of George Fox, has been continued by them to the present day.

Cases, where property is concerned to the amount of many thousands, are

determined in no other manner. By this process the Quakers obtain their

verdicts in a way peculiarly satisfactory. For law-suits are at best

tedious. They often destroy brotherly love in the individuals, while

they continue. They excite also, during this time, not unfrequently, a

vindictive spirit, and lead to family-feuds and quarrels. They agitate

the mind also, hurt the temper, and disqualify a man for the proper

exercise of his devotion. Add to this, that the expenses of law are

frequently so great, that burthens are imposed upon men for matters of

little consequence, which they feel as evils and incumbrances for a

portion of their lives; burthens which guilt alone, and which no

indiscretion, could have merited. Hence the Quakers experience

advantages in the settlement of their differences, which are known but

to few others.

The Quakers, when any difference arises about things that are not of

serious moment, generally settle it amicably between themselves; but in

matters that are intricate and of weighty concern, they have recourse to

arbitration. If it should happen, that they are slow in proceeding to

arbitration, overseers, or any others of the society, who may come to

the knowledge of the circumstance, are to step in and to offer their

advice. If their advice is rejected, complaint is to be made to their

own monthly meeting concerning them; after which they will come under

the discipline of the society, and if they still persist in refusing to

settle their differences or to proceed to arbitration, they may be

disowned. I may mention here, that any member going to law with another,

without having previously tried, to accommodate matters between them

according to the rules of the society, comes under the discipline in

like manner.

When arbitration is determined on, the Quakers are enjoined to apply to

persons of their own society to decide the case. It is considered,

however, as desirable, that they should not trouble their ministers, if

they can help it, on these occasions, as the minds of these ought to be

drawn out as little as possible into worldly concerns. If Quakers,

however, should not find among Quakers such as they would choose to

employ for these purposes, or such as may not possess skill in regard to

the matter in dispute, they may apply to others out of the society,

sooner than go to law.

The following is a concise statement of the rules recommended by the

society, in the case of arbitrations.

Each party is to choose one or two friends as arbitrators, and all the

persons, so chosen, are to agree upon a third or a fifth. The

arbitrators are not to consider themselves as advocates for the party by

whom they were chosen, but as men, whose duty it is to judge

righteously, fearing the Lord. The parties are to enter into engagements

to abide by the award of the arbitrators. Every meeting of the

arbitrators is to be made known to the parties concerned, till they have

been fully heard. No private meetings are allowed between some of the

arbitrators, or with one party separate from the other, on the business

referred to them. No representation of the case of one party, either by

writing or otherwise, is to be admitted, without its being fully made

known to the other; and, if required, a copy of such representation is

to be delivered to the other party. The arbitrators are to hear both

parties fully, in the presence of each other, whilst either has any

fresh matter to offer, for a time mutually limited. In the case of any

doubtful point of law, the arbitrators are jointly to agree upon a case,

and consult counsel. It is recommended to arbitrators to propose to the

parties, that they should give an acknowledgment in writing, before the

award is made; that they have been candidly and fully heard.

In the same manner as a Quaker proceeds with a Quaker in the case of any

difference, he is led by his education and habits to proceed with

others, who are not members of the same society. A Quaker seldom goes to

law with a person of another denomination, till he has proposed

arbitration. If the proposal be not accepted, the Quaker has then no

remedy but the law. For a person, who is out of the society, cannot be

obliged upon pain of disownment, as a Quaker may, to submit to such a

mode of decision, being out of the reach of the Quaker-discipline.

I shall close my observations upon this subject, by giving an account of

an institution for the accommodation of differences, which took place in

the year 1793, upon Quaker principles.

In the town of Newcastle upon Tyne, a number of disputes were

continually arising on the subject of shipping concerns, which were

referred to the decision of the laws. These decisions were often

grievously expensive. They were, besides, frequently different from what

seafaring persons conceived to be just. The latter circumstance was

attributed to the ignorance of lawyers in maritime affairs. Much money

was therefore often expended, and no one satisfied. Some Quakers, in the

neighbourhood, in conjunction with others, came forward with a view of

obviating these evils. They proposed arbitration as a remedy. They met

with some opposition at first, but principally from the gentlemen of the

law. After having, however, shown the impropriety of many of the legal

verdicts that had been given, they had the pleasure of seeing their plan

publicly introduced and sanctioned. For in the month of June, 1793, a

number of gentlemen, respectable for their knowledge in mercantile and

maritime affairs, met at the Trinity-hall in Newcastle, and associated

themselves for these and other purposes, calling themselves "The

Newcastle upon Tyne Association for general Arbitration."

This association was to have four general meetings in the year, one in

each quarter, at which they were to receive cases. For any urgent

matter, however, which might occur, the clerk was to have the power of

calling a special meeting.

Each person, on delivering a case, was to pay a small fee. Out of these

fees the clerk's salary and incidental expenses were to be paid. But the

surplus was to be given to the poor.

The parties were to enter into arbitration-bonds, as is usual upon such

occasions.

Each party was to choose out of this association or standing committee,

one arbitrator for himself, and the association were to choose or to

ballot for a third. And here it will be proper to observe, that this

standing association appeared to be capable of affording arbitrators

equal to the determination of every case. For, if the matter in dispute

between the two parties were to happen to be a mercantile question,

there were merchants in the association: If a question relative to

shipping, there were ship-owners in it: If a question of insurance,

there were insurance-brokers also. A man could hardly fail of having his

case determined by persons who were competent to the task.

Though this beautiful institution was thus publicly introduced, and

introduced with considerable expectations and applause, cases came in

but slowly. Custom and prejudice are not to be rooted out in a moment.

In process of time, however, several were offered, considered, and

decided, and the presumption was, that the institution would have grown

with time. Of those cases which were determined, some, relating to

ships, were found to be particularly intricate, and cost the arbitrators

considerable time and trouble. The verdicts, however, which were given,

were in all of them satisfactory. The Institution, at length became so

popular, that, incredible to relate, its own popularity destroyed it! So

many persons were ambitious of the honour of becoming members of the

committee, that some of inferior knowledge, and judgment, and character,

were too hastily admitted into it. The consequence was, that people

dared not trust their affairs to the abilities of every member: and the

institution expired, after having rendered important services to

numerous individuals who had tried it.

When we consider that this institution has been tried, and that the

scheme of it has been found practicable, it is a pity that its benefits

should have been confined, and this for so short a period, to a single

town. Would it not be desirable, if, in every district, a number of

farmers were to give in their names to form a standing committee, for

the settlement of disputes between farmer and farmer? or that there

should be a similar institution among manufacturers, who should decide

between one manufacturer and another? Would it not also be desirable,

if, in every parish, a number of gentlemen, or other respectable

persons, were to associate for the purpose of accommodating the

differences of each other? For this beautiful system is capable of being

carried to any extent, and of being adapted to all stations and

conditions of life. By these means numerous little funds might be

established in numerous districts, from the surplus of which an

opportunity would be afforded of adding to the comforts of such of the

poor, as were to distinguish themselves by their good behaviour, whether

as labourers for farmers, manufacturers, or others. By these means also

many of the quarrels in parishes might be settled to the mutual

satisfaction of the parties concerned, and, in so short a space of time,

as to prevent them from contracting a rancorous and a wounding edge.

Those, on the other hand, who were to assist in these arbitrations,

would be amply repaid; for they would be thus giving an opportunity of

growth to the benevolence of their affections, and they would have the

pleasing reflection, that the tendency of their labours would be to

produce peace and good will amongst men.

CHAP. VI.

SECT. I.

_Management of the poor--Quakers never seen as beggars--George Fox began

the provision for the Quaker-poor--Monthly meetings appoint

overseers--Persons passed over are to apply for relief and the

disorderly may receive it in certain cases--Manner of collecting for the

poor--If burthensome in one monthly meeting, the burthen shared by the

quarterly--Quakers gain settlements by monthly meetings, as the other

poor of the kingdom, by parishes._

There are few parts of the Quaker-constitution, that are more worthy of

commendation, than that which relates to the poor. All the members of

this society are considered as brethren, and as entitled to support from

one another. If our streets and our roads are infested by miserable

objects, imploring our pity, no Quaker will be found among them. A

Quaker-beggar would be a phenomenon in the world.

It does not, however, follow from this account, that there are no poor

Quakers, or that members of this society are not born in a dependent

state. The truth is, that there are poor as well as rich, but the wants

of the former are so well provided for, that they are not publicly seen,

like the wants of others.

George Fox, as he was the founder of the religion of the Quakers, I mean

of a system of renovated Christianity, so he was the author of the

beautiful system by which they make a provision for their poor. As a

Christian, he considered the poor of every description, as members of

the same family, but particularly those, who were of the household of

faith. Consistently with this opinion, he advised the establishment of

general meetings in his own time, a special part of whose business it

was to take due care of the poor. These meetings excited at first the

vigilance and anger of the magistrates; but when they came to see the

regulations made by the Quakers, in order that none of their poor might

become burthensome to their parishes, they went away--whatever they

might think of some of their new tenets of religion--in admiration of

their benevolence.

The Quakers of the present day consider their poor in the same light as

their venerable elder, namely, as members of the same family, whose

wants it is their duty to relieve; and they provide for them nearly in

the same manner. They intrust this important concern to the monthly

meetings, which are the executive branches of the Quaker constitution.

The monthly meetings generally appoint four overseers, two men and two

women, over each particular meeting within their own jurisdiction, if

their number will admit of it. It is the duty of these, to visit such of

the poor as are in membership, of the men to visit the men, but of the

women sometimes to visit both. The reason, why this double burthen is

laid upon the women-overseers, is, that women know more of domestic

concerns, more of the wants of families, more of the manner of providing

for them, and are better advisers, and better nurses in sickness, than

the men. Whatever these overseers find wanting in the course of their

visits, whether money, clothes, medicine, or medical advice and

attention, they order them, and the treasurer of the monthly meetings

settles the different accounts. I may observe here, that it is not easy

for overseers to neglect their duty; for an inquiry is made three times

in the year, of the monthly meetings by the quarterly, whether the

necessities of the poor are properly inspected and relieved[5]. I may

observe also that the poor, who may stand in need of relief, are always

relieved privately, I mean, at their respective homes.

[Footnote 5: In London a committee is appointed for each poor person.

Thus, for example, two women are appointed to attend to the wants and

comfort of one poor old woman.]

It is however possible, that there may be persons, who, from a variety

of unlocked for causes, may be brought into distress, and whose case,

never having been suspected, may be passed over. But persons, in this

situation, are desired to apply, for assistance. It is also a rule in

the society, that even persons whose conduct is disorderly, are to be

relieved, if such conduct has not been objected to by their own monthly

meeting. "The want of due care, says the book of Extracts, in watching

diligently over the flock, and in dealing in due time with such as walk

disorderly, hath, brought great difficulties on some meetings; for we

think it both unreasonable and dishonourable, when persons apply to

monthly meetings for relief in cases of necessity, then to object to

them such offences as the meeting, through neglect of its own duty, hath

suffered long to pass by, unreproved and unnoticed."

The poor are supported by charitable collections from the body at large;

or, in other words, every monthly meeting supports its own poor. The

collections for them are usually made once a month, but in some places

once a quarter, and in others at no stated times but when the treasurer

declares them necessary, and the monthly meeting approves. Members are

expected to contribute in proportion to their circumstances; but

persons in a low situation, and servants, are generally excused upon

these occasions.

It happens in the districts of some monthly meetings, that there are

found only few persons of property, but a numerous poor, so that the

former are unable to do justice in their provision for the latter. The

society have therefore resolved, when the poor are too numerous to be

supported by their own monthly meetings, that the collection for them

shall be made up out of the quarterly meeting, to which the said monthly

meeting belongs. This is the same thing as if any particular parish were

unable to pay the rates for the poor, and as if all the other parishes

in the county were made to contribute towards the same.

On this subject I may observe, that the Quaker-poor are attached to

their monthly meetings, as the common poor of the kingdom are attached

to their parishes, and that they gain settlements in these nearly in the

same manner.

SECT. II.

_Education of the children of the poor particularly insisted upon and

provided for by the Quakers--The bays usually pat out to

apprenticeship--The girls to service--The latter not sufficiently

numerous for the Quaker-families, who want them--The rich have not their

proper proportion of these in their service--Reasons of it--Character of

the Quaker poor._

As the Quakers are particularly attentive to the wants of the poor, so

they are no less attentive to the education of their offspring. These

are all of them to receive their education at the public expense. The

same overseers, as in the former case, are to take care of it, and the

same funds to support it. An inquiry is therefore made three times in

the year into this subject. "The children of the poor, says the book of

Extracts, are to have due help of education, instruction, and necessary

learning. The families also of the poor are to be provided with Bibles,

and books of the society, at the expense of the monthly meetings. And as

spine members may be straitened in their circumstances, and may refuse,

out of delicacy, to apply for aid towards the education of their

children, it is earnestly recommended to friends in every monthly

meeting, to look out for persons who may be thus straitened, and to take

care that their children shall receive instruction: and it is

recommended to the parents of such, not to refuse this salutary aid, but

to receive it with a willing mind, and with thankfulness to the great

author of all good."

When the boys have received their necessary learning, they are usually

put out as apprentices to husbandry or trade. Domestic service is

generally considered by their parents as unmanly, and as a nursery for

idleness. Boys too, who can read and write, ought to expect, with the

accustomed diligence and sobriety of Quakers, to arrive at a better

situation in life. The girls, however, are destined in general for

service: for it must be obvious, whatever their education may be, that

the same number of employments is not open to women as to men. Of those

again, which are open, some are objectionable. A Quaker-girl, for

example, could not consistently be put an apprentice to a Milliner.

Neither if a cotton-manufactory were in the neighbourhood, could her

parents send her to such a nursery of debauchery and vice. From these

and other considerations, and because domestic employments belong to

women, their parents generally think it advisable to bring them up to

service, and to place them in the families of friends.

It is a remarkable circumstance, when we consider it to be recommended

that Quaker-masters of families should take Quaker-servants, that

persons of the latter description are not to be found sufficiently

numerous for those who want them. This is probably a proof of the

thriving situation of this society. It is remarkable again, that the

rich have by no means their proportion of such servants. Those of the

wealthy, who are exemplary, get them if they can. Others decline their

services. Of these, some do it from good motives; for, knowing that it

would be difficult to make up their complement of servants from the

society, they do not wish to break in upon the customs and morals of

those belonging to it, by mixing them with others. The rest, who mix

more with the world, are, as I have been informed, fearful of having

them, lest they should be overseers of their words and manners. For it

is in the essence of the Quaker-discipline, as I observed upon that

subject, that every member should watch over another for his good. There

are no exceptions as to persons. The servant has as much right to watch

over his master with respect to his religions conduct and conversation,

as the master over his servant; and he has also a right, if his master

violates the discipline, to speak to him, in a respectful manner, for

so doing. Nor would a Quaker-servant, if he were well grounded in the

principles of the society, and felt it to be his duty, want the courage

to speak his mind upon such occasions. There have been instances, where

this has happened, and where the master, in the true spirit of his

religion, has not felt himself insulted by such interference, but has

looked upon his servant afterwards as more worthy of his confidence and

esteem. Such a right, however, of remonstrance, is, I presume, but

rarely exercised.

I cannot conclude this subject without saying a few words on the

character of the Quaker-poor.

In the first place I may observe, that one of the great traits in their

character is independence of mind. When you converse with them, you find

them attentive, civil, and obliging, but you see no marks of servility

about them, and you hear no flattery from their lips. It is not the

custom in this society, even for the poorest member to bow or pull off

his hat, or to observe any outward obeisance to another, who may happen

to be rich. Such customs are forbidden to all on religious principle. In

consequence, therefore, of the omission of such ceremonious practices,

his mind has never been made to bend on the approach of superior rank.

Nor has he seen, in his own society, any thing that could lessen his own

importance or dignity as a man. He is admitted into the meetings of

discipline equally with the rich. He has a voice equally with them in

all matters that are agitated there. From these causes a manliness of

mind is produced, which is not seen among any other of the poor in the

inland in which we live.

It may also be mentioned as a second trait, that they possess

extraordinary knowledge. Every Quaker-boy or girl, who comes into the

world, must, however poor, if the discipline of the society be kept up,

receive an education. All, therefore, who are born in the society, must

be able to read and write. Thus the keys of knowledge are put into their

hands. Hence we find them attaining a superior literal and historical

knowledge of the scriptures, a superior knowledge of human nature, and a

knowledge that sets them above many of the superstitions of those in

their own rank in life.

Another trait conspicuous in the character of the Quaker-poor, is the

morality of their lives.

This circumstance may easily be accounted for. For, in the first place,

they are hindered in common with other Quakers, by means of their

discipline, from doing many things, that are morally injurious to

themselves. The poor of the world are addicted to profane swearing. But

no person can bring the name of the creator of the Universe into

frequent and ordinary use, without losing a sense of the veneration that

is due to him. The poor of the world, again, frequently spend their

time in public houses. They fight and quarrel with one another. They run

after horse-racings, bull-baitings, cock-fightings, and the still more

unnatural battles between man and man. But, by encouraging such habits,

they cannot but obstruct in time, the natural risings of benevolence

both towards their fellow-creatures and to those of the animal creation.

Nor can they do otherwise than lose a sense of the dignity of their own

minds, and weaken the moral principle. But the Quaker-poor, who are

principled against such customs, can of course suffer no moral injury on

these accounts. To which it may be added, that their superior knowledge

both leads and attaches them to a superior conduct. It is a false, as

well as a barbarous maxim, and a maxim very injurious both to the

interests of the rich and poor, as well as of the states to which they

belong, that knowledge is unpropitious to virtue.

RELIGION

OF THE

QUAKERS.

VOL. II.

RELIGION OF THE QUAKERS.

INTRODUCTION.

_Religion of the Quakers--Invitation to a patient perusal of this part

of the work--No design, by this invitation, to proselyte to

Quakerism--All systems of Religion, that are founded on the principles

of Christianity, are capable, if heartily embraced, of producing present

and future happiness to man--No censure of another's Creed warrantable,

inasmuch as the human understanding is finite--Object of this

Invitation._

Having explained very diffusively the great subjects, the moral

Education, Discipline, and Peculiar Customs, of the Quakers, I purpose

to allot the remaining part of this volume to the consideration of their

religion.

I know that persons, who are religiously disposed will follow me

patiently through this division of my work, not only because religion is

the most important of all subjects that can be agitated, but because,

in the explanation of the religious systems of others, some light may

arise, which, though it be not new to all, may yet be new and acceptable

to many. I am aware, however, that there are some who direct their

reading to light subjects, and to whom such as are serious may appear

burthensome. If any such should have been induced, by any particular

motive, to take this book into their hands, and to accompany me thus

far, I entreat a continuation of their patience, till I have carried

them through the different parts and divisions of the present subject.

I have no view, in thus soliciting the attention of those who are more,

or of those who are less religiously disposed, to attempt to proselyte

to Quakerism. If men do but fear God, and work righteousness, whatever

their Christian denomination may be, it is sufficient. Every system of

religion which is founded on the principles of Christianity, must be

capable, if heartily embraced, of producing temporal and eternal

happiness to man. At least, man with his limited understanding, cannot

pronounce with any absolute certainty, that his own system is so far

preferable to that of his neighbour, that it is positively the best, or

that there will be any material difference in the future happiness of

those who follow the one or the other; or that the pure professors of

each shall not have their peculiar rewards. The truth is, that each

system has its own merits. Each embraces great and sublime objects. And

if good men have existed, as none can reasonably deny, before

Christianity was known, it would be a libel on Christianity, to suppose

either that good men had not existed since, or that good Christians

would not be ultimately happy, though following systems differing from

those of one another. Indeed, every Christian community has a great deal

to say in the defence of its own tenets. Almost all Christian churches

have produced great characters; and there are none, I should hope, that

had not been the authors of religious good. The church of England, in

attempting to purify herself at the reformation, effected a great work.

Since that time she has produced at different periods, and continues to

produce, both great and good men. By means of her Universities, she has

given forth, and keeps up and disseminates, a considerable portion of

knowledge; and though this, in the opinion of the Quakers, is not

necessary for those who are to become ministers of the Gospel, it cannot

be denied that it is a source of temporary happiness to man; that it

enlarges the scope of his rational and moral understanding, and that it

leads to great and sublime discoveries, which become eminently

beneficial to mankind. Since that time she has also been an instrument

of spreading over this kingdom a great portion of religious light, which

has had its influence in the production of moral character.

But though I bestow this encomium upon the established church, I should

be chargeable with partiality and injustice, if I were not to allow,

that among the dissenters of various descriptions, learned, pious, and

great men, had been regularly and successively produced. And it must be

confessed, and reflected upon with pleasure, that these, in proportion

to their numbers, have been no less instrumental in the dissemination of

religions knowledge, and in the production of religious conduct. I might

go to large and populous towns and villages in the kingdom, and fully

prove my assertion in the reformed manners of the poor, many of whom,

before these pious visitations, had been remarkable for the profaneness

of their lives.

Let us then not talk but with great deference and humility; with great

tenderness and charity; with great thankfulness to the author of every

good gift,--when we speak of the different systems that actuate the

Christian World. Why should we consider our neighbour as an alien, and

load him with reproaches, because he happens to differ from us in

opinion about an article of faith? As long as there are men, so long

will there be different measures of talents and understanding; and so

long will they view things in a different light, and come to different

conclusions concerning them. The eye of one man can see farther than

that of another: So can the human mind, on the subject of speculative

truths. This consideration should teach us humility and forbearance in

judging of the religion of others. For who is he, who can say that he

sees the farthest, or that his own system is the best? If such men as

Milton, Whiston, Boyle, Locke, and Newton, all agreeing in the

profession of Christianity, did not all think precisely alike concerning

it, who art thou, with thy inferior capacity, who settest up the

standard of thine own judgment as infallible? If thou sendest thy

neighbour to perdition in the other world, because he does not agree in

his creed with thee, know that he judges according to the best of his

abilities, and that no more will be required of him. Know also that thou

thyself judgest like a worm of the earth; that thou dishonourest the

Almighty by thy reptile notions of him; and that in making him accord

with thee in condemning one of his creatures for what thou conceivest

to be the misunderstanding of a speculative proposition, thou treatest

him like a man, as thou thyself art, with corporeal organs; with

irritable passions, and with a limited intelligence. But if, besides

this, thou condemnest thy neighbour in this world also, and feelest the

spirit of persecution towards him, know that, whatever thy pretensions

may be to religion, thou art not a Christian. Thou art not possessed of

that charity or love, without which thou art but as sounding brass and a

tinkling cymbal.

Having therefore no religious prejudices[6] myself, except in favour of

Christianity, and holding no communion with the Quakers, as a religions

society, it cannot be likely that I should attempt to proselyte to

Quakerism. I wish only, as I stated in my introduction to this work, to

make the Quakers better known to their countrymen than they are at

present. In this I think I have already succeeded, for I believe I have

communicated many facts concerning them, which have never been related

by others. But no people can be thoroughly known, or at least the

character of a people cannot be thoroughly understood, except we are

acquainted with their religion; much less can that of the Quakers, who

differ so materially, both in their appearance and practice, from the

rest of their fellow-citizens.

[Footnote 6: Though I conceive a charitable allowance ought to be made

for the diversity of religious opinions among Christians, I by no means

intend to say, that it is not our duty to value the system of opinion

which we think most consonant to the Gospel, and to be wisely zealous

for its support.]

Having thought it right to make these prefatory observations, I proceed

to the prosecution of my work.

CHAP. I.

_The Almighty created the Universe by means of his spirit--and also

man--He gave man, besides his intellect, an emanation from his own

spirit, thus making him in his own image--But this image he lost--A

portion, however, of the same spirit was continued to his

posterity--These possessed it in different degrees--Abraham, Moses, and

the prophets, had more of it than some others--Jesus possessed it

immeasurably, and without limit--Evangelists and apostles possessed it,

but in a limited manner, and in different degrees._

The Quakers believe, that when the Almighty created the Universe, he

effected it by means of the life, or vital or vivifying energy that was

in his own spirit. "And the earth was without form, and void; and

darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved upon

the face of the waters."

This life of the spirit has been differently named, but is concisely

stiled by St. John the evangelist "the word" for he says, "in the

beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made,

that was made."

The Almighty also, by means of the same divine energy or life of the

spirit which had thus created the universe, became the cause also of

material life, and of vital functions. He called forth all animated

nature into existence; for he "made the living creature after his kind."