course of it, the presumption is, that such a nation has been the
aggressor. And where any nation goes to war upon no other avowed
principle, than that of the balance of power, such a nation, however
right according to the policy of the world, is an aggressor according to
the policy of the Gospel, because it proceeds upon the principle, that
it is lawful to do evil, that good may come.
If a nation hires or employs the troops of another to fight for it,
though it is not the aggressor in any war, yet it has the crime upon its
head of making those aggressors, whom it employs.
But, generally speaking, few modern wars can be called defensive. A war,
purely defensive, is that in which the inhabitants of a nation remain
wholly at home to repel the attacks of another, and content themselves
with sending protection to the settlements which belong to it. But few
instance are recorded of such wars.
But if there be often a difficulty in discerning between aggressive and
defensive wars, and if, moreover, there is reason to suppose, that most
of the modern wars are aggressive, or that both patties become
aggressors in the course of the dispute, it becomes the rulers of
nations to pause, and to examine their own consciences with fear and
trembling, before they allow the Sword to bedrawn, lest a dreadful
responsibility should fall upon their heads for all the destruction of
happiness, all the havoc of life, and all the slaughter of morals that
may ensue.
It is said, secondly, that if any nation were publicly to determine to
relinquish the practice if war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel,
it would be overrun by other nations which might act on the policy of
the world.
This argument is neither more nor less than that of the Pagan Celsus,
who said in the second century, that, if the rest of the Roman empire
were Christians, it would be overrun by the Barbarians.
Independently of the protection, which such a nation might count upon
from the moral Governor of the world, let us enquire, upon rational
principles, what would be likely to be its fate.
Armies, we know, are kept up by one nation, principally because they are
kept up by another.
And in proportion as one rival nation adds to its standing armies, it is
thought by the other to be consistent with the policy of the world to do
the same. But if one nation were to decline keeping any armies at all,
where would be the violence, to reason to suppose, that the other would
follow the example? Who would not be glad to get rid of the expence of
keeping them, if they could do it with safety? Nor is it likely, that
any powerful nation, professing to relinquish war, would experience the
calamities of it. Its care to avoid provocation would be so great, and
its language would be so temperate, and reasonable, and just, and
conciliatory, in the case of any dispute which might arise, that it
could hardly fail of obtaining an accommodation. And the probability is,
that such a nation would grow so high in esteem with other nations, that
they would have recourse to it in their disputes with one another, and
would abide by its decision. "Add the general influence, says the great
Bishop Butler in his Analogy, which each a kingdom would have over the
face of the earth, by way of example particularly, and the reverence
which would be paid to it. It would plainly be superior to all others,
and the world must gradually come under its empire, not by means of
lawless violence, but partly by what must be allowed to be just
conquest, and partly by other kingdoms submitting themselves voluntarily
to it, throughout a course of ages, and claiming its protection one
after another in successive exigencies. The head of it would be an
universal monarch in another sense than any other mortal has yet been,
and the eastern style would be literally applicable to him, "that all
people, nations, and languages, should serve him." Now Bishop Butler
supposes this would be the effect, where the individuals of a nation
were perfectly virtuous. But I ask much less for my hypothesis. I only
ask that the ruling members of the cabinet of any great nation (and
perhaps these would only amount to three or four) should consist of real
Christians, or of such men as would implicitly follow the policy of the
Gospel, and I believe the result would be as I have described it.
Nor indeed are we without instances of the kind. The goodness of the
emperor Antoninus Pius was so great, that he was said to have outdone
all example. He had no war in the course of a long reign of twenty-four
years, so that he was compared to Numa. And nothing is more true, than
that princes referred their controversies to his decision.
Nor most I forget again to bring to the notice of the reader the
instance, though on a smaller scale, of the colonists and descendants of
William Penn. The Quakers have uniformly conducted themselves towards
the Indians in such a manner, as to have given them from their earliest
intercourse, an exulted idea of their character. And the consequence is,
as I stated in a former section, that the former, in affairs of
importance, are consulted by the latter at the present day. But why, if
the cabinet of any one powerful nation were to act upon the noble
principle of relinquishing war, should we think the other cabinets so
lost to good feelings, as not to respect its virtue? Let us instantly
abandon this thought; for the supposition of a contrary sentiment would
make them worse than the savages I have mentioned.
Let us then cherish the fond hope, that human animosities are not to be
eternal, and that man is not always to be made a tiger to man. Let us
hope that the government of some one nation (and when we consider the
vast power of the British empire, the nature of its constitution and
religion, and the general humanity of its inhabitants, none would be
better qualified than our own) will set the example of the total
dereliction of wars. And let us, in all our respective situations,
precede the anticipated blessing, by holding out the necessity of the
subjugation of the passions, and by inculcating the doctrine of
universal benevolence to man, so that when we look upon the beautiful
islands, which lie scattered as so many ornaments of the ocean, we may
wish their several inhabitants no greater injury than the violence of
their own waves; or that, when we view continents at a distance from us,
we may consider them as inhabited by our brothers; or that when we
contemplate the ocean itself, which may separate them from our sight, we
may consider it, not as separating our love, but as intended by
Providence to be the means of a quicker intercourse for the exchange of
reciprocal blessings.
CHAP. IV.
SECT. 1.
_Fourth tenet is on the subject of a pecuniary maintenance of a Gospel
ministry--Example and precepts of Jesus Christ--Also of Paul and
Peter--Conclusions from these premises--These conclusions supported by
the primitive practice--Great tenet resulting from these conclusions,
and this primitive practice is, that the Quakers hold it unlawful to pay
their own ministers, and also others of any other denomination, for
their Gospel labours._
The fourth and last tenet of the Quakers is on the subject of the
unlawfulness of a pecuniary maintenance of a Gospel ministry.
In explaining this tenet, I am aware that I am treading upon delicate
ground. The great majority of Christians have determined, that the
spiritual labourer is worthy of his hire; that if men relinquish the
usual occupations by which a livelihood is obtained, in order that they
may devote themselves to the service of religion, they are entitled to a
pecuniary maintenance; and that, if they produce a rich harvest from
what they sow, they are of all men, considering their usefulness to man
to be greater in this than in any other service they can render him, the
most worthy of encouragement and support. I am aware also of the
possibility of giving offence to some in the course of the explanation
of this tenet. To these I can only say, that I have no intention of
hurting the feelings of any; that in the church there are those whom I
esteem and love, and whom of all others I should be sorry to offend. But
it must be obvious to these, and indeed to all, that it is impossible
for me, in writing a history of the manners and opinions of the Quakers,
to pass over in silence the tenet that is now before me; and if I notice
it, they must be sensible, that it becomes me to state fully and fairly
all the arguments which the Quakers give for the difference of opinion,
which they manifest from the rest of their fellow-citizens, on this
subject.
It does not appear then, the Quakers say, by any records that can be
produced, that Jesus Christ ever received any payment for the doctrines
which he taught, neither does it appear, as far as his own instructions,
which are recorded by the Evangelists, can be collected on this subject,
that he considered any pecuniary stipend as necessary or proper for
those who were to assist in the promotion of his religion.
Jesus Christ, on the erection of his Gospel ministry, gave rules to his
disciples, how they were to conduct themselves in the case before us. He
enjoined the twelve, before he sent them on this errand, as we collect
from St. Matthew and St. Luke, that,[19] "as they had received freely,
so they were to give freely; that they were to provide neither gold, nor
silver, nor brass in their purses, nor scrip, nor other things for their
journey; for that the workman was worthy of his meat." And, on their
return from their mission, he asked them,[20] "When I sent you without
purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said,
nothing. Then said he unto them, but now he that hath a purse let him
take it, and likewise his scrip."
[Footnote 19: Matt x. 8. Luke ix. 1.]
[Footnote 20: Luke xxii. 35.]
In a little time afterwards, Jesus Christ sent out other seventy as
disciples, to whom he gave instructions similar to the former, that they
should not take scrip, clothes, and money with them. But to these he
said additionally, that[21] "wheresoever they were received, they were
to eat such things as were given them; but where they were not received,
they were to go their way, and say, even the dust of your city, which
cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you." And as on that occasion he
compared the ministers of his Gospel to the labourers, whom a man sends
to the harvest, he told them they were at liberty to eat what was set
before them, because the labourer was worthy of his hire.
[Footnote 21: Luke x.]
This the Quakers conceive to be the substance of all that Jesus Christ
taught upon this subject. They go therefore next to St. Paul for a
farther elucidation of it.
They are of opinion, that St. Paul, in his Epistle to[22] Timothy, and
to the Corinthians, and Galatians, acknowledges the position, that the
spiritual labourer is worthy of his hire.
[Footnote 22: 1 Cor. ix.--1 Tim. v.--Gal. vi.]
The same Apostle, however, says, "that[23] if any would not work,
neither should he eat." From this text the Quakers draw two conclusions,
first, that when ministers of the Gospel are idle, they are not entitled
to bodily sustenance; and, secondly, that those only, who receive them,
are expected to support them. The same Apostle says also,[24] "Let him
that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all
good things," but he nowhere says, "to him that teacheth not."
[Footnote 23: 2 Thes. iii. 10.]
[Footnote 24: Gal. vi. 6.]
But though men, who faithfully spend their time in preaching the Gospel,
are entitled to bodily maintenance from those who receive them, yet St.
Paul, the Quakers say, as far as his own practice was concerned thought
it more consistent with the spirit of Christianity, and less detrimental
to its interests, to support himself by the labour of his own hands,
than to be supported by that of others. And he advises others to do the
same, and not to make their preaching chargeable,[25] "not because, says
he we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample to you to follow
us."
[Footnote 25: 2 Thes. iii. 0.]
This power the Quakers consider ministers of the Gospel to abuse, who
make their preaching chargeable, if by any means, they can support
themselves; for St. Paul says farther, [26] "What is my reward then?
Verily that, when I preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel of Christ
without charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel." Thus the
Apostle, they conceive, looks up to God and not to men for the reward of
his spiritual labours. And the same Apostle makes it a characteristic of
the false teachers, that they make merchandize of their hearers.[27]
[Footnote 26: 1 Cor. ix. 18.]
[Footnote 27: 2 Pet. ii. 3.]
It is objected to the Quakers, on this occasion, that St. Paul received
relief from the brethren at Philippi, as well as from others, when he
did not preach. But their reply is, that this relief consisted of
voluntary and affectionate presents sent to him in circumstances of
distress. In this case the Apostle states, that he never desired these
gifts, but that it was pleasant to him to see his religious instruction
produce a benevolence of disposition that would abound to their
account.[28]
[Footnote 28: Philip. iv. 17.]
St. Peter is the only other person, who is mentioned in the New
Testament as speaking on this subject. Writing to those, who had been
called to the spiritual oversight of the churches, he advises as
follows:[29] "Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the
oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre,
but of a ready mind, neither as being lords over God's heritage, but
being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear,
ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." Upon these
words the Quakers make three observations; that ministers should not
make a gain of the Gospel; that they should look to God for their
reward, and not to men; and that Peter himself must have preached, like
St. Paul, without fee or reward, or he could not consistently have
recommended such a practice to others.
[Footnote 29: 1 Pet. v. 2.]
The Quakers, therefore, from the example and precepts of Jesus Christ,
and of the Apostles Paul and Peter, come to the following conclusions on
this subject. First, that God raises up his own ministers. Secondly,
that these are to dispense his Gospel freely. Thirdly, that they are to
take, whereever they are received, such things as are given them, which
things they deserve while in the exercise of their calling, as much as
the labourer his hire, but that no bargains are to be made about
religion; that they are not to compel men to give, neither are they to
take away any thing from those who are unwilling to receive them, but,
in this case, to go their ways, and shake the dust from their feet
against them, or, in other words, to declare that they have done their
own duty in going to them with the word of God, and that the fault lies
with them in refusing to hear it. Neither, when they return from their,
missions, or are idle at home, are they to receive any thing, but to use
their own scrips and purses, and clothes. And fourthly, that though it
be lawful for them to receive such sustenance, under such limitations,
during the exercise of their ministry, it would be more consistent with
the spirit of Christianity, if they would give their spiritual labours
freely, and look up to God for their reward, thus avoiding the character
of false teachers, and the imputation of an abuse of their power in the
Gospel.
Now these conclusions, the Quakers say, seem to have been sanctioned, in
a great measure, by the primitive practice for the three first centuries
of the church, or till the darkness of apostacy began to overwhelm the
religious world.
In the very early times of the Gospel, many Christians, both at
Jerusalem and Alexandria in Egypt, sold their possessions, and lived
together on the produce of their common stock. Others in Antioch,
Galatia, and Pontus, retained their estates in their possession, but
established a fund, consisting of weekly or monthly offerings, for the
support of the church. This fund continued in after times. But it was
principally for the relief of poor and distressed saints, in which the
ministers of the Gospel, if in that situation, might also share.
Tertullian, in speaking of such funds, gives the following account:
"Whatsoever we have, says he, in the treasury of our churches, is not
raised by taxation, as though we put men to ransom their religion, but
every man once a month, or when it pleaseth him, bestoweth what he
thinks proper, but not except he be willing. For no man is compelled,
but left free to his own discretion. And that, which is thus given, is
not bestowed in vanity, but in relieving the poor, and upon children
destitute of parents, and in the maintenance of aged and feeble persons,
and of men wrecked by sea, and of such as have been condemned to
metallic mines, or have been banished to islands, or have been cast into
prison, professing the Christian faith."
In process of time, towards the close of the third century, some lands
began to be given to the church. The revenue from these was thrown into
the general treasury or fund, and was distributed, as other offerings
were, by the deacons and elders, but neither bishops nor ministers of
the Gospel were allowed to have any concern with it. It appears from
Origen, Cyprian, Urban, Prosper, and others, that if in those times such
ministers were able to support themselves, they were to have nothing
from this fund. The fund was not for the benefit of any particular
person. But if such ministers stood in need of sustenance, they might
receive from it; but they were to be satisfied with simple diet, and
necessary apparel. And so sacred was this fund held to the purposes of
its institution, that the first Christian emperors, who did as the
bishops advised them, had no recourse to it, but supplied the wants of
ministers of the Gospel from their own revenues, as Eusebius, Theodoret,
and Sozomen relate.
The council of Antioch, in the year 340, finding fault with the deacons
relative to the management of the funds of the churches, ordained that
the bishops might distribute them, but that they should take no part of
them to themselves, or for the use of the priests and brethren who lived
with them, unless necessity required it, using the words of the Apostle,
"Having food and raiment, be therewith content."
In looking at other instances, cited by the Quakers, I shall mention
one, which throws light for a few years farther upon this subject. In
the year 359, Constantine, the emperor, having summoned a general
council of bishops to Arminium in Italy, and provided for their
subsistence there, the British and French bishops, judging it not fit to
live on the public, chose rather to live at their own expence. Three
only out of Britain, compelled by want, but yet refusing assistance
offered to them by the rest, accepted the emperor's provision, judging
it more proper to subsist by public than by private support. This
delicate conduct of the bishops is brought to shew, that, where
ministers of the Gospel had the power of maintaining themselves, they
had no notion of looking to the public. In short, in those early times,
ministers were maintained only where their necessities required it, and
this out of the fund for the poor. Those, who took from the fund, had
the particular application given them of "sportularii," or
basket-clerks, because, according to Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and
others, they had their portion of sustenance, given them in baskets.
These portions consisted but of a small pittance, sufficient only for
their livelihood, and were given them on the principle laid down by St.
Matthew, that the ministers of Jesus Christ were to eat and drink only
such things as were set before them.
In process of time new doctrines were advanced relative to the
maintenance of the ministry, which will be hereafter explained. But as
these were the inventions of men, and introduced during the apostacy,
the Quakers see no reason, why they should look up to these in
preference to those of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles, and of the
practice of Christians in the purest periods of the church. They
believe, on the other hand, that the latter only are to be relied upon
as the true doctrines. These were founded in divine wisdom on the
erection of the Gospel ministry, and were unmixed with the inventions of
men. They were founded on the genius and spirit of Christianity, and not
on the genius or spirit of the world. The Quakers therefore, looking up
to these as to the surer foundation, have adopted the following tenets
on this subject.
They believe, first, that it would be inconsistent in them as
Christians, to make a pecuniary payment to their own ministers for their
Gospel labours. And they regulate their practice accordingly upon this
principle. No one is ever paid by the Quakers for the performance of any
office in the church. If a minister lives at home, and attends the
meeting to which he belongs, he supports himself, as St. Paul did, by
his own trade. If he goes on the ministry to other meetings, he is
received by the Quakers as he travels along, and he finds meat and drink
at the houses of these. His travelling expenses also are generally
defrayed in this particular case. But he receives no reward, or fixed or
permanent stipend, for his services on these or on any other such
occasions.
And as the Quakers cannot pay their own ministers, so it is a tenet with
them, that they cannot pay those of other denominations for their Gospel
labours upon the same principle; that is, they believe, that all
ministers of every description ought to follow the example, which St.
Paul gave and enjoined them, of maintaining themselves by their own
hands; they ought to look up to God and not to men for their reward;
they ought to avoid the character of false teachers, and the imputation
of abusing their power in the Gospel. And to these they add a particular
reason, drawn from the texts quoted, which is not applicable in the
former case, namely, that ministers are not authorised to take meat and
drink from those who are not willing to receive them.
SECT. II.
_Other reasons why Quakers cannot pay ministers of the Gospel of a
different denomination from themselves--These arise out of the nature of
the payments made to them, or out of the nature of tithes--History of
tithes from the fourth century to the reign of Henry the eighth, when
they were definitively consolidated into the laws of the land._
But the Quakers have other reasons, besides the general reasons, and the
particular one which has been given, why as Christians they cannot pay
ministers of a different denomination from themselves for their Gospel
labours, or why they cannot pay ministers of the established church.
These arise out of the nature of the payments which are made to them, or
out of the nature of tithes. But to see these in their proper light,
some notion should be given of the origin of this mode of their
maintenance. I shall therefore give a very concise history of tithes
from the fourth century, to which period I have already brought the
reader, to the reign of Henry the eighth, when they took a station in
the laws of the land, from which they have never yet been displaced.
It has already appeared that, between the middle and the close of the
fourth century, such ministers of the Gospel as were able, supported
themselves, but that those who were not able, were supported out of the
fund for the poor. The latter, however, had no fixed or determined
proportion of this fund allotted them, but had only a bare livelihood
from it, consisting of victuals served out to them in baskets, as before
explained. This fund too consisted of voluntary offerings, or of
revenues from land voluntarily bequeathed. And the principle, on which
these gifts or voluntary offerings were made, was the duty of charity to
the poor. One material innovation, however, had been introduced, as I
remarked before, since its institution, namely, that the bishops, and
not the deacons, had now the management of this fund.
At the latter end of the fourth century, and from this period to the
eighth, other changes took place in the system of which I have been
speaking. Ministers of the Gospel began to be supported, all of them
without distinction, from the funds of the poor. This circumstance
occasioned a greater number of persons to be provided for than before.
The people therefore were solicited for greater contributions than had
been ordinarily given. Jerom and Omrysostom, out of good and pious
motives, exhorted them in turn to give bountifully to the poor, and
double honour to those who laboured in the lord's work. And though they
left the people at liberty to bestow what they pleased, they gave it as
their opinion, that they ought not to be less liberal than the ancient
Jews, who, under the Levitical law, gave a tenth of their property to
the priesthood and to the poor. Ambrose, in like manner, recommended
tenths, as now necessary, and as only a suitable donation for these
purposes.
The same line of conduct continued to be pursued by those who succeeded
in the government of the church, by Augustin, bishop of Hippo, by Pope
Leo, by Gregory, by Severin among the Christians, in Pannonia, and by
others. Their exhortations, however, on this subject, were now mixed
with promises and, threats. Pardon of sins and future rewards were held
out on the one hand, and it was suggested on the other, that the people,
themselves would be reduced to a tenth, and the blood of all the poor
who died, would be upon their heads, if they gave less than a tenth of
their incomes to holy uses. By exhortations of this sort, reiterated for
three centuries, it began at length to be expected of the people, that
they would not give less than tenths of what they possessed. No right
however was alleged to such a proportion of their income, nor was
coercion ever spoken of. These tenths also were for holy uses, which
chiefly included the benefit of the poor. They were called the Lord's
goods in consequence, and were also denominated the patrimony of the
poor.
Another change took place within the period assigned, which I must now
mention as of great concern. Ministers of the Gospel now living wholly
out of the tenths, which with legacies constituted the fund of the poor,
a determined portion of this fund, contrary to all former usage, was set
apart for their use. Of this fund, one fourth was generally given to the
poor, one fourth to the repairs of churches, one fourth to officiating
ministers, and one fourth to the[30] bishops with whom they lived. Hence
the maintenance of ministers, as consisting of these two orders, and
the repairs of churches, took now the greatest part of it, so that the
face of things began to be materially altered. For whereas formerly this
fund went chiefly to the poor, out of which ministers of the Gospel were
provided, it now went chiefly to the church, out of which there came a
provision for the poor. Another change also must be noticed with respect
to the principle on which the gifts towards this fund were offered. For
whereas tenths were formerly solicited on the Christian duty of charity
to the poor, they were now solicited on the principle, that by the law
of Moses they ought to be given for holy uses, in which the benefit of
the fatherless, the stranger, and the widow, were included. From this
time I shall use the word tithes for tenths, and the word clergy instead
of ministers of the Gospel.
[Footnote 30: In process of time, as the bishops became otherwise
provided for, the fund was divided into three parts for the other three
purposes just mentioned.]
In the eighth century, matters were as I have now represented them. The
people had been brought into a notion, that they were to give no less
than a tenth of their income to holy uses. Bishops generally at this
time, and indeed long previously to this, lived in monasteries. Their
clergy lived also with them in these monasteries, and went from thence
to preach in the country within the diocese. It must be also noticed,
that there were, at this time, other monasteries under abbots or priors,
consisting mostly of lay persons, and distinct from those mentioned, and
supported by offerings and legacies in the same manner. The latter,
however, not having numerous ecclesiastics to support, laid out more of
their funds than the former were enabled to do, towards the
entertainment of strangers, and towards the maintenance of the poor. Now
it must be observed, that, when these two kinds of monasteries existed,
the people were at liberty to pay their tithes to either of them as they
pleased, and that, having this permission, they generally favoured the
latter. To these they not only paid their tithes, but gave their
donations by legacy. This preference of the lay abbies to the
ecclesiastical arose from a knowledge that the poor, for whose benefit
tithes had been originally preached up, would be more materially served.
Other circumstances too occurred, which induced the people to continue
the same preference. For the bishops in many places began to abuse their
trust, as the deacons had done before, by attaching the bequeathed lands
to their sees, so that the inferior clergy, and the poor became in a
manner dependent upon them for their daily bread. In other places the
clergy had seized all to their own use. The people therefore so
thoroughly favoured the lay abbies in preference to those of the church,
that the former became daily richer, while the, latter did little more
than maintain their ground.
This preference, however, which made such a difference in the funds of
the ecclesiastical, and of the lay monasteries, was viewed with a
jealous eye by the clergy of those times, and measures were at length
taken to remove it. In a council under Pope Alexander the third, in the
year 1180, it was determined, that the liberty of the people should be
restrained with respect to their tithes. They were accordingly forbidden
to make appropriations to religious houses without the consent of the
bishop, in whose diocese they lived. But even this prohibition did not
succeed. The people still favoured the lay abbies, paying their tithes
there, till Pope Innocent the third, in the year 1200, ordained, and he
enforced it by ecclesiastical censures, that every one should pay his
tithes to those who administered to him spiritual things in his own
parish. In a general council also held at Lyons, in the year 1274, it
was decreed, that it was no longer lawful for men to pay their tithes
where they pleased, as before, but that they should pay them to mother
church. And the principle, on which they had now been long demanded, was
confirmed by the council of Trent under Pope Pius the fourth, in the
year 1560, which was, that they were due by divine right. In the course
of forty years after the payment of tithes had been forced by
ecclesiastical censures and excommunications, prescription was set up.
Thus the very principle, in which tithes had originated, was changed.
Thus free will-offerings became dues, to be exacted by compulsion. And
thus the fund of the poor was converted almost wholly into a fund for
the maintenance of the church.
Having now traced the origin of tithes, as far as a part of the
continent of Europe is concerned, I shall trace it as far as they have
reference to our own country. And here I may instantly observe, and in a
few words, that the same system and the same changes are conspicuous.
Free will-offerings and donations of land constituted a fund for the
poor, out of which the clergy were maintained. In process of time,
tenths or tithes followed. Of these, certain proportions were allotted
to the clergy, the repairs of the churches, and the poor. This was the
state of things in the time of Offa, king of Mercia, towards the close
of the eighth century, when that prince, having caused Ethelbert, king
of the East Angles, to be treacherously murdered, fled to the Pope for
pardon, to please whom, and to expiate his own sin, he caused those
tithes to become dues in his own dominions, which were only at the will
of the donors before.
About sixty years afterwards, Ethelwolf, a weak and superstitious
prince, was worked upon by the clergy to extend tithes as dues to the
whole kingdom; and he consented to it under the notion, that he was thus
to avert the judgments of God, which they represented as visible in the
frequent ravages of the Danes. Poor laymen, however, were still to be
supported out of these tithes, and the people were still at liberty to
pay them to whichever religious persons they pleased.
About the close of the tenth century, Edgar took from the people the
right of disposing of their tithes at their own discretion, and directed
that they should be paid to the parish churches. But the other
monasteries or lay-houses resisting, his orders became useless for a
time. At this period the lay monasteries were rich, but the parochial
clergy poor. Pope Innocent, however, by sending out his famous decree
before mentioned to king John, which was to be observed in England as
well as in other places under his jurisdiction, and by which it was
enacted, that every man was to pay his tithes to those only, who
administered spiritual help to him in his own parish, settled the
affair; for he set up ecclesiastical courts, thundered out his
interdicts, and frightened both king and people.[31]
[Footnote 31: To shew the principles, upon which princes acted with
respect to tithes in these times, the following translation of a
preamble to a grant of king Stephen may be produced: "Because, through
the providence of Divine Mercy, we know it to be so ordered, and by the
churches publishing it far and near, every body has heard, that, by the
distribution of alms, persons may be absolved from the bonds of sin, and
acquire the rewards of heavenly joys, I, Stephen, by the grace of God,
king of England, being willing to have a share with those, who by a
happy kind of commerce exchange heavenly things for earthly, and smitten
with the love of God, and for the salvation of my own soul, and the
souls of my father and mother, and all my forefathers and ancestors,"
&c.]
Richard the second confirmed these tithes to the parishes, as thus
settled by this pope, but it was directed by an act, that, in all
appropriations of churches, the bishop of the diocese should ordain a
convenient sum of money to be distributed out of the fruits and profits
of every living among the poor parishioners annually, in aid of their
living and sustenance. "Thus it seems, says Judge Blackstone, the people
were frequently sufferers by the withholding of those alms, for which,
among other purposes, the payment of tithes was originally imposed." At
length tithes were finally confirmed, and, in a more explicit manner, by
the famous act of Henry the eighth on this subject. And here I must just
observe, that, whereas from the eighth century to this reign, tithes
were said to be due, whenever the reason of them was expressed, by
divine right as under the Levitical law, so, in the preamble to the act
of Henry the eighth, they are founded on the same principle, being
described therein, "as due to God and the church." Thus, both on the
continent of Europe, as well as in our own country, were these changes
brought about, which have been described. And they were brought about
also by the same means, for they were made partly by the exhortations
and sermons of monks, partly by the decrees of popes, partly by the
edicts of popish kings, and partly by the determinations of popish
councils.
It is not necessary, that I should trace this subject farther, or that I
should make distinctions relative to tithes, whether they may be
rectorial, or vicarial, or whether they may belong to lay persons, I
have already developed enough of their history for my purpose. I shall
therefore hasten to state those other reasons, which the Quakers have to
give, why they cannot pay other ministers of the Gospel for their
spiritual labours, or rather, why they cannot consent to the payment of
tithes, as the particular species of payment demanded by the church.
SECT. III
_The other reasons then, as deducible from the history of tithes, are
the following--First, that they are not in equity dues of the
church--Secondly, that the payment of them being compulsory, it would,
if acceded to, be an acknowledgment that the civil magistrate has a
right to use force in matters of religion--And thirdly, that being
claimed upon an act which holds them forth as of divine right, any
payment of them would be an acknowledgment of the Jewish religion, and
that Christ had not yet actually come._
The other reasons then, which the Quakers have to give for refusing to
support other ministers of the Gospel, may be now deduced from the
nature of tithes, as explained in the former section.
The early Quakers rejected the payment of tithes for three reasons;
and, first, because they were demanded of them as dues of the church.
Against this doctrine, they set their faces as a religious body. They
contended that, if they were due at all, they were due to the poor, from
whom they had been forcibly taken, and to whom in equity they still
belonged; that no prince could alter the nature of right and wrong that
tithes were not justly due to the church, because Offa wished them to be
so, to expiate his own crimes; or because Ethelwolf wished them to be
so, from a superstitious notion, that he might thus prevent the
incursions of the Danes; or because Stephen wished them to be so, as his
own grant expresses, on the principle, that "the bonds of sin might be
dissolved, and that he might have a part with those, who by a happy kind
of commerce exchanged heavenly things for earthly;" or because the popes
of Rome wished them to be so, from whose jurisdiction all the subjects
of England were discharged by law.
They resisted the payment of them, because, secondly, tithes had become
of a compulsory nature, or because they were compelled to pay them.
They contended on this head, that tithes had been originally free
will-offerings, but that by violence they had been changed into dues,
to be collected by force; that nothing could be more clear, than that
ministers of the Gospel, if the instructions of Jesus to his disciples
were to be regarded, were not authorized even to demand, much less to
force, a maintenance from others; and that any constrained payment of
these, while it was contrary to his intention, would be an infringement
of their great tenet, by which they hold, that, Christ's kingdom being
of a spiritual nature, the civil magistrate had no right to dictate a
religion to any one, nor to enforce payment from individuals for the
same, and that any interference in those matters, which were solely
between God and man, was neither more nor less than an usurpation of the
prerogative of God.
They resisted the payment of them, because, thirdly, they were demanded
on the principle, as appeared by the preamble of the act of Henry the
eighth, that they were due as under the Levitical law by divine right.
Against this they urged, first, that, if they were due as the Levitical
tithes were, they must have been subject to the same conditions. They
contended that, if the Levites had a right to tithes, they had
previously given up to the community their own right to a share of the
land, but that the clergy claimed a tenth of the produce of the lands of
others, but had given up none of their own. They contended also, that
tithes by the Levitical law were for the strangers, the fatherless, and
the widows, as well as for the Levites, but that the clergy, by taking
tithes, had taken that which had been for the maintenance of the poor,
and had appropriated it solely to their own use, leaving them thus to
become a second burthen upon the land.
But they contended, that the principle itself was false. They
maintained, that the Levitical priesthood and tithes with it, had ceased
on the coming of Jesus Christ, as appeared by his own example and that
of his Apostles; that it became them, therefore, as Christians, to make
a stand against this principle, for that, by acquiescing in the notion
that the Jewish law extended to them, they conceived they would be
acknowledging that the priesthood of Aaron still existed, and that
Christ had not actually come.
This latter argument, by which it was insisted upon, that tithes ceased
with the Jewish dispensation, and that those who acknowledged them,
acknowledged the Jewish religion for Christians, was not confined to the
early Quakers, but admitted among many other serious Christians of those
times. The great John Milton himself, in a treatise which he wrote
against tithes, did not disdain to use it. "Although, says he, hire to
the labourer be of moral and perpetual right, yet that special kind of
hire, the tenth, can be of no right or necessity but to that special
labour for which God ordained it. That special labour was the Levitical
and ceremonial service of the tabernacle, which is now abolished. The
right, therefore, of that special hire, must needs be withal abolished,
as being also ceremonial. That tithes were ceremonial is plain, not
being given to the Levites till they had been first offered an heave
offering to the Lord. He then, who by that law brings tithes into the
Gospel, of necessity brings in withal a sacrifice and an altar, without
which tithes by that law were unsanctified and polluted, and therefore
never thought of in the first Christian times, nor till ceremonies,
altars, and oblations had been brought back. And yet the Jews, ever
since their temple was destroyed, though they have rabbies and teachers
of their law, yet pay no tithes, as having no Levites to whom, no temple
where, to pay them, nor altar whereon to hallow them; which argues, that
the Jews themselves never thought tithes moral, but ceremonial only.
That Christians therefore should take them up, when Jews have laid them
down, must needs be very absurd and preposterous."
Having now stated the three great reasons, which the early Quakers gave,
in addition to those mentioned in a former section, why they could not
contribute towards the maintenance of an alien ministry, or why they
could not submit to the payment of tithes, as the peculiar payment
demanded by the established church, I shall only observe, that these are
still insisted upon by their descendants, but more particularly the
latter, because all the more, modern acts upon this subject take the act
of Henry the eighth as the great ground-work or legal foundation of
tithes, in the preamble of which it is inserted, that "they are due to
God and the church." Now this preamble, the Quakers assert, has never
been done away, nor has any other principle been acknowledged instead of
that in this preamble, why tithes have been established by law. The
Quakers therefore conceive, that tithes are still collected on the
foundation of divine right, and therefore that it is impossible for them
as Christians to pay them, for that by every such payment, they would
not only be acknowledging the Jewish religion for themselves, but would
be agreeing in sentiment with the modern Jews, that Jesus Christ has not
yet made his appearance upon earth.
CHARACTER
OF THE
QUAKERS
CHAP. I.
_Character of the Quakers--Character of great importance in life--yet
often improperly estimated--This the case with that of the
Quakers--Attempt to appreciate it duly--Many outward circumstances in
the constitution of the Quakers, which may be referred to as certain
helps in the promotion of this attempt_.
Nothing is of more importance to an individual, than a good character,
during life. Posthumous reputation, however desirable it may be thought,
is of no service to the person whom it follows. But a living character,
if it be excellent, is inestimable, on account of the good which it
produces to him who possesses it. It procures him attention, civility,
love, and respect from others. Hence virtue may be said to have its
reward in the present life. This account will be also true of bodies,
and particularly of religious bodies, of men. It will make a difference
to the individuals of these, whether they be respected, as a body, by
the individuals of other religious denominations, or by the government
under which they live.
But though character be of so much importance in life, there are few who
estimate it, either when they view it individually or collectively, as
if really is. It is often, on the one hand, heightened by partiality,
and, on the other, lowered by prejudice. Other causes also combine to
afford wrong apprehensions concerning it. For as different diseases
throw out often the same symptoms, and the judgment of the physician is
baffled, so different motives produce frequently similar actions, and
the man who tries to develop a character, even if he wishes to speak
truth, finds himself at a loss to pronounce justly upon it.
As these failings and difficulties have attended men in estimating the
character of individuals, so they seem to have attended those who have
attempted to delineate that of the society of the Quakers. Indeed, if we
were to take a view of the different traits which have been assigned to
the latter, we could not but conclude, that there must have been some
mistake concerning them. We should have occasion to observe, that some
of these were so different in their kind, that they could not reasonably
be supposed to exist in the same persons. We should find that others
could scarcely be admitted among a body of professing Christians. The
Quaker character, in short, as it has been exhibited to the world, is a
strange medley of consistency and contradiction, and of merit and
defect.
Amidst accounts, which have been so incongruous, I shall attempt the
task of drawing the character of the Quakers. I shall state, first, all
the excellencies, that have been said to belong to it. I shall state
also, all the blemishes with which it has been described to be
chargeable. I shall then enquire how far it is probable that any of
these, and in what degree they are true. In this enquiry, some little
reliance must be placed upon my personal knowledge of the Quakers, and
upon my desire not to deceive. It is fortunate, however, that I shall be
able, in this case, to apply to a test, which will be more satisfactory
to the world, than any opinion of my own upon this subject. I mean to
say that the Quakers, like others, are the creatures of their own
education and habits, or that there are circumstances in their
constitution, the knowledge of which will assist us in the discussion of
this question; circumstances, which will speak for themselves and to
which we way always refer in the case of difficulty or doubt. Their
moral education, for example, which has been already explained, cannot
but have an influence on the minds of those who receive it. Their
discipline also, which has appeared to be of so extraordinary a nature,
and to be conducted in so extraordinary a manner, cannot but have an
effect of its own kind. The peculiar customs, in which they have been
described to have been born and educated, and which must of course act
upon them as a second nature, must have a correspondent influence again.
From these, and other prominent and distinguishing features in their
constitution, I may hope to confirm some of the truths which have been
told, and to correct some of the errors that have been stated, on the
subject which is now before us.
Nor am I without the hope, that the discussion of this subject upon such
principles, will be acceptable to many. To those, who love truth, this
attempt to investigate it will be interesting. To the Quakers it will
be highly useful. For they will see, in the glass or mirror which I
shall set before them, the appearance which they make in the world. And
if they shall learn, in consequence, any of the causes either of their
merits or of their failings, they will have learnt a lesson, which they
may make useful by the farther improvement of their moral character.
CHAP. II.
_Good part of the character of the Quakers--This general or
particular--Great general trait is, that they are a moral people--This
opinion of the world accounted for and confirmed by a statement of some
of the causes that operate in the production of character--One of these
causes is, the discipline peculiar to this society._
I come, according to my design, to the good part of the character of the
Quakers. This may be divided into two sorts, into that which is general,
and into that which is particular. On the subject of their general good
character I shall first speak.
It is admitted by the world, as I had occasion to observe in the first
chapter of the first volume, that whatever other objections might be
brought against the Quakers as a body, they deserved the character of a
moral people.
Though this fact be admitted, and there would therefore appear to be no
necessity for confirming it, I shall endeavour, according to the plan
proposed, to shew, by means of the peculiar system of the Quakers as a
religious body, that this is one of the traits given them by the world,
which cannot be otherwise than true.
The Quakers believe, in the first place, that the Spirit of God, acting
in man, is one of the wises of virtuous character. They believe it to
be, of all others, the purest and sublimest source. It is that spring,
they conceive, to good action, and of course to exalted character, in
which man can have none but a passive concern. It is neither hereditary
nor factitious. It can neither be perpetuated in generation by the
father to the child, nor be given by human art. It is considered by the
Quakers as the great and distinguishing mark of their calling. Neither
dress, nor language, nor peculiar customs, constitute the Quaker, but
the spiritual knowledge which he possesses. Hence all pious men may be
said to have been Quakers. Hence the patriarchs were Quakers, that is,
because they professed to be led by the Spirit of God. Hence the
Apostles and primitive Christians were Quakers. Hence the virtuous
among the Heathens, who knew nothing of Christianity, were Quakers also.
Hence Socrates may be ranked in profession with the members of this
society. He believed in the agency of the Divine Spirit. It was said of
him, "that he had the guide of his life within him; that this spirit
furnished him with divine knowledge; and that it often impelled him to
address and exhort the people." Justin the Martyr had no scruple in
calling both Socrates and Heraclitus Christians, though they lived long
before Christ; "for all such as these, says he, who lived according to
the divine word within them, and which word was in all men, were
Christians." Hence also, since the introduction of Christianity, many of
our own countrymen have been Quakers, though undistinguished by the
exterior marks of dress or language. Among these we may reckon the great
and venerable Milton. His works are full of the sentiments of[32]
Quakerism. And hence, in other countries and in other ages, there have
been men, who might be called Quakers, though the word Quakerism was
unknown.
[Footnote 32: Milton not only considered the Spirit of God as a divine
teacher, but that the scriptures were not to be spiritually understood
but by the means of this spirit. He believed also, that human learning
was not necessary for the qualification of a minister of the Gospel.
And he wrote an essay against tithes.]
But independently of the agency of the Spirit of God, which the Quakers
thus consider to be the purest cause of a good life and character, we
may reckon a subordinate cause, which may be artificial, and within the
contrivance and wisdom of man. When the early Quakers met together as a
religious body, though they consisted of spiritually minded men, they
resolved on a system of discipline, which should be followed by those
who became members of the society. This discipline we have already seen.
We have seen how it attempts to secure obedience to Christian precepts.
How it marks its offences. How it takes cognizance of them when
committed. How it tries to reclaim and save. How, in short, by
endeavouring to keep up the members of the society to a good life, it
becomes instrumental in the production or preservation of a good
character.
From hence it will appear, that the virtue of the Quakers, and of course
that their character may be distinguished into two kinds, as arising
from two sources. It may arise from spiritual knowledge on the one hand,
or from their discipline on the other. That which arises from the first,
will be a perfect virtue. It will produce activity in excellence. That
which arises from the second, will be inferior and sluggish. But,
however it may be subject to this lower estimation, it will always be
able to produce for those who have it, a certain degree of moral
reputation in the opinion of the world.
These distinctions having been made as to the sources of virtuous
character, there will be no difficulty in shewing, that the world has
not been deceived in the point in question. For if it be admitted that
the Divine Spirit, by means of its agency on the heart of man, is really
a cause of virtuous character, it will then be but reasonable to
suppose, that the Quakers, who lay themselves open for its reception
more than others, both by frequent private retirements, and by their
peculiar mode of public worship, should bear at least as fair a
reputation as others, on account of the purity of their lives. But the
discipline, which is unquestionably a guardian of morals, is peculiar to
themselves. Virtue therefore is kept up among the Quakers by an
extraordinary cause, or by a cause which does not act among many other
bodies of men. It ought therefore to be expected, while this
extraordinary cause exists, that an extraordinary result should follow,
or that more will be kept apparently virtuous among the Quakers, in
proportion to their numbers, than among those where no such discipline
can be found, or, in other words, that, whenever the Quakers are
compared with those of the world at large, they will obtain the
reputation of a moral people.
CHAP. III.
SECT. I.
_Particular traits in the Quaker character--The first of these is
benevolence--This includes good will to man in his temporal
capacity--Reasons why the world has bestowed this trait upon the
Quakers--Probability of its existence--from their ignorance of many
degrading diversions of the world--from their great tenet on war--from
their discipline which inculcates equality--and watchfulness over
morals--and from their doctrine that man is the temple of the Holy
Spirit._
[33]Of the good traits in the Quaker character, which may be called
particular, I shall first notice that of benevolence. This benevolence
will include, first, good will to man in his temporal capacity, or a
tender feeling for him as a fellow creature in the varied situations of
his life.
[Footnote 33: The reader must be aware, that all Quakers do not partake
of this good part of the character. That the generality do, I believe.
That all ought to do, I know, because their principles, as will be
clearly seen, lead to such a character. Those, therefore, who do not,
will see their own deficiency, or how much they have yet to attain,
before they can become Quakers.]
The epithet of benevolent has been long given to this society. Indeed I
know of no point, where the judgment of the world has been called forth,
in which it has been more unanimous, than in the acknowledgment of this
particular trait, as a part of the Quaker character.
The reasons for the application of this epithet to the society, may be
various.
It has been long known, that as the early Christians called each other
brethren, and loved each other as such, so there runs through the whole
society of the Quakers a system of similar love, their affection for one
another having been long proverbial.
It has been long known again, that as the early Christians extended
their benevolence out of the pale of their own society to others who
lived around them, so the Quakers manifest a similar disposition towards
their countrymen at large. In matters of private distress, where persons
of a different religious denomination have been the objects, and where
such objects have been worthy, their purses have been generally open,
and they have generally given as largely in proportion to their
abilities as other people. To public charities in their respective
places of residence, they have generally administered their proper
share. But of late years, as they have mixed more with the world, this
character of the society has become more conspicuous or better known. In
the cases of dearth and distress, which happened a few years ago, it is
a matter of publicity, that they were among the foremost in the
metropolis, and in same other towns in the kingdom, not only in
pecuniary contributions, but in frequent and regular attendances for the
proper distribution of them. And if their character has ever stood
higher for willingness to contribute to the wants of others at any one
time than at another, it stands the highest, from whatever cause it may
happen, at the present day.
It has been long known again, that as the early Christians extended
their love beyond their own society, and beyond those of the world who
lived around them, to those who were reputed natural enemies in their
own times, so the Quakers do not confine their benevolence to their own
countrymen, but extend it to the various inhabitants of the globe,
without any discrimination, whether they are reputed hostile to the
government under which they live. In times of war we never see them
bearing arms, and in times of victory we never see them exulting, like
other people. We never see them illuminating their houses, or running up
and down the streets, frantic with joy upon such occasions. Their joy,
on the other hand, is wounded by the melancholy consideration of the
destruction of the human race, when they lament, with almost equal
sympathy, over the slaughter of enemies and friends.
But this character of a benevolent people has been raised higher of late
years in the estimation of the public by new circumstances or by the
unanimous and decided part, which they have taken as a body, in behalf
of the abolition of the slave-trade. For where has the injured African
experienced more sympathy than from the hearts of Quakers? In this great
cause the Quakers have been singularly conspicuous. They have been
actuated as it were by one spring. In the different attempts, made for
the annihilation of this trade, they have come forward with a religious
zeal. They were at the original formation of the committee for this
important object, where they gave an almost unexampled attendance for
years. I mentioned in the preceding volume, that near a century ago,
when this question had not awakened the general attention, it had
awakened that of the Quakers as a body; and that they had made
regulations in their commercial concerns with a view of keeping
themselves clear of the blood of this cruel traffic. And from that time
to the present day they have never forgotten this subject. Their yearly
epistles notice it, whenever such notice is considered to be useful. And
they hold themselves in readiness, on all fit occasions, to unite their
efforts for the removal of this great and shocking source of suffering
to their fellow-creatures.
But whether these be the reasons, or whether they be not the reasons,
why the Quakers have been denominated benevolent, nothing is more true
than that this appellation has been bestowed upon them, and this by the
consent of their countrymen. For we have only to examine our public
prints, to prove the truth of the assertion. We shall generally find
there, that when there is occasion to mention the society, the word
"benevolent" accompanies it.
The reader will perhaps be anxious to know how it happens, that the
Quakers should possess this general feeling of benevolence in a degree
so much stronger than the general body of their countrymen, that it
should have become an acknowledged feature in their character. He will
naturally ask, does their education produce it? Does their discipline
produce it? Do their religious tenets produce it? What springs act upon
the Quakers, which do not equally act upon other people? The
explanation of this phenomenon will be perfectly consistent with my
design; for I purpose, as I stated before, to try the truth or falsehood
of the different traits assigned to the character of the Quakers, by the
test of probabilities as arising from the nature of the customs or
opinions which they adopt. I shall endeavour therefore to show, that
there are circumstances, connected with their constitution, which have a
tendency to make them look upon man in a less degraded and hostile, and
in a more kindred and elevated light, than many others. And when I shall
have accomplished this, I shall have given that explanation of the
phenomenon, or that confirmation of the trait, which, whether it may or
may not satisfy others, has always satisfied myself.
The Quakers, in the first place, have seldom seen a man degraded but by
his vices. Unaccustomed to many of the diversions of the world, they
have seldom, if ever, seen him in the low condition of a hired buffoon
or mimic. Men, who consent to let others degrade themselves for their
sport, become degraded in their turn. And this degradation increases
with the frequency of the spectacle. Persons in such habits are apt to
lose sight of the dignity of mankind, and to consider them as made for
administration to their pleasures, or in an animal or a reptile light.
But the Quakers, who know nothing of such spectacles, cannot, at least
as far as these are concerned, lose either their own dignity of mind,
or behold others lose it. They cannot therefore view men under the
degrading light of animals for sport, or of purchasable play-things.
And as they are not accustomed to consider their fellow-creatures as
below themselves, so neither are they accustomed to look with enmity
towards them. Their tenet on the subject of war, which has been so amply
detailed, prevents any disposition of this kind. For they interpret
those words of Jesus Christ, as I have before shewn, which relate to
injuries, as extending not to their fellow-citizens alone, but to every
individual in the world, and his precept of loving enemies, as extending
not only to those individuals of their own country, who may have any
private resentment against them, but to those who become reputed enemies
in the course of wars, so that they fix no boundaries of land or ocean,
and no limits of kindred, to their love, but consider Jew and Gentile,
Greek and Barbarian, bond and free, as their brethren. Hence neither
fine nor imprisonment can induce them to learn the use of arms, so as to
become qualified to fight against these, or to shed their blood. And
this principle of love is not laid as it were upon the shelf, like a
volume of obsolete laws, so that it may be forgotten, but is kept alive
in their memories by the testimony which they are occasionally called to
bear or by the sufferings they undergo by distraints upon their
property, and sometimes by short imprisonments, for refusing military
service.
But while these circumstances may have some influence in the production
of this trait of benevolence to man in the character of the Quakers, the
one by preventing the hateful sight of the loss of his dignity, and the
other by destroying the seeds of enmity towards him, there are others,
interwoven into their constitution, which will have a similar, though a
stronger tendency towards it.
The great system of equality, which their discipline daily teaches and
enforces, will make them look with an equal eye towards all of the human
race. Who can be less than a man in the Quaker society, when the rich
and poor have an equal voice in the exercise of its discipline, and when
they fill equally the important offices that belong to it? And who is
there out of the society, whom the Quakers esteem more than human? They
bow their knees or, their bodies, as I have before noticed, to no man.
They flatter no man on account of his riches or his station. They pay
homage to no man on account of his rank or title. Stripped of all
trappings, they view the creature man. If then they view him in this
abstracted light, they can view him only as an equal. Bit in what other
society is it, that a similar estimate is made of him? The world are
apt in general to make too much of those in an elevated station, and
those again in this station are apt to make less of others beneath them
than they ought. Thus an under or an over valuation of individuals
generally takes place in society; from whence it will unavoidably
happen, that if some men are classed a little below gods, others will be
classed but a little above the brutes of the field. Their discipline,
again, has a tendency to produce in them an anxious concern for the good
of their fellow-creatures. Man is considered, in the theory of this
discipline, as a being, for whose spiritual welfare the members are
bound to watch. They are to take an interest in his character and his
happiness. If he be overtaken in a fault, he is not to be deserted, but
reclaimed. No endeavour is to be spared for his restoration. He is
considered, in short, as a creature, worthy of all the pains and efforts
that can be bestowed upon him.
The religion of the Quakers furnishes also a cause, which occasions them
to consider man in an elevated light. They view him, as may be collected
from the preceding volume, as a temple of the Spirit of God. There is no
man, so mean in station, who is not made capable by the Quakers of
feeling the presence of the Divinity within him. Neither sect, nor
country, nor colour, excludes him, in their opinion, from this
presence. But it is impossible to view man as a tabernacle, in which the
Divinity may reside, without viewing him in a dignified manner. And
though this doctrine of the agency of the Spirit dwelling in man belongs
to many other Christian societies, yet it is no where so systematically
acted upon as by that of the Quakers.
These considerations may probably induce the reader to believe, that the
trait of benevolence, which has been affixed to the Quaker character,
has not been given it in vain. There can be no such feeling for the
moral interests of man, or such a benevolent attention towards him in
his temporal capacity, where men have been accustomed to see one another
in low and degrading characters, as where no such spectacles have
occurred. Nor can there be such a genuine or well founded love towards
him, where men, on a signal given by their respective governments,
transform their pruning-hooks into spears, and become tygers to one
another without any private provocation, as where they can be brought
under no condition whatever, to lift up their arm to the injury of any
of the human race. There must, in a practical system of equality, be a
due appreciation of man as man. There must, in a system where it is a
duty to watch over him, for his good, be a tender attention towards him
as a fellow creature. And in a system, which considers him as a temple
in which the Divine Being may dwell, there must be a respect towards
him, which will have something like the appearance of a benevolent
disposition to the world.
SECT. II.
_Trait of benevolence includes again good will towards man in his
religious capacity--Quakers said to have no spirit of persecution, nor
to talk with bitterness, with respect to other religious sects--This
trait probable--because nothing in their doctrines that narrows
love--their sufferings on the other hand--and their law against
detraction--and their aversion to making religion a subject of common
talk--all in favour of this trait._
The word benevolence, when mentioned as a trait in the character of the
Quakers, includes also good will to man in his religious capacity.
It has often been observed of the Quakers, that they shew no spirit of
persecution, and that you seldom hear them talk with bitterness, with
respect to other religious societies.
On the first part of this trait it may be observed, that the Quakers
have never had any great power of exercising dominion over others in
matters of religion. In America, where they have had the greatest, they
have conducted themselves well. William Penn secured to every colonist
the full rights of men as to religious opinion and worship. If the
spirit of persecution is ever to be traced to the Quakers, it must be
found in their writings on the subject of religion. In one or two of the
productions of their first authors, who were obliged to support their
opinions by controversy, there is certainly an appearance of an improper
warmth of temper; but it remarkable that, since these times, scarcely a
book has appeal written by a Quaker against the religion of another.
Satisfied with their own religious belief, they seem to have wished only
to be allowed to enjoy it in peace. For when they have appeared as
polemical writers, it has been principally in the defence of themselves.
On the second part of the trait I may remark, that it is possible, in
the case of tithes, where their temper has been tried by expensive
distraints, and hard imprisonments, that they may utter a harsh
expression against a system which they believe to be anti-Christian, and
which they consider also as repugnant to equity, inasmuch as it compels
them to pay labourers, who perform work in their own harvest; but this
feeling is only temporary, and is seldom extended beyond the object
that produces it. They have never, to my knowledge, spoken with
bitterness against churchmen on this account. Nor have I ever heard
them, in such a season of suffering, pass the slightest reflection upon
their faith.
That this trait of benevolence to man in his religious capacity is
probably true, I shall endeavour to shew according to the method I have
proposed.
There is nothing, in the first place, in the religious doctrines of the
Quakers, which can produce a narrowness of mind in religion, or a
contempt for the creeds of others. I have certainly, in the course of my
life, known some bigots in religion, though, like the Quakers, I censure
no man for his faith. I have known some, who have considered baptism and
the sacrament of the supper as such essentials in Christianity, as to
deny that those who scrupled to admit them, were Christians. I have
known others pronouncing an anathema against persons, because they did
not believe the atonement in their own way. I have known others again,
who have descended into the greatest depths of election and reprobation,
instead of feeling an awful thankfulness for their own condition as the
elect, and the most tender and affectionate concern for those whom they
considered to be the reprobate, indulging a kind of spiritual pride on
their own account, which has ended in a contempt for others. Thus the
doctrines of Christianity, wonderful to relate, have been made to narrow
the love of Christians! The Quaker religion, on the other hand, knows no
such feelings as these. It considers the Spirit of God as visiting all
men in their day, and as capable of redeeming all, and this without any
exception of persons, and that the difference of creeds, invented by the
human understanding, will make no difference in the eternal happiness of
man. Thus it does not narrow the sphere of salvation. It does not
circumscribe it either by numerical or personal limits. There does not
appear therefore to be in the doctrines of the Quaker religion any thing
that should narrow their love to their fellow creatures, or any thing
that should generate a spirit of rancour or contempt towards others on
account of the religion they profess.
There are, on the contrary, circumstances, which have a tendency to
produce an opposite effect.
I see, in the first place, no reason why the general spirit of
benevolence to man in his temporal capacity, which runs through the
whole society, should not be admitted as having some power in checking a
bitter spirit towards him in his religious character.
I see again, that the sufferings, which the Quakers so often undergo on
account of their religious opinions, ought to have an influence with
them in making them tender towards others on the same subject. Virgil,
who was a great master of the human mind, makes the queen of Carthage
say to Aeneas, "Haud ignara mali, miseris succurere disco," or, "not
unacquainted with misfortunes myself, I learn to succour the
unfortunate." So one would hope that the Quakers, of all other people,
ought to know how wrong it is to be angry with another for his religion.
With respect to that part of the trait, which relates to speaking
acrimoniously of other sects, there are particular circumstances in the
customs and discipline of the Quakers, which seem likely to prevent it.
It is a law of the society, enforced by their discipline, as I shewed in
a former volume, that no Quaker is to be guilty of detraction or
slander. Any person, breaking this law, would come under admonition, if
found out. This induces an habitual caution or circumspection in speech,
where persons are made the subject of conversation. And I have no doubt
that this law would act as a preventive in the case before us.
It is not a custom, again, with the Quakers, to make religion a subject
of common talk. Those, who know them, know well how difficult it is to
make them converse, either upon their own faith, or upon the faith of
others. They believe, that topics on religion, familiarly introduced,
tend to weaken its solemnity upon the mind. They exclude subjects also
from ordinary conversation upon another principle. For they believe,
that religion should not be introduced at these times, unless it can be
made edifying. But, if it is to be made edifying, it is to come, they
conceive, not through the medium of the activity of the imagination of
man, but through the passiveness of the soul under the influence of the
Divine Spirit.
SECT. III.
_Trait of benevolence includes again a tender feeling toward the brute
creation--Quakers remarkable for their tenderness to animals--This
feature produced from their doctrine, that animals are not mere
machines, but the creatures of God, the end of whose existence is always
to be attended to in their treatment--and from their opinion as to what
ought to be the influence of the Gospel, as recorded in their own
summary_.
The word benevolence, when applied to the character of the Quakers,
includes also a tender feeling towards the brute creation.
It has frequently been observed by those who are acquainted with the
Quakers, that all animals belonging to them are treated with a tender
consideration, and are not permitted to be abused, and that they feel,
in like manner, for those which may be oppressed by others, so that
their conduct is often influenced in some way or other upon such
occasions.
It will be obvious, in enquiring into the truth of this trait in the
character of the Quakers, that the same principles, which I have
described as co-operating to produce benevolence towards man, are not
applicable to the species in question. But benevolence, when once rooted
in the heart, will grow like a fruitful plant, from whatever causes it
may spring, and enlarge itself in time. The man, who is remarkable for
his kindness towards man, will always be found to extend it towards the
creatures around him. It is an ancient saying, that "a righteous man
regards the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are
cruel."
But, independently of this consideration, there is a principle in the
Quaker constitution, which, if it be attended to, cannot but give birth
to the trait in question.
It has been shewn in the first Volume, on the subject of the diversions
of the field, that the Quakers consider animals, not as mere machines,
to be used at discretion, but in the sublime light of the creatures of
God, of whose existence the use and intention ought always to be
considered, and to whom rights arise from various causes, any violation
of which is a violation of a moral law.
This principle, if attended-to by the Quakers, must, as I have just
observed, secure all animals which may belong to them, from oppression.
They must so consider the end of their use, as to defend them from
abuse. They must so calculate their powers and their years, as to shield
them from excessive labour. They must so anticipate their feelings, as
to protect them from pain. They must so estimate their instinct, and
make an allowance for their want of understanding, as not to attach to
their petty mischiefs the necessity of an unbecoming revenge. They must
act towards them, in short, as created for special ends, and must
consider themselves as their guardians, that these ends may not be
perverted, but attained.
To this it may be added, that the printed summary of the religion of the
society constantly stares them in the face, in which it is recorded,
what ought to be the influence of Christianity on this subject. "We are
also clearly of the judgment, that, if the benevolence of the Gospel
were generally prevalent in the minds of men, it would even influence
their conduct in the treatment of the brute creation, which would no
longer groan, the victims of their avarice, or of their false ideas of
pleasure."
CHAP. IV.
_Second trait is that of complacency of mind or quietness of
character--This trait confirmed by circumstances in their education,
discipline, and public worship, which are productive of quiet personal
habits--and by their disuse of the diversions of the world--by the mode
of the settlement of their differences--by their efforts in the
subjugation of the will--by their endeavour to avoid all activity of
mind during their devotional exercises--all of which are productive of a
quiet habitude of mind_.
A second trait in the character of the Quakers is that of complacency,
or evenness, or quietness of mind and manner.
This trait is, I believe, almost as generally admitted by the world, as
that of benevolence. It is a matter of frequent observation, that you
seldom see an irascible Quaker. And it is by no means uncommon to hear
persons, when Quakers are the subject of conversation, talking of the
mysteries of their education, or wondering how it happens, that they
should be able to produce in their members such a calmness and quietness
of character.
There will be no difficulty in substantiating this second trait.
There are circumstances, in the first place, in the constitution of the
Quaker system, which, as it must have already appeared, must be
generative of quiet personal habits. Among these may be reckoned their
education. They are taught, in early youth, to rise in the morning in
quietness, to go about their ordinary occupations in quietness, and to
retire in quietness to their beds. We may reckon also their discipline.
They are accustomed by means of this, when young, to attend the monthly
and quarterly meetings, which are often of long continuance. Here they
are obliged to sit patiently. Here they hear the grown up members of the
society speak in order, and without any interruption of one another. We
may reckon again their public worship. Here they are accustomed
occasionally to silent meetings, or to sit quietly for a length of time,
when not a word is spoken.
There are circumstances again in the constitution of the Quakers, which
are either preventive of mental activity, and excitement of passion, or
productive of a quiet habitude of mind. Forbidden the use of cards, and
of music, and of dancing, and of the theatre, and of novels, it must be
obvious, that they cannot experience the same excitement of the
passions, as they who are permitted the use of these common amusements
of the world. In consequence of an obligation to have recourse to
arbitration, as the established mode of decision in the case of
differences with one another, they learn to conduct themselves with
temper and decorum in exasperating cases. They avoid, in consequence,
the frenzy of him who has recourse to violence, and the turbid state of
mind of him who engages in suits at law. It may be observed also, that
if, in early youth, their evil passions are called forth by other
causes, it is considered as a duty to quell them. The early subjugation
of the will is insisted upon in all genuine Quaker families. The
children of Quakers are rebuked, as I have had occasion to observe, for
all expressions of anger, as tending to raise those feelings, which
ought to be suppressed. A raising even of their voice is discouraged, as
leading to the disturbance of their minds. This is done to make them
calm and passive, that they may be in a state to receive the influence
of the pure principle. It may be observed again, that in their meetings
for worship, whether silent or vocal, they endeavour to avoid all
activity of the mind for the same reason.
These different circumstances then, by producing quiet personal habits
on the one hand, and quiet mental ones on the other, concur in producing
a complacency of mind and manner, so that a Quaker is daily as it were
at school, as far as relates to the formation of a quiet character.
CHAP. V.
_Third trait is, that they do not temporize, or do that which they
believe to be improper as a body of Christians--Subjects, in which this
trait is conspicuous--Civil oaths--Holy or consecrated days--War--Tithes
--Language--Address--Public illuminations--Utility of this trait to the
Quaker character._
It is a third trait in the character of the Quakers, that they refuse to
do whatever as a religious body they believe to be wrong.
I shall have no occasion to state any of the remarks of the world to
shew their belief of the existence of this trait, nor to apply to
circumstances within the Quaker constitution to confirm it. The trait is
almost daily conspicuous in some subject or another. It is kept alive by
their discipline. It is known to all who know Quakers. I shall satisfy
myself therefore with a plain historical relation concerning it.
It has been an established rule with the Quakers, from the formation of
their society, not to temporize, or to violate their consciences, or, in
other words, not to do that which as a body of Christians they believe
to be wrong, though the usages of the world, or the government of the
country under which they live, should require it, but rather to submit
to the frowns and indignation of the one, and the legal penalties
annexed to their disobedience by the other. This suffering in preference
of the violation of their consciences, is what the Quakers call "the
bearing of their testimony," or a demonstration to the world, by the
"testimony of their own example," that they consider it to be the duty
of Christians rather to suffer, than to have any concern with that which
they conceive to be evil.
The Quakers, in putting this principle into practice, stand, I believe,
alone. For I know of no other Christians, who as a body[34] pay this
homage to their scruples, or who determine upon an ordeal of suffering
in preference of a compromise with their ease and safety.
[Footnote 34: The Moravians, I believe, protest against war upon
scriptural grounds. But how far in this, or in any other case, they bear
a testimony, like the Quakers, by suffering, I do not know.]
The subjects, in which this trait is conspicuous, are of two kinds,
first as they relate to things enjoined by the government, and secondly
as they relate to things enjoined by the customs or fashions of the
world.
In the first case there was formerly much more suffering than there is
at present, though the Quakers still refuse a compliance with as many
injunctions of the law as they did in their early times.
It has been already stated that they refused, from the very institution
of their society, to take a civil oath. The sufferings, which they
underwent in consequence, have been explained also. But happily, by the
indulgence of the legislature, they are no longer persecuted for this
scruple, though they still persevere in it, their affirmation having
been made equal to an oath in civil cases.
It has been stated again, that they protested against the religious
observance of many of those days, which the government of the country
for various considerations had ordered to be kept as holy. In
consequence of this they were grievously oppressed in the early times of
their history. For when their shops were found open on Christmas day,
and on Good Friday, and on the different fast-days which had been
appointed, they were taken up and punished by the magistrates on the one
hand, and insulted and beaten by the people on the other. But,
notwithstanding this ill usage, they persevered as rigidly in the
non-observance of particular days and times, as in their non-compliance
with oaths, and they still persevere in it. It does not appear, however,
that their bearing of their testimony in this case is any longer a
source of much vexation or trouble to them: for though the government of
the country still sanctions the consecration of particular days, and,
the great majority of the people join in it, there seems, to have been a
progressive knowledge or civilization in both, which has occasioned them
to become tender on account of this singular deviation from their own
practice.
But though the Quakers have been thus relieved by the legislature, and
by the more mild and liberal disposition of the people, from so much
suffering in bearing their testimony on the two occasions which have
been mentioned, yet there are others, where the laws of government are
concerned, on which they find themselves involved in a struggle between
the violation of their consciences and a state of suffering, and where
unfortunately there is no remedy at hand, without the manifestation of
greater partiality towards them, than it may be supposed an equal
administration of justice to all would warrant.
Hie first of these occasions is when military service, is enjoined. The
Quakers, when drawn for the militia, refuse either to serve, or to
furnish substitutes. For this refusal they come under the cognizance of
the laws. Their property, where they have any, is of course distrained
upon, and a great part of a little substance is sometimes taken from
them on, this account. Where they have not distrainable property, which
is occasionally the case, they never fly, but submit to the known
punishment, and go patiently to prison. The legislature, however, has
not been inattentive to the Quakers even upon this occasion; for it has
limited their confinement to three months. The government also of the
country afforded lately, in a case in which the Quakers were concerned,
an example of attention to religious scruples upon this subject. In the
late bill for arming the country _en masse_, both the Quakers and the
Moravians were exempted from military service. This homage to religious
principle did the authors of these exemptions the highest honour. And it
certainly becomes the Quakers to be grateful for this unsolicited
favour; and as it was bestowed upon them upon the full belief that they
were the people they professed themselves, they should be particularly
careful that they do not, by any inconsistency of conduct, tarnish the
high reputation, which has been attached to them by the government under
which they live.
The second occasion is, when tithes or other dues are demanded by the
church. The Quakers refuse the payment of these upon principles, which
have been already explained. They come of course again under the
cognizance of the laws. Their property is annually distrained upon by
warrant from justices of the peace, where the demand does not exceed the
value of ten pounds, and this is their usual suffering in this case. But
there have not been wanting instances where an unusual hardness, of
heart has suggested a process, still allowable by the law, which has
deprived them of all their property, and consigned them for life to the
habitation of a prison.[35]
[Footnote 35: One died, not a great while ago, in York Castle, and
others, who were confined with him, would have shared his fate, but for
the interference of the king.
It is surprising, that the clergy should not unite in promoting a bill
in parliament, to extend the authority of the justices to grant warrants
of distraint for tithes to more than the value of ten pounds, and to any
amount, as this is the most cheap and expeditious way for themselves. If
they apply to the ecclesiastical courts, they can enforce no payment of
their tithes then. They can put the poor Quaker into prison, but they
cannot obtain their debt. If they apply to the exchequer, they may find
themselves, at the conclusion of their suit, and this after a delay of
three years, liable to the payment of extra costs, to the amount of
forty or fifty pounds, with which they cannot charge the Quaker, though
they may confine him for life. Some, to my knowledge, have been glad to
abandon these suits, and put up with the costs, incurred in them; rather
than continue them. Recourse to such courts occasion the clergy
frequently to be charged with cruelty, when, if they had only understood
their own interests better, they would have avoided them.]
But it is not only in cases, of which the laws of the land take
cognizance, that the Quakers prefer suffering to doing that which their
consciences disapprove. There are other cases, connected, as I observed
before, with the opinion of the world, where they exhibit a similar
example. If they believe any custom or fashion of the world to be evil
in itself, or to be attended with evil, neither popular applause nor
popular fury can make them follow it, but they think it right to bear
their testimony against it by its disuse, and to run the hazard of all
the ridicule, censure, or persecution, which may await them for so
doing.
In these cases, as in the former, it must be observed, that the
sufferings of the Quakers have been much diminished, though they still
refuse a compliance in as many instances as formerly, with the fashions
of the world.
It was stated in the first volume, that they substituted the word Thou
for You, in order that they might avoid by their words, as well as by
their actions, any appearance of flattery to men. It was stated also,
that they suffered on this account; that many magistrates, before whom
they were carried in the early times of their institution, occasioned
their punishment to be more severe, and that they were often abused and
beaten by others, and put in danger of their lives. This persecution,
however, for this singularity in their language, has long ceased; and
the substitution of Thou for You is now only considered as an innocent
distinction between Quakers and other people.
It was stated again in the same volume, that the Quakers abstained from
the usual address of the world, such as from pulling off their hats, and
from bowing the body, and from their ceremonious usages. It was
explained also, that they did this upon two principles. First, because,
as such ceremonies were no real marks of obeisance, friendship or
respect, they ought to be discouraged by a people, whose religion
required that no image should be held out, which was not a faithful
picture of its original, and that no action should be resorted to, which
was not correspondent with the feelings of the heart. Secondly, because
all such ceremonies were of a complimentary or flattering nature, and
were expressly forbidden by Jesus Christ. It was stated also, that, on
account of their rejection of such outward usages, their hats were
forcibly taken from their heads and thrown away; that they were beaten
and imprisoned on this sole account; and that the world refused to deal
with them as tradesmen, in consequence of which many could scarcely
supply their families with bread. But this deviation from the general
practice, though it still characterizes the members of this society, is
no longer a source of suffering. Magistrates sometimes take care that
their hats shall be taken gently from their heads on public occasions,
and private persons expect now no such homage from Quakers, when they
meet them.
There is, however, a custom, against which the Quakers anciently bore
their testimony, and against which they continue to bear it, which
subjects them occasionally to considerable inconvenience and loss. In
the case of a general illumination, they never light up their houses,
but have the courage to be singular in this respect, whatever may be the
temper of the mob.
They believe that the practice of general illuminations cannot be
adopted consistently by persons, who are lovers of the truth. They
consider it as no certain criterion of joy. For, in the first place, how
many light up their houses, whose hearts are overwhelmed with sorrow?
And, in the second place, the event which is celebrated, may not always
be a matter of joy to good minds. The birth-day of a prince, for
example, may be ushered in as welcome, and the celebration of it may
call his actions to mind, upon which a reflection may produce pleasure,
but the celebration of the slaughter or devastation of mankind can
afford no happiness to the Christian.
They consider the practice again, accompanied as it is with all its
fiery instruments, as dangerous and cruel. For how many accidents have
happened, and how many lives have been lost upon such occasions?
They consider it again as replete with evil. The wild uproar which it
creates, the mad and riotous joy which it produces, the licentiousness
which it favours, the invidious comparisons which it occasions, the
partial favour which it fixes on individuals who have probably no moral
merit, the false joys which it holds out, and the enmity which it has on
some occasions a tendency to perpetuate; are so many additional
arguments against it in the opinion of the Quakers.
For these and other reasons they choose not to submit to the custom, but
to bear their testimony against it, and to run the hazard of having
their windows broken, or their houses pillaged, as the populace may
dictate: And in the same manner, if there be any other practice, in
which the world may expect them to coincide, they reject it, fearless of
the consequences, if they believe it to be productive of evil.
This noble practice of bearing testimony, by which a few individuals
attempt to stem the torrent of immorality by opposing themselves to its
stream, and which may be considered as a living martyrdom, does, in a
moral point of view, a great deal of good to those, who conscientiously
adopt it. It recalls first principles to their minds. It keeps in their
remembrance the religious rights of man. It teaches them to reason upon
principle, and to make their estimates by a moral standard. It is
productive both of patience and of courage. It occasions them to be kind
and attentive, and merciful to those who are persecuted and oppressed.
It throws them into the presence of the Divinity when they are
persecuted themselves. In short, it warms their moral feelings, and
elevates their religious thoughts. Like oil, it keeps them from rusting.
Like a whetstone, it gives them a new edge. Take away this practice from
the constitution of the Quakers, and you pull down a considerable
support of their moral character. It is a great pity that, as professing
Christians, we should not, more of us, incorporate this noble principle
individually into our religion. We concur unquestionably in customs,
through the fear of being reputed singular, of which our hearts do not
always approve, though nothing is more true, than that a Christian is
expected to be singular with respect to the corruptions of the world.
What an immensity of good would be done, if cases of persons, choosing
rather to suffer than to temporize, were so numerous as to attract the
general notice of men! Would not every case of suffering operate as one
of the most forcible lessons that could be given to those who should see
it? And how long would that infamous system have to live, which makes a
distinction between political expediency and moral right?
CHAP. VI.
_A fourth trait is, that, in political affairs, they reason upon
principle, and not from consequences--This mode of reasoning insures the
adoption of the maxim of not doing evil that good may come--Had Quakers
been legislators, many public evils had been avoided, which are now
known in the world--Existence of this trait probable from the influence
of the former trait--and from the influence of the peculiar customs of
the Quakers--and from the influence of their system of discipline upon
their minds._
The next trait, which I shall lay open to the world as belonging to the
Quaker character, is, that in all those cases, which may be called
political, the Quakers generally reason upon principle, and but seldom
upon consequences.
I do not know of any trait, which ever impressed me more than this in
all my intercourse with the members of this society. It was one of those
which obtruded itself to my notice on my first acquaintance with them,
and it has continued equally conspicuous to the present time.
If an impartial philosopher, from some unknown land, and to whom our
manners, and opinions, and history, were unknown, were introduced
suddenly into our metropolis, and were to converse with the Quakers
there on a given political subject, and to be directly afterwards
conveyed to the west end of the town, and there to converse with
politicians, or men of fashion, or men of the world, upon the same, he
could not fail to be greatly surprised. If he thought the former wise,
or virtuous, or great, he would unavoidably consider the latter as
foolish, or vicious, or little. Two such opposite conclusions, as he
would hear deduced from the reasonings of each, would impress him with
an idea, that he had been taken to a country inhabited by two different
races of men. He would never conceive, that they had been educated in
the same country, or under the same government. If left to himself, he
would probably imagine, that they had embraced two different religions.
But if he were told that they professed the same, he would then say,
that the precepts of this religion had been expressed in such doubtful
language, that they led to two sets of principles contradictory to one
another. I need scarcely inform the reader, that I allude to the two
opposite conclusions, which will almost always be drawn, where men
reason from motives of policy or from moral right.
If it be true that the Quakers reason upon principle in political
affairs, and not upon consequences, it will follow as a direct
inference, that they will adopt the Christian maxim, that men ought not
to do evil that good may come. And this is indeed the maxim, which you
find them adopting in the course of their conversation on such subjects,
and which I believe they would have uniformly adopted, if they had been
placed in political situations in life. Had the Quakers been the
legislators of the world, we should never have seen many of the public
evils that have appeared in it. It was thought formerly, for example, a
glorious thing to attempt to drive Paganism from the Holy Land, but
Quakers would never have joined in any of the crusades for its
expulsion. It has been long esteemed, again, a desideratum in politics,
that among nations, differing in strength and resources, a kind of
balance of power should be kept up, but Quakers would never have engaged
in any one war to preserve it. It has been thought again, that it would
contribute to the happiness of the natives of India, if the blessings of
the British constitution could be given them instead of their own. But
Quakers would never have taken possession of their territories for, the
accomplishment of such a good. It has been long thought again a matter
of great political importance, that our West-Indian settlements should
be cultivated by African labourers. But Quakers would never have
allowed a slave-trade for such a purpose. It has been thought again, and
it is still thought, a desirable thing, that our property should be
secured from the petty depredations of individuals. But Quakers would
never have consented to capital punishments for such an end. In short,
few public evils would have arisen among mankind, if statesmen had
adopted the system, upon which the Quakers reason in political affairs,
or if they had concurred with an ancient Grecian philosopher in
condemning to detestation the memory of the man, who first made a
distinction between expediency and moral right.
[36]That this trait of reasoning upon principle, regardless of the
consequences, is likely to be a feature in the character of the Quakers,
we are warranted in pronouncing, when we discover no less than three
circumstances in the constitution of the Quakers, which may be causes in
producing it.
[Footnote 36: The Sierra Leone Company, which was founded for laudable
purposes, ought have been filled by Quakers; but when they understood
that there was to be a fort and depot of arms in the settlement, they
declined becoming proprietors.]
This trait seems, in the first place, to be the direct and legitimate
offspring of the trait explained in the last chapter. For every time a
Quaker is called upon to bear his testimony by suffering, whether in the
case of a refusal to comply with the laws, or with the customs and
fashions of the land, he is called upon to refer to his own conscience,
against his own temporal interest, and against the opinion of the world.
The moment he gives up principle for policy in the course of his
reasoning upon such occasions, then he does as many others do, that is,
he submits to the less inconvenience, and then he ceases to be a Quaker.
But while he continues to bear his testimony, it is a proof that he
makes expediency give way to what he imagines to be right. The bearing
therefore of testimony, where it is conscientiously done, is the parent,
as it is also the bulwark and guardian of reasoning upon principle. It
throws out a memento whenever it is practised, and habituates the
subject of it to reason in this manner. But this trait is nourished and
supported again by other causes, and first by the influence, which the
peculiar customs of the Quakers must occasionally have upon their minds.
A Quaker cannot go out of doors, but he is reminded of his own
singularity, or of his difference in a variety of respects from his
fellow-citizens. Now every custom, in which he is singular, whether it
be that of dress or of language, or of address, or any other, is
founded, in his own mind, on moral principle, and in direct opposition
to popular opinion and applause. He is therefore perpetually reminded,
in almost all his daily habits, of the two opposite systems of
reasoning, and is perpetually called upon as it were to refer to the
principles, which originally made the difference between him and another
citizen of the world.
Neither has the discipline of the Quakers a less tendency to the
production of the trait in question. For the business, which is
transacted in the monthly and quarterly and yearly meetings, is
transacted under the deliberations of grave and serious men, who
consider themselves as frequently under the divine influence, or as
spiritually guided on such occasions. In such assemblies it would be
thought strange if any sentiment were uttered, which savoured of
expediency in opposition to moral right. The youth therefore, who are
present, see no other determination of any question than by a religious
standard. Hence these meetings operate as schools, in which they are
habituated to reason upon principle, and to the exclusion of all worldly
considerations, which may suggest themselves in the discussion of any
point.
CHAP. VII.
_A fifth trait is, that they have an extraordinary independence of
mind--This probable, because the result of the farmer trait--because
likely to be produced by their discipline--by their peculiar custom--and
by their opinions on the supposed dignity of situations in life--because
again, they are not vulnerable by the seduction of governments--or by
the dominion of the church--or by the power of fashion and of the
opinion of the world._
The next trait, conspicuous in the character of the Quakers, and which
is nearly allied to the former, is that of independence of mind.
This trait is of long standing, having been coeval with the society
itself. It was observed by Cromwell, that "he could neither win the
Quakers by money, nor by honours, nor by places, as he could other
people." A similar opinion is entertained of them at the present day.
For of all people it is generally supposed that they are the least
easily worked upon, or the least liable to be made tools or instruments
in the bands of others. Who, for example, could say, on any
electioneering occasion, whatever his riches might be, that he could
command their votes?
There will be no difficulty in believing this to be a real feature in
the character of the Quakers. For when men are accustomed to refer
matters to their reason, and to reason upon principle, they will always
have an independence of mind, from a belief that they are right. And
wherever it be a maxim with them not to do evil that good may come, they
will have a similar independence from a consciousness, that they have
never put themselves into the power of the world. Hence this
independence of mind must be a result of the trait explained in the
former chapter.
But in looking into the constitution of the Quakers, we shall find it
full of materials for the production of this noble trait.
Their discipline has an immediate tendency to produce it. For in no
community does a man feel himself so independent as a man. A Quaker is
called upon in his own society to the discharge of important offices. He
sits as a representative, a legislator, and a judge. In looking round
him, he finds all equal in privileges, but none superior, to himself.
Their peculiar customs have the same tendency, for they teach them to
value others, who are not of the society, by no higher standard than
that by which they estimate themselves. They neither pull off their
hats, nor bow, nor scrape. In their speech they abstain from the use of
flattering words and of titles. In their letters, they never subscribe
themselves the humble servants of any one. They never use, in short, any
action or signature, which, serving as a mark of elevation to others,
has any influence towards the degradation of themselves.
Their opinions also upon the supposed dignity of situations in life
contribute towards the promotion of this independence of their minds.
They value no man, in the first place, on account of his earthly title.
They pay respect to magistrates, and to all the nobility of the land, in
their capacity of legislators, whom the chief magistrate has appointed;
but they believe that the mere letters in a schedule of parchment can
give no more intrinsic worth to a person, than they possess themselves,
and they think with Juvenal, that "the only true nobility is virtue."
Hence titles, in the glare of which some people lose the dignity of
their vision, have no magical effect upon Quakers.
They value no man again on account of the antiquity of his family
exploits. They believe, that there are people now living in low and
obscure situations, whose ancestors performed in the childhood of
history, when it was ignorant and incapable of perpetuating traditions,
as great feats as those, which in its greater maturity it has recorded.
And as far as these exploits of antiquity may be such as were performed
in wars, they would not be valued by them as ornaments to men, of whose
worth they can only judge by their virtuous or their Christian
character.
They value no man again on account of the antiquity of his ancestry.
Believing revelation to contain the best account of the rise of man,
they consider all families as equally old in their origin, because they
believe them to have sprung from the same two parents, as their common
source.
But this independence of mind, which is said to belong to the Quakers,
may be fostered again by other circumstances, some of which are peculiar
to themselves.
Many men allow the independence of their minds to be broken by an
acceptance of the honours offered to them by the governments, under
which they live; but no Quaker could accept of any of the honours of the
world.
Others allow the independence of their minds to be invaded by the
acceptance of places and pensions from the same quarter. But Quakers,
generally speaking, are in a situation too independent in consequence
of their industry, to need any support of this kind; and no Quaker could
accept it on the terms on which it is usually given.
Others again suffer their opinions to be fettered by the authority of
ecclesiastical dominion, but the Quakers have broken all such chains.
They depend upon no minister of the Gospel for their religion, nor do
they consider the priesthood, as others do, as a distinct order of men.
Others again come under the dominion of fashion and of popular opinion,
so that they dare only do that which they see others do, or are hurried
from one folly to another, without having the courage to try to resist
the stream. But the life of a Quaker is a continual state of
independence in this respect, being a continual protest against many of
the customs and opinions of the world.
I shall now only observe upon this subject, that this trait of
independence of mind, which is likely to be generated by some, and which
is preserved by other of the causes which have been mentioned, is not
confined to a few members, but runs through the society. It belongs to
the poor as well as to the rich, and to the servants of a family as well
as to those who live in poverty by themselves. If a poor Quaker were to
be introduced to a man of rank, he would neither degrade himself by
flattery on the one hand, nor by any unbecoming submission on the
other. He would neither be seduced into that which was wrong, nor
intimidated from doing that which was right, by the splendour or
authority of appearances about him. He would still preserve the
independence of his mind, though he would behave with respect. You would
never be able to convince him, that he had been talking with a person,
who had been fashioned differently from himself. This trait of
independence cannot but extend itself to the poor. For having the same
rights and privileges in the discipline, and the same peculiar customs,
and the same views of men and manners as the rest of the society, a
similar disposition must be found in these, unless it be counteracted by
other causes. But as Quaker servants, who live in genuine Quaker
families, wear no liveries, nor any badges of poverty or servitude,
there is nothing in the opposite scale to produce an opposite feature in
their character.
CHAP. VIII.
SECT. I.
_A sixth trait is that of courage--This includes, first, courage in
life--Courage not confined to military exploits--Quakers seldom
intimidated or abashed--dare to say what they think--and to do what
they believe to be right--This trait may arise from that of bearing
their testimony--and from those circumstances which produced
independence of mind--and from the peculiar customs of the society_.
Another trait in the character of the Quakers, which is nearly allied to
independence of mind, is courage. This courage is conspicuous both in
life and in the hour of death. That, which belongs to the former
instance, I shall consider first.
If courage in life were confined solely to military exploits, the
Quakers would have no pretensions to this character. But courage
consists of presence of mind in many situations of peril different from
those in war. It consists often in refusing to do that which is wrong,
in spite of popular opinion. Hence the man, who refuses a challenge, and
whom men of honour would brand with cowardice on that account, may have
more real courage in so doing, and would have it in the estimation of
moral men, than the person who sends it. It may consist also in an
inflexible perseverance in doing that which is right, when persecution
is to follow. Such was the courage of martyrdom. As courage then may
consist in qualities different from that of heroism, we shall see what
kind of courage it is that has been assigned to the Quakers, and how far
they may be expected to be entitled to such a trait.
There is no question, in the first place, that Quakers have great
presence of mind on difficult and trying occasions. To frighten or to
put them off their guard would be no easy task. Few people have ever
seen an innocent Quaker disconcerted or abashed.
They have the courage also to dare to say, at all times and in all
places, what they believe to be right.
I might appeal for the truth of this, as far as the early Quakers are
concerned, to the different conversations which George Fox had with
Oliver Cromwell, or to the different letters which be wrote to him as
protector, or to those which he afterwards wrote to king Charles the
second.
I might appeal again to the address of Edward Burroughs to the same
monarch.
I might appeal again to the bold but respectful language, which the
early Quakers used to the magistrates, when they were carried before
them, and to the intrepid and dignified manner in which they spoke to
their judges, in the coarse of the numerous trials to which they were
brought in those early times.
I might appeal also to Barclay's address to the king, which stands at
the head of his Apology.
"As it is inconsistent, says Barclay to king Charles the second, with
the truth I bear, so it is far from me to use this letter as an engine
to flatter thee, the usual design of such works, and therefore I can
neither dedicate it to thee, nor crave thy patronage, as if thereby I
might have more confidence to present it to the world, or be more
hopeful of its success. To God alone I owe what I have, and that more
immediately in matters spiritual, and therefore to him alone, and the
service of his truth, I dedicate whatever work he may bring forth in me,
to whom only the praise and honour appertain, whose truth needs not the
patronage of worldly princes; his arm and power being that alone by
which it is propagated, established, and confirmed."