On points of minor difference it may be observed, that He who was the Prince of Peace, and came to establish it, never specifically forbad war, (for there may be cases where it is merely self defence,) but left it to the spirit of the gospel to remove the causes of war. [22] We all know the appellation bestowed on the Centurion, Cornelius: and when soldiers came to John the Baptist saying, “What shall we do?” he merely sought to retrench the disorders and injustice which those who follow the profession of arms might be tempted to commit; but did not condemn their necessary employments. We may therefore fairly conclude that the sweeping condemnation of all war by the Quakers, is not warranted by Scripture, although it is in many and indeed most instances, entered upon far too carelessly.
One of the main distinctions of the Quakers is the rejection of certain amusements and pursuits, which others on the contrary consider as innocent, believing that the religion of Christ rather encourages than forbids a cheerful spirit, and allows by the example of the Saviour, a participation in social pleasures: and that “an upright, religious man, by partaking in such pleasures, may be the means of restraining others within due bounds, and by his very presence may prevent their degenerating into extravagance, profligacy, and sin;” [24a] and such do not feel in their hearts that these [24b] are the “pomps and vanities of the world,” which by their baptismal vow they renounce. But surely it is possible that different persons may regard the same pursuits and amusements in a very different light, and yet both may be conscientious in their views, and both, whether in abstaining or enjoying, be equally doing that which is lawful and right in the sight of God. That very amusement or pursuit which is a snare to one, and therefore to be avoided by him, may be a source of innocent, and perhaps profitable recreation to another. It is the intention, the animus with which an act is done, and not the act itself which constitutes the sin. “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: to his own master he standeth or falleth.”
“Christianity,” says an excellent prelate of our church, “forbids no necessary occupation, no reasonable indulgences, no innocent relaxation. It allows us to ‘use’ the world, provided we do not ‘abuse’ it. It does not spread before us a delicious banquet, and then come with a ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not:’ all it requires is that our liberty degenerate not into licentiousness; our amusements into dissipation; our industry into incessant toil; our carefulness into extreme anxiety and endless solicitude. When it requires us to be ‘temperate in all things,’ it plainly tells us that we may use all things temperately. [26] When it directs us to ‘make our moderation known unto all men,’ this evidently implies that within the bounds of moderation we may enjoy all the reasonable conveniences and comforts of this present life.”
I have noticed this, in my opinion, erroneous practice of the Quakers at the more length, because it is not confined to them. Asceticism, of which this is one branch, has been the bane of the church and of Christianity generally; and few sects are entirely free from the notion that holiness requires a withdrawal from amusements, and a certain degree of seclusion from the world. Yet, if the world is to be improved, the leaven must be placed in it; and a good man probably never does his Father’s work more effectually than when he spreads the sanctifying influence of his example through all the relations of life; showing that there is no position in society where Christianity does not add a grace and a relish unknown without it: spreading refinement of manners and delicacy of thought, and insensibly rendering social intercourse more polished, and more delightful, by banishing from it all that can offend.
The Quakers adduce Matt. v. 33–37, James v. 12, &c. in support of their objection to all oaths, even judicial ones, and consider that the Christian dispensation abrogated their use. But in answer to this we may observe that even the Almighty is represented as confirming his promises by a solemn oath. “Because,” says the apostle, “He could swear by no higher, He sware by Himself;” and St. Paul on particular occasions expresses himself thus, “As God is true:” “Before God I lie not:” “God is my record,” &c. all which expressions undoubtedly contain the essence and formality of an oath; and the Apostle upon some occasions mentions this solemn swearing with approbation, “an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife:” the swearing, therefore, which our Saviour absolutely forbids, is common or unnecessary swearing, and we are recommended to affirm or deny in common conversation without imprecations. “Let your conversation be yea, yea,—nay, nay.”
The repugnance entertained by the Quakers against paying tithes appears to me to arise from an error in their mode of viewing the question. The assertion made by them “that all the provision made for ministers of the gospel in the first ages was made by the love of their flocks,” is true, though that love very soon produced endowments, even before Christianity was established as the law of the empire. But allowing this, it does not follow, as they go on to assert, that “since we are under the same dispensation of love as the Apostles were, the principles which governed the church then are to govern it now.” Tithes were originally given to the church as a corporation, by the owners of the soil; and since that time estates have been transferred from hand to hand subject to that charge, till no man has any plea for refusing it. The question is not one of religion but of property. If my estate devolve to me chargeable with an annuity payable either to a corporation or an individual, I have no right to set up his religious opinions in bar of his claim: for I have paid less for the purchase in consequence of the existence of that claim, which in common honesty therefore I am bound to satisfy, be the annuitant who he may. [29]
Having now noticed the points wherein I consider the peculiar tenets of the Quakers to be erroneous, I shall conclude with the more agreeable part of my task, and prove by extracts from one of their writers how much of true Christian feeling exists among them. The following is from a little book given me by a Quaker, from the pen of J. Gurney, entitled “An Essay on Love to God.”
“Still more completely than the provisions of nature fall in with our bodily state, and supply our temporal wants; still more properly than the air agrees with the functions of the lungs, and the light with those of the eye, does the gospel of our Redeemer suit the spiritual condition of man. We are a fallen race, alienated from God by our sins, justly liable to his wrath: in the gospel we have pardon, peace and restoration. ‘Christ made all things new,’ says Grotius, ‘and the latter creation is more divine than the former.’ If then the first creation of mankind and all the bounties of nature are the result of Love, that attribute is far more gloriously displayed in the scheme of redemption and in the works of grace.—The love of God the Father is ever represented in Scripture as the origin of all our hopes,—as the eternal, unfathomable spring of the waters of life and salvation, and this love is plainly described as extending to the whole world. ‘God so loved the world, &c. [30a] God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’ [30b]—‘God would have all men to be saved, &c.’ [30c] Do we ask for an overwhelming evidence of the love of God? Let the Apostle satisfy our inquiry. ‘In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live by him. Herein is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.’ [31a] Do we ask whether God thus loved the whole or only a part of the world?—Let the same Apostle answer: ‘He tasted death for every man—He gave himself a ransom for all, &c.’ Even the Gentiles, who were without the benefit of an outward revelation, were by no means destitute of an inward knowledge of the law of God, and some of them showed ‘the work of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.’ [31b] ‘Christ is the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’ [31c] Hence we may reasonably infer that as God appointed the death of Christ to be a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, so all men receive through Christ a measure of moral and spiritual light, and all have their day of gracious visitation. If the light in numberless instances be extremely faint, if the darkness fail to comprehend it, we may rest in the conviction that God is not only just but equitable, and that those ‘who know not their Master’s will and do it not shall be beaten with few stripes.’ [32] The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, is intended for the benefit of the whole world: it is adapted to men of every condition, clime, and character: all are invited to avail themselves of its benefits: all who will come may come, and ‘take the water of life freely.’”
