The most curious instance of the working out of this control exercised by the Meeting, especially over the sexual relations, is in the marriage of Joseph —— with Elizabeth ——. The first act in the little drama was the formal written statement of Joseph that he was sorry for "having been familiar with his wife before his marriage to her." The Monthly Meeting appointed a committee, as usual, after making record of this "acknowledgment." After a month the committee reported that they had visited Joseph, and found his repentance sincere; and another committee was appointed to draw up a testimony against his former misconduct, to which Joseph was required to subscribe; and in a later month to hear it read from the steps of the Preparative Meeting in the neighborhood where he lived—or perhaps in that in which the offence was best known. After this had all been done, with patient detail, and reported and recorded, a further month elapsed, and then announcement was made at the Meeting of the intention of Joseph and Elizabeth to marry. The reader is astonished, thinking that Joseph has already evidenced his loyalty to his wife. A closer re-reading of the stages of the incident shows that the wife mentioned in the original offence was now dead; but that the offence was not dead. Joseph had to be restored to the Meeting before he could marry Elizabeth, who was very evidently a devoted member. To win his new wife, he had to make acknowledgment of the offence which preceded his former marriage.
This incident illustrates the whole attitude of that community toward these moralities. They were thought to be defilements of the body, the temple of God. No change of outward condition could eliminate the offence, which must be wiped out by repentance, public acknowledgment and formal restoration.
It is evident from the foregoing that the Meeting maintained control over the community, at least of its own members, by possessing an effective power to approve or to disapprove of the economic and the marital condition of each individual.
The code of morals practiced in this community required strict business honesty. The Quaker has moral discretion in economic affairs. He "expects to get what he pays for, and he expects to give what he has agreed." The honesty of "stroke-measure," by which bushels are topped off, the faithful performance of contracts and payment of debts were inculcated by the Meeting and enforced by its discipline.
This chapter may fitly close with a statement of the anathema of Quakerism, pronounced many times in a year, during the century. The offence selected shall be a moral one:
"Whereas, Jonathan Osgood hath had a right of membership among us, the people called Quakers, but not taking heed to the dictates of truth, hath so far deviated from the good order established among Friends as to neglect attendance of our religious meetings for worship and discipline, to deviate from the plain scripture language, and to refuse to settle with his creditors, and pay his just debts; and hath shut himself up concealed from the civil authorities, therefore for the clearing of truth and our Religious Society we do testify against his misconduct, and disown him, the said Jonathan Osgood, from being any longer a member of our Society, until he shall from a true sight and sense of his misconduct condemn the same to the satisfaction of the Meeting. Which that he may is our desire for him. Signed, in and on behalf of Purchase Monthly Meeting this th day of the th month."
The above wording except the name is taken from the minutes of Purchase Meeting; and some of the offences mentioned in a few pages of those minutes, for which men were disowned, or for acknowledgment pardoned and restored, are the following: "deviating from plainness of speech and apparel"—"not keeping to the plain scripture language;" "going to Frollicks," "going to places of amusement," "attending a horserace;" "frequenting a tavern, being frequently intoxicated with strong liquor;" "placing his son out apprentice with one not of our Society;" "leaving his habitation in a manner disagreeable to his friends;" "to use profane language and carry a pistol, in an unbecoming manner;" "bearing arms;" "to challenge a person to fight;" "to marry with a first cousin;" "to keep company with a young woman not of our Society on account of marriage;" "to be married by a magistrate;" "to marry with one not of our Society before a hireling priest;" "to join principles and practice with another society of people;" "to be guilty of fornication;" "to be unchaste with her who is now my wife" (the person afterward married by the accused). Oblong minutes: "to have bought a negro slave," "to have bought a negro wench and to be familiar with her."
It was the operation of this code of morals, and of its ecclesiastical checks and curbs, that made the Quaker Hill man and the Quaker Hill sentiment what they are. And having done its work this code at the last tended to weaken the Meeting, as it had strengthened the public conscience. In talking recently with a sweet old lady past eighty, I asked her, "Did you ever hear anyone disowned in meeting?" "No," she never had, and "doubted if there had been many." Later, her daughter said, "Why, Grandmother, you married out of meeting yourself!" Whereupon I asked again, "Well, what did they do with you then?" "Oh," she replied, not at all embarrassed, "they turned me out!"
"But what was the outcome of it all?" asks James Wood, in the closing sentences of his monograph, "The Purchase Meeting." He continues: "As a church the Quakers here missed their great opportunity. As settlers came among them in increasing numbers, the Friends became solicitous to preserve the strictest moral observance among their members. They withdrew from contact and association with the world about them and confined their religious influence and effort to themselves. The strictest watch was maintained over the deportment of old and young. Members were dismissed for comparatively slight offences. Immigration further reduced their numbers. Hypercriticism produced disagreements among themselves. Finally, doctrinal differences arose which resulted in a disastrous separation into two bodies in 1828."