Remember Timothy Davis?
He wrote A Letter from a Friend to some of his intimate Friends on the subject of paying Taxes, etc. (see The Picket Line, ) in .
He thought that Quakers ought to be paying their taxes willingly to the Continental Congress, while the orthodox opinion in his Meeting said no.
He was disowned by the Sandwich (Massachusetts) Monthly Meeting in , and was thereafter joined by some other “Free Quakers” in a pro-Revolutionary “Davisite” splinter meeting.
In , Davis recanted and was allowed to rejoin the orthodox meeting.
But between those events, his splinter group published a defense of Davis and an attack on the way his meeting disowned him — An address to the people called Quakers, concerning the manner in which they treated Timothy Davis, for writing and publishing a piece on taxation ().
I recently tracked down a copy on microfilm.
Here are some excerpts from the pamphlet that discuss the tax resistance argument:
[The Friends] have a rule that requires their members, when any of them propose to publish anything, by means of the press, that they lay it before the Meeting for Sufferings, which Timothy [Davis] not only neglected to do, but proceeded to publish a piece when he had received their advice to the contrary, they having by some means got intelligence of the piece he had wrote.
This is thought to be a very great transgression; but there are some circumstances attending this matter, that are a very great alleviation, viz. when he first received the advice from them respecting the not publishing his piece, he expected that the leading part of the Society were that quiet, peaceable people which they have ever professed themselves to be, and that as a body they would not, at least, interest themselves in the dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies, but when he, afterward, met with several of their publications, especially from Philadelphia, he was obliged, to his great grief, to change his sentiments concerning them in that respect; from those publications it appeared very clear that they interested themselves very deeply in the said public dispute, which was also farther manifested by many of them refusing to pay taxes to the American Government; all which he considered as inconsistent with their former principles and practice, and might involve them in much unnecessary sufferings; to prevent which he was induced to publish the aforesaid piece on taxation, not expecting, under these circumstances, to meet with any encouragement from the Meeting for Sufferings: But however, when he came fully to consider the circumstances of publishing his piece without first laying it before the Meeting for Sufferings, for their approbation, he could do no less than consider it as a misstep; for let the Society be as much out of the way as they might, he considered that it did not license him to commit one error to mend another, and therefore told them that he was sorry he had not paid more attention to the before-mentioned rule, and laid his piece before them, before he published it, or words to that purpose, which they were so far satisfied with, that they gave him no more trouble about transgressing the aforesaid rule, but then took in hand the matter contained in the piece, and because he would not condemn that, they disowned him; although it does not appear that it contains any matter inconsistent with the ancient, and approved practice of the Society, from their first appearance as such until very lately.
There appeared at that time, very different sentiments, both with respect to paying taxes, and the present revolution; but many that were in favor of the revolution, when they began to feel the weight of increasing taxes, began to exclaim against it, and continue to find much fault with the present government.
There remains, however, a very considerable, as well as respectable number who continue to justify their ancient and approved practice of paying general mixed taxes under every change of government, who are apprehensive that they, on the other hand, by disclaiming the practice of paying such taxes, are… laboring to undermine and lay waste Friends’ testimony in that case, which must involve them in much suffering, that, to considerate people, appears very unnecessary, to the grief and sorrow of many of their most sensible experienced members, who were desirous of continuing and supporting a practice that so nearly concerned the peace of society, both civil and religious.
When this matter was first taken under consideration by the Monthly Meeting, it appeared that the refusing to pay taxes was making its way into Society with too much success, by such who embraced that sentiment of refusing to pay taxes, etc. who soon became very active and assuming, and according to what has been observed, labored to bear down everything that appeared in favor of Timothy Davis’s cause; and took the freedom to complain of intrusion, though without cause, yet, with as much assurance as if their novel opinions had been received as articles of faith from their first appearance as a religious Society.
We do not blame them for the sentiment of refusing to pay taxes, merely because it is new, but because we think it an error; but suppose it were true, it is very imprudent to press it so hard, feeling it is new, as to disown anyone for publicly opposing of it.
It would be much more Christian-like to exercise a little patience until it is more generally received and established.
A sentiment’s being either new or old, ought never to be a reason for either receiving or rejecting it; but its being old, and generally received, demands a very close examination and clear conviction before we part with it.
A thing’s being true or false, ought to be the only reasons for which we either receive or reject it, but we doubt it is an unhappiness with many, that they believe, or reject, according to the sentiments of those with whom they wish to continue in favor, whether it be the Church or particular persons.
It remains a dispute with some, whether Timothy was disowned for the matter contained in the piece in dispute, or for some circumstances attending the publication; it has generally been thought that he was disowned for both, until we received the testimony they gave forth against him, which puts the matter out of dispute, by which it appears he was disowned for the matter contained in the piece only, which is as follows, viz.
Whereas Timothy Davis, a member of our religious Society, has published a piece on the subject of Taxation, etc. which contained matter altogether dissatisfactory to Friends, and inconsistent with our religious testimony, for which much labor has been bestowed without its desired effect.
We are therefore constrained to give forth our testimony against him, the said Timothy Davis, and deny him of remaining any longer a member of our Society, until he be convinced of his misconduct, and finds a place of repentance, which will enable him to return and make suitable satisfaction for his outgoings, which is our sincere desire.
Given forth from our Monthly Meeting held at Sandwich .
Signed in and by order of our said Monthly Meeting, by Ebenezer Allen, Clerk.
That his piece contained matter altogether dissatisfactory to such who were unwilling to pay taxes to the American government, is not hard to believe; but that it contained matter inconsistent with their ancient testimony concerning paying general mixed taxes, is not quite so clear.
What their testimony had got to be, at the time he wrote, was a subject of his inquiry for no other reason, than to labor to convince such of their error who refused to pay such taxes; and more especially as there was too much reason to fear that such refusal, with many, originated in political disaffection.
Our letter writer [described earlier as “a member of another Yearly Meeting” who wrote to Davis, objecting to his lack of repentance over his pro-taxpaying views] tells us of scruples of that kind some had about twenty five years ago.
We are something acquainted with the history of that matter; from which it appears that they were far from meeting the general approbation of the Society, especially in Great Britain, which appears by a letter from a Meeting for Sufferings in London to John Hunt and Christopher Wilson, not far distant from the time he mentions.
They in that letter very clearly show their disapprobation of their singularity in being scrupulous about paying such taxes.
This letter was afterwards published in a piece entitled, a serious Address, etc. to the People called Quakers — , by a Native of Pennsylvania, from which we have extracted what follows, viz.
I believe this refers to Isaac Grey’s A Serious Address to Such of the People called Quakers, on the Continent of North-America, as profess Scruples relative to the Present Government: Exhibiting the ancient real Testimony of that People, concerning Obedience to Civil Authority.
Written before the Departure of the British Army from Philadelphia, , by a Native of Pennsylvania.
I’ve read elsewhere that the Society of Friends bought up the first edition of this pamphlet in order to suppress it, whereupon a second edition was brought out.
I’m hoping to get my first look at this pamphlet today — it’s just come in via interlibrary loan to the main branch downtown.
As you well know that very disadvantageous impressions have been made here by the advice of some Friends against the payment of a tax lately laid by the Provincial Assembly, it is recommended in a particular manner, that you endeavor to remove all occasions of misunderstanding on this account, and to explain and enforce our known principles and practice, respecting the payment of taxes for the support of civil government, agreeable to the several advices of the Yearly Meeting, founded on the precept and example of our Savior.
May that wisdom which is from above, attend you in this weighty undertaking, and render your labors effectual for the purpose intended, that you may be the happy instruments of averting the dangers that threaten the liberties and privileges of the people in general, and restore and strengthen that union and harmony which ought to subsist in every part of our Christian Society.
We are your Friends and Brethren;
Signed in an on behalf, and by order of the Meeting for Sufferings in London, the .
By Benj. Bourne.
We wish not, however, to bear hard upon any who are tenderly scrupulous about paying such taxes under any government whatever, whose scruples do not originate in political disaffection, but cannot be of their sentiment in this respect, but are apprehensive that their scruples arise from a want of a well-informed judgment.
The chief that we fault them in, is, that they press this new sentiment too hard upon such of their brethren as are differently minded from themselves in that case, and generally treat them with shyness and disrespect; but have not been able to establish a rule in the Society that forbids paying such taxes.
What their ancient, and long approved, testimony was with respect to the paying taxes may be seen in the before-mentioned address, and also in their ancient and most approved authors, many of whom are quoted in the said address, particularly George Fox, whose authority with them, in general, has been as great, at least, as any one of their authors.
See his Book of Epistles, p. 137:
All Friends everywhere, who are dead to all carnal weapons, and have beaten them to pieces, stand in that which takes away the occasion of wars, which saves men’s lives and destroys none, nor would have others; — and as for the rulers that are to keep peace for peace sake and for the advantage of truth, give them their tribute, but to bear and carry weapons to fight with the men of peace (who live in that which takes away the occasion of wars) they cannot act in such things under the several powers, but have paid their tribute, which they may do still for peace sake, and not hold back the earth, but go over it, and in so doing Friends may better claim their liberty.
He here gives two very powerful reasons for the paying of tribute.
The first is, that it be done for the preservation of peace, for peace sake; the second is, that in so doing Friends may better claim their liberty.
We cannot see with what confidence any can expect their liberty preserved, who will not pay their taxes to enable the magistrate to defend it from the hands of violence.
These are reasons, one would think, that none would be weak enough to oppose: Reasons no doubt, that Christ and his apostles had in view when they encouraged, and enjoined, the paying of tribute or taxes, and also because it was Cesar’s due, but for no other reason than for his service done, or to be done, to his subjects; the same reasons for which tribute or taxes becomes due to the government we live under, or any other civil government.
If Friends will grant that it is the duty of the magistrate to preserve peace for peace sake, they must also necessarily grant that it is his duty to suppress violence, otherwise peace will not be likely to take place.
— How far the magistrate may act in the suppression of violence for peace sake, perhaps is the matter in dispute.
George Fox, and many other Friends who have wrote since, have thought that they might go so far in the suppressing of violence, as to pay their taxes for the peace sake, and leave it with the magistrate to preserve it in any lawful way that he should think proper and most for the benefit of the subject — The magistrates have thought that to answer so good and salutary a purpose as the preserving peace for peace sake, they ought to do all that is reasonably in their power to suppress all kind of violence and intrusion on the persons, property, and liberties of the subjects, whether committed by any of them, or by foreigners that should intrude themselves.
There is, perhaps, not any of their writers more clear in this point than Isaac Pennington; nor was there scarcely ever an author better approved among them in general, who, in answer to what he calls a weighty question, as indeed it was, concerning the magistrate’s protection of the innocent; in the collection of his Writings expresses himself thus, Vol. Ⅰ, p. 444:
Whether the magistrate in righteousness and equity is engaged to defend such who (by the peaceableness and love which God has wrought in their spirits and by that of life, mercy, good will, and forgiveness which God, by his own finger has written in their hearts) and taken off from fighting, and cannot use a weapon destructive to any creature?
Here follows his answer:
Magistracy was intended by God for the defense of the people; not only of those who have ability and can fight for them, but of such also who cannot, or are forbid by the love and law of God written in their hearts so to do.
Thus women, children, sick persons, aged persons, and also priests in nations (who have ability to fight, but are exempt by their function, which is not equal to the exemption which God makes by the law of his spirit in the heart) have benefit of the law, and of the magistrate’s protection, without fighting for the defence of either.
Here follows a few very pertinent observations by the author of the before-mentioned address, viz. “Now, if magistrates be appointed by God, and it be the magistrates duty to defend such, who either are not able, or cannot for conscience sake defend themselves, is it possible any can be right who lay waste this ordinance, or speak of such defense as sinful?
If any man be appointed by God to defend my life, is it possible that God can authorize me to call him a sinner for doing his duty?
Or is it possible that I can, consistent with my duty, refuse him that tribute which is absolutely necessary to enable him thus to defend me?
But had I much greater abilities to speak to this subject than I am conscious of, no reasoning of mine could be of equal authority with the author above quoted; hear him therefore again, p. 448, where treating on this peaceable principle professed by the Society, he says:
“I speak not this against any magistrate or people defending themselves against foreign invasions, or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and evil doers within their own borders; for the present state of things may and does require and a great blessing will attend the sword when it is uprightly borne to that end, and its use will be honorable; and while there is need of a sword, the Lord will not suffer the government, or those governors, to want fighting instruments under them, for the management thereof, who wait on him in his fear, to have the edge of it rightly directed; but yet there is a better state, which the Lord has already brought some into, and which Nations are to expect and to travel towards.”
That this quotation contained the general sentiment of the Society at the time of its publication cannot with reason be disputed, for if it had not, it is not likely they would have published it with a collection of his Works after his death.
A further evidence of its general approbations, is the large number of testimonies of some of the most approved Friends in the Society printed at the beginning of the collection in favor, not only of the author, but of the piece.
And it appears with no less certainty that it has continued to be the received sentiment of the Society of Friends in America, by their causing of it to be reprinted a few years ago by subscription, from almost every part of the country where there are any Friends.
And therefore it does not appear to be either his or our particular sentiment, but that of the Society in general, both in Europe and America.
— How those who encouraged that publication by their subscriptions, could encourage the disowning Timothy Davis is very unaccountable, as there is nothing in his piece that can, with any color of justice, be construed to be any ways equally in favor of war with that quotation, and Timothy, as well as we, think ourselves to be as much called from the destructive use of the sword as they: But we have quoted that passage from Isaac Pennington, that they may, if possible, be convinced of their partiality — What we mean to encourage is mutual charity and forbearance to all Societies.
Now, for such who are called from the use of the sword it would no doubt be a very great sin for them to make a destructive use of it; who are, no doubt, designed to be lights in the world, and to hold out the olive branch to the nations until it shall please infinite wisdom to call the rest of mankind in like manner from the use of the sword, when every one shall sit quietly “under their own vine, and under their own fig-tree, and none shall make them afraid.Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim;” for these will have fully entered into peace and righteousness, the glory and perfection of the gospel dispensation: But till then it has pleased God to provide for the peace and safety of mankind by instituting magistracy for the punishment of evil-doers, while violence and oppression remain in the earth, and the keeping peace for peace sake is so absolutely necessary.
However shocking some circumstances which may attend the suppression of violence and injustice may appear to tender minds, yet they ought to consider, that they are wisely ordered by the disposer of all events to prevent much more alarming and dreadful consequences that await a state of anarchy: We therefore can hardly think that any are so imprudent as to wish the world to be without law or government, if it is not at all times, and at all places, quite as they would have it, however zealously they may contend against the use of the sword in the suppressing of violence.
And here’s a novel argument for why Quakers should be content to support Cæsar in his use of violence while they don’t permit themselves to draw blood even in self-defense.
You see, God has different sorts of rules for different sorts of people:
If they are in favor of continuing magistracy for the suppressing of violence, would they not be willing to give so much assistance toward it, as to pay their taxes, without with magistracy cannot be supposed to be upheld, whose business it is to hold up the sword only a terror to evil-doers; when it becomes a terror to others, it is time to take it out of their hands, and place it where it may answer the design of its institution, viz. that the magistrate may not only be a terror to evil-doers but a praise to them that do well.
But some can hardly reconcile it with infinite wisdom and justice, to prohibit that in one, which he approves in the other.
This objection will easily be removed if we properly advert to the reasons there are for diversity and variety in the divine economy.
It appears perhaps nowhere more convincing than in the diversity of gifts mentioned by the apostle Paul, and his recommendation to everyone to attend to their own proper gifts, otherwise they might prejudice the cause they were engaged in, and the same reasons hold good still, and even in temporal matters: And although some may not be qualified or gifted to bear rule in the church, yet they may be well qualified for magistrates to rule the world, if they are moral men: And it is evident from the same apostle that we ought to be subject, and that for conscience sake, not only to those magistrates of our own Society, but to those who do not even profess themselves to be Christians; and these too he calls the ministers of God to the subject for good; for they were then under the Roman government, who did not profess Christianity: Not that we would encourage the introducing such into authority, where it can be avoided, who do not at least profess the Christian name.
But with respect to diversity: Our Savior says, “in my Father’s house are many mansions” — But why?
Because doubtless there are many kinds of service, whether we consider those mansions to respect his church militant on earth, or triumphant in heaven, and it is therefore necessary that there should be many rooms, or mansions, that these various services or employments may be properly attended to, that they might not interfere to the prejudice of each other.
Would it not be ridiculous to ask why he refused one the use of one of these rooms, while he granted it to another, and even compelled him to labor in it, and required the other to return to his own manion, where his proper business was.
— As there are diversities of gifts, so there are diversity of employments, and therefore every one ought to attend to his own proper business to prevent distraction; and also for this one incontestable reason, that God is a God of order and not of confusion.
The consistency of this we should think could hardly be mistaken.
The like reasoning, we think, may very well be admitted with respect to the power of the civil magistrate, especially if he be considered as a minister of God whom we ought to obey in every thing lawful for conscience sake.
The reasonableness of this diversity and the different departments will further, very clearly, appear, if we wisely consider the different degrees of growth there are in religion: We are told not only of fathers and mothers in Israel, but of young men and new born babes; and as that of not defending one-self is considered by Robert Barclay, and no doubt by others, as one of the highest Christian attainments, it can hardly be expected from a new born babe, and therefore if they will have none in their church but such who have arrived to that degree of christian experience as not to defend themselves, they must not admit any new born babes who desire the sincere milk of the word that they may grow up thereby, but all must be born into the church in the full grown stature of men and women: Whereas it is absolutely necessary that the members of Christ’s church should be regenerated and born again as infants; that it appears to us, there should be somewhere in the church or house of God, in which light the church is sometimes considered, such an apartment as a nursery: And would it then consist very well with the tender character of a nursing mother, or church, to turn her infant into the world to shift for itself, because it was not born into the church a perfect man or woman, i.e. that could not see it to be unlawful to defend itself?
We hope that such thoughts as these may awaken such christian tender feelings in some, as they, either have not indulged, or have not known.
Wars were not even lawful under the Mosaical constitution, but when they acted in them according to the counsel of God, and if the same counsel has now made the sword necessary to assist magistracy which he has instituted, it cannot be unlawful for such magistrates to make use of it who are to serve him in that department until he shall call them to some other.
This the aforesaid apostle seems to have been very sensible of, notwithstanding he was under the gospel dispensation and influence, when he said, “for this cause pay you tribute: For they are God’s ministers attending continually on this very thing.” — To use the words of the aforesaid letter-writer, “truly such must have a very high opinion of their own judgment,” that would set them over the judgment and example of Christ and his apostles, as well as their brethren in general, from their first appearance as a religious society until the late revolution.
This we think has a tendency to undermine and lay waste the ancient testimony of Friends in that case, founded on the example and experience as above, and is very afflicting to the sensible, considerate part of the Society: To prevent which was the desire, we make no doubt, of the author of the piece in dispute.
There is one thing in the piece in dispute that has been objected to by some, which if not mentioned, may be thought to be too great an omission, which is as follows, viz. “By all that I have been able to discover, our Society in England have ever made a point of being careful and exact in paying all taxes, legally assessed, except the priests rates.”
This is thought to be a very great blunder: Whether it is or not, may be easily seen, by even a moderate attention to the manner of his treating the subject.
It may be observed that he does not positively assert they had paid all such taxes, but makes this reserve, viz., by all that he had been able to discover.
Now, suppose there had been two or three taxes, that he had not discovered, in the first century after they appeared as a separate Society, that were calculated merely to defray the charges of war, and we question where more instances can be produced, that Friends refused to pay; is it not very disingenuous and unfriendly to labor that to his disadvantage — The subject he was upon was general mixed taxes, and could not well have been understood otherwise, if proper attention had been paid to the scope of his arguments, notwithstanding the word, general and mixed were omitted; that, it cannot reasonably be thought he had any design to impose on his reader; therefore we cannot see what purpose the above objection was intended to serve, unless to supply the want of something more to their purpose — It is indeed matter of some consolation that they could find nothing greater to lay to his charge: If they ever have, they have concealed it, both from him and us.
In their testimony against him, they appear very cautious of mentioning particulars, and only say that his piece contained matter altogether dissatisfactory to Friends; not a word to let us know what that matter is.
The reason of this reservedness perhaps they did not think for their reputation to disclose.
…[H]ow high an opinion they have of their Church, so high, that they insinuate that by being separated from it, we are rendered incapable of seeking, either our own, or the church’s peace, until we return to her again.
In this we must take the liberty to dissent from them, and think that all such who truly seek the peace of that universal church which Christ has gathered by his holy spirit, necessarily seek their own peace; which we hope is at least the case with some of us.
What examples they may be able to exhibit of any returns to them that is worthy of imitation we do not pretend to say; but think that such a partial fondness for, and attachment to, their particular church, is much more to be lamented than imitated.
— What solid satisfaction anyone who is truly humble can expect to have from a people so full of themselves, we must leave, and that can so easily lay aside or overlook the example of our Savior and the apostles, as well as their predecessors, in the instance of paying taxes, a thing so necessary for the upholding of civil government, divinely instituted by the Author of our being and well-being: To which examples we shall take the liberty to give the preference, however we may be censured by our former Friends or those who have returned to them; and therefore can, by no means, with peace and safety to our own minds, give so much encouragement to a contrary practice and sentiment as to disapprove that public encouragement any of us have heretofore given to the paying taxes.
Had it only been the example of their predecessors that they had disregarded, or misconstrued, much might have been said in excuse for them; but that they should neglect the example of Christ and his apostles, and recommend, with so much earnestness, the example of such, who not paying a suitable attention to the before-mentioned example, have returned to them again, who were laboring to propagate a contrary practice, and to lay waste the before-mentioned example, is very extraordinary, and what we would wish them carefully consider.
What renders the matter still peculiarly discouraging is, that those who refuse to pay such taxes are generally the most active and distinguished in the Society, which, when they become differently minded, we shall, it is probably, look towards with a much more encouraging prospect.
I was finally able to get my hands on a microfiched version of Isaac Grey’s pamphlet A Serious Address to Such of the People called Quakers, on the Continent of North-America, as profess Scruples relative to the present Government: Exhibiting the ancient real Testimony of that People, concerning Obedience to Civil Authority.
Written Before the Departure of the British Army from Philadelphia, , by A Native of Pennsylvania.
This was the second edition (the first one was bought up in toto by the Meeting in order to suppress it).
The work intends to show that good Quakers have always supported their de facto government, even when that government has been freshly installed via revolution, coup, or what-have-you.
Therefore, American Quakers should support the Continental Congress — this, even though that Congress is engaged in rebellion against what was, until recently, considered the government, and even though Quakers stubbornly refuse to concern themselves with “setting up and putting down kings and governments.”
The pamphlet includes several pages of arguments for paying taxes.
Here are those excerpts:
…[T]he present revolution is the work of the Lord, and according to the plan and design of his providence, and [the precedents and observations I have cited] tend to prove the safety and propriety of a submission to the powers which now rule: But it may be objected in justification of the present scruples and refusal by some, that the present powers and government are usurped and contrary to law: To this it may be answered that the same objection would have held good under every revolution which has heretofore been brought about, as they must no doubt have been contrary to the authority of the preceding powers, and by their friends and adherents been deemed usurpations, which might also have been alleged against the present constitution of Great Britain…
It appears to me that it is for those who choose not to have any hand in the formation of governments, to take governments such as they find them, and comply with their laws, so far as they are clear of infringing religious rights and matters of faith toward God: It cannot perhaps be found that friends, ever since they were a people, ever refused to assist in the support of government, but have ever held it right and necessary to comply with the laws of the various governments under which they lived; for as, according to our own repeated declarations as a society… the “setting up and putting down Kings and Governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, for causes best known to himself, and that it is not our work or business to have any hand or contrivance therein, nor to be busy bodies in matters above our stations.”
Whether then can such a people, by any means, undertake to weaken or oppose the present government, seeing these things are allowed to belong only unto God, is a matter worthy of consideration.… Let us then, I beseech of us, attend to the above-mentioned profession and declaration, and see that if we are to have no hand in such matters, it may be uniform, if not on one side, neither on the other; for our declaration is that we have no hand “either in the setting up or pulling down,” neither by this way or that way, as a religious society, there is no distinction made of what King or of what government, if not as to one, so neither as to another: if not by encouraging, so neither by discouraging.
…[I]t may not be amiss to add something on the subject of the payment of taxes.
For this purpose, I shall produce an epistle of George Fox… where he advises,
“All friends everywhere, who are dead to all carnal weapons, and have beaten them to pieces, stand in that which takes away the occasion of wars… but have paid their tribute, which they may do still for peace sake… and in so doing friends may better claim their liberty.”
All friends everywhere, who are dead to all carnal weapons, and have beaten them to pieces, stand in that which takes away the occasion of wars, which saves men’s lives, and destroys none, nor would have others; and as for the rulers that are to keep peace, for peace sake, and for the advantage of truth, give them their tribute; but to bear and carry weapons to fight with, the men of peace, (who live in that which takes away the occasion of wars) they cannot act in such things, under the several powers, but have paid their tribute, which they may do still for peace sake, and not hold back the earth, but go over it, and in so doing friends may better claim their liberty.
William Penn, in an address to the high court of parliament, … tells them that
“We both own and are ready to yield obedience to every ordinance of man, relating to human affairs, and that for conscience sake.”
We both own and are ready to yield obedience to every ordinance of man, relating to human affairs, and that for conscience sake; and that in all revolutions, we have demeaned ourselves with much peace and patience, disowning all contrary actings; and that we have lived most peaceably under all the various governments that have been since our first appearance;
which could not have been said with propriety, unless they had submitted to the civil ordinances of men, as above declared.
Thomas Story, in his journal… speaking concerning a law made to enforce the bearing of arms, which he disapproved, yet in the course of the debate, which he had with the judge of a court, says,
I began with the example of Christ himself for the payment of a tax, though applied by Cæsar unto the uses of war, and other exigencies of his government
and was going to show the difference between a law that directly and principally affects the person in war, requiring personal service, and a law which only requires a general tax, to be applied by rulers as they see cause;
for though we as a people readily pay such taxes impartially assessed, yet as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, his servants will not fight, though they may and ought to pay taxes, according to the example of Christ their head:
And what that instance and example was, he relates… where he says that
The Lord Jesus Christ obeyed all the righteous laws both of Jews and Romans, so far as his condition in this world subjected him to them: For though he was and is the peaceable Savior, and came not destroy men’s lives, but to save them, yet in obedience to the laws of men, where not opposite to or interfering with the laws of God, he wrought a miracle to pay a poll-tax, where in strictness the law did not require it of him, nor of his disciples; for having Roman privileges by virtue of an old league between the Jews and Romans, whereby they were as children and not strangers, nevertheless to obviate all occasion of offense, he submitted to it, though only an ordinance of men, and his apostles likewise, as an example to his church through all ages then to come.
Though this example is generally well known, it may not be improper here to recite it, which was thus:
And when they came to Capernaum, they that received tribute-money, came to Peter, and said, does your master pay tribute?
He said yes.
And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, what thinks you, Simon?
Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute; of their own children or of strangers?
Peter said to him, of strangers.
Jesus said to him, then are the children free.
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go you to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first comes up, and when you have opened his mouth, you shall find a piece of money: That take, and give to them for me and you.
It is here remarkable that our Savior appears to have revolved in his mind the whole nature of the case, and of the demand that was made; for upon Peter’s informing the tax-gatherers that his master paid tribute, our Lord took occasion to remind him by a gentle reprehension, that he had gone further in his reply than he was bound to do, or than was requisite from the nature of their condition and circumstances; and immediately upon Peter’s entering the house, prevented his speaking by making use of a very strong and lively argument to convince Peter that he had been quite as quick as was necessary; and that instead of being bound to pay the tax, they were, according to the custom of the country, exempt and free; yet notwithstanding this freedom and privilege, or without the least objection to the use to which they money might be applied, though the Romans were in general heathen idolaters, and about that time, as appears from history, actually engaged in war on several sides, and the character of their emperor Tiberius marked as debauched, unjust, cruel, tyrannic, sanguinary, and inhuman.
Yet Christ our Lord, though clothed with majesty and power above all the laws and powers of this world, and was thereby able to have subdued all things unto himself, and made them subservient to his will, was so tender of giving uneasiness to the powers that then bore rule that he ordered Peter, by producing an astonishing miracle, as we have read, to comply and pay the tax for this very striking reason, “lest we should offend.”
Thomas Story before-mentioned, in his journal… says, “That the sufferings of the faithful in Christ, in all ages, have not arose from the breach of any laws relating only to civil government, which they do readily observe and conscientiously obey.”
And in the same page adds, “That as there always is and must be, in the nature of things, a great and necessary charge attending government, (a kingdom or state being but as one great house or family, and no private or particular family can subsist without charge) for that cause, all are to pay tribute, as justly (or equally) imposed by the legislature.”
The said author, in a conference had with the Czar of Muscovy, says,
Though we are prohibited arms and fighting in person, as inconsistent (we think) with the rules of the gospel of Jesus Christ; yet we can, and do, by his example, readily and cheerfully pay unto every government, and in every form, where we happen to be subjects, such sums and assessments as are required of us by the respective laws under which we live.
For when a general tax was laid by the Roman Czar, upon his extensive empire, and the time of payment came, the Lord Jesus Christ [according to scripture, Matthew 25, as recited by Thomas Story] wrought a miracle to pay a tax, where yet it was not strictly due; we, by so great an example, do freely pay our taxes to Cæsar, who of right has the direction and application of them, to the various ends of government, to peace or to war, as it pleases him, or as need may, according to the constitution or laws of his kingdom.
I think this must be referring to Matthew 17, not 25 as the pamphlet says.
William Penn… says, “That since we are as large contributors to the government as our antagonists, we are entitled to as large protection from it.”
Now this saying could not have been true, unless they paid all the public taxes, in common with other men, which no doubt their antagonists did; and by analogous conclusion, if we, under the present dispensation, refuse to contribute to the government under which we live, how can we expect to be entitled to its protection, not only at present, but in case the Almighty should see meet further and fully to establish it?
The said author… in answer to some objections made against the society, observes among other things, that it was said, “The Quakers will not support civil government,” etc. To which he answers, “This is also untrue upon experience; for what people, (says he) under government, pay their taxes better than they do.”
Samuel Bownas, in the account of his life, relates an epistolary argument he had with one Ray, a priest, who charged friends with an inconsistency in that, while they actually paid and even collected tax for the purposes of carrying on a war against France with vigor: They yet refused to pay tithes and militia assessments.
To which Samuel Bownas replies,
We are still of the same mind with Robert Barclay, that wars and fightings are inconsistent with the gospel principles, and still lie under sufferings with respect to the militia, being careful to walk by the rule of Christ’s doctrine; and yet do not think ourselves inconsistent in actively complying with the law of taxes, in rendering unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and he may do therewith what pleases him.
Where it may be well to observe, that he there speaks of taxes as due unto Cæsar; thereby no doubt meaning the power that for the present bears rule, whether Emperor, Protector, King, or Congress.
From what has been observed, I think it may plainly appear, that friends heretofore have been so far from censuring or condemning their members on such occasions, that they have rather encouraged the payment of taxes, (except those in lieu of personal service) and advised a submission to the powers that bore rule, under the various governments and revolutions in which they lived; but if this be doubted, or any thing has been advanced that is not conformable to the truth, it will be well for any one to point out the same; but if they are consistent with reason, justice, and truth, it will be well to be cautious how any thing is acted opposite thereto; and while we declare that we cannot have a hand in public revolutions, (as belonging unto God) by promoting and encouraging, we may beware of taking an active part by opposing and discouraging, whether as to non-payment of taxes, or other civil acts; and then of consequence none can, with propriety or consistency, be censured or condemned concerning the same, especially in cases where no precedent for censure or condemnation can be found in the history or proceedings of friends.
As it is queried by some, whether Friends paid their taxes under the government of Oliver Cromwell, although there is as great or greater reason to conclude they did, than there is to suppose or prove that they did not; yet it may be observed that the practice of friends, ever since the time of George Fox, has been to keep a particular account of the sufferings they sustained, and the amount thereof, when it was on a conscientious or religious account, which have been recorded, and transmitted down to us from time to time: Now as it never yet has appeared in the accounts of friends sufferings, that anything was taken from them on account of taxes, even under Cromwell’s government, the committee of safety, or any of the then powers, which, if on a religious account, they had refused to pay, would have amounted to a very considerable sum, equal, if not superior, to any recorded by them, and would no doubt have been taken particular notice of among their other sufferings; but as nothing of this kind appears, it is therefore more than probable, and may be very safely concluded, that they submitted in these respects to the several governments, of what kind soever, under which they lived; and that they paid their taxes for the support of those governments, in common with other men, according to their uniform practice as a people.
To the above testimony of the dead, let us attend also to one of the living, an anonymous author, though well known to be Timothy Davis, a worthy friend and minister of the gospel; in a letter to some of his intimate friends on the subject of paying taxes to the present government, printed at Watertown, about two years ago, and sold by B. Edes, near the Bridge, has fully declared his sentiments in the following manner:
Here, Grey inserts a long excerpt from Davis’s pamphlet.
See The Picket Line for the whole thing.
The matter now under consideration is serious.
Many valuable members of society, both public and private, at this time, in different places, do not think themselves called or bound to join in the refusals and scruples which some make, and many more who have not yet fully considered the matter will probably be of the same mind; if this be allowed, which I believe may safely be done, will it not be exceeding hard that they should be denied the privileges of that society, in whose ways they have been educated, and whose religious principles they profess and hold, and to which they are closely attached?
In time past, though there was diversity of sentiments with regard to some matters, yet we bore one with another without censure, in that spirit of condescension and brotherly regard, which is peculiarly characteristic of the followers of the Lamb, and shall we now, in very similar cases, give up that Christian temper, cast one another off, and produce a separation, when love and union might be preserved as well as in former days, and for which there is probably as much occasion as ever there was since the foundation of the province.
If indeed we think it proper as a society to maintain an opposition to the present powers of government, in civil as well as religious respects, it may preclude the use of the present observations, or at least render any service, which might be expected from them, very improbable; but as that would appear to be so contrary to the profession we have made, as well as inconsistent with our established principles, that I presume it cannot really be the case: I have therefore taken the freedom of laying these observations before us for our serious consideration.
Never was there a people more deeply interested in the event of public proceeding, than we now are.
We are considerably numerous in various parts of the continent, and particularly so in this State.
We are not only interested ourselves, but future generations may likewise be deeply affected by the part we now act.
I wish us therefore so to conduct, as that Jew nor Gentile, or the church of Christ, either at this or any future time, may have just occasion of offence.
Now, notwithstanding what has been offered, as there may be some who may allege that their scruples and non-compliance with the demands of the present government, as to civil affairs, arises from a principle of conscience, which I am sensible is a very delicate point to touch upon, yet as I have no other end in view, but the good of society, as well as individuals, I would therefore beg them to consider that conscience, according to the general idea annexed to it, is a very sacred thing.
Let us therefore be cautious how we apply it to common, civil, and merely human affairs, lest we make the plea for it upon more important occasions of too light estimation: It is deeply expedient for us to consider its nature, or what we are to understand thereby in religious affairs, and what are the proper and fit objects and subjects thereof, which may be necessary to claim and assert as independent of the power of the civil magistrate: For this purpose let us observe Robert Barclay’s sentiment of the matter, who, in the latter part of the 5th and 6th proposition, after speaking of the light of Christ, and the light of man’s natural conscience, says,
To the light of Christ then in the conscience, and not to man’s natural
conscience, it is that we commend men: This, not that, it is, which we preach up and direct people to, as to a most certain guide unto eternal life.
From hence we may safely infer, that no objection arising from any thing short of the light of Christ, can be sufficient to operate with the professors of Christ our Lord, as a Christian church, in their proceedings and determinations; so that it essentially behooves them, certainly to know that it is altogether from the illumination and power thereof, and not at all from the other, that they are actuated: This appears to be absolutely and indispensably necessary for the right and true support of a pure Christian testimony, and which I heartily wish may be deeply and sufficiently attended to by all the active members of society; for in vain is it to endeavor to lift up a standard to the nations, unless in and by that power alone which is able to strengthen for the work; without which pure and unmixed qualification it will prove too large and too heavy, so that being beaten and driven by the winds, it will fall to the ground, to the shame and confusion of those who attempted to erect and support it.
The said author, in the 14th proposition of the apology, treating of the power of the civil magistrate, said,
The question is first, whether the civil magistrate has power to force men in things religious, to do contrary to their consciences, and if they will not, to punish them in their goods, liberties and lives?
This (says he) we hold in the negative.
But secondly, as we would have the magistrate to avoid this extreme of encroaching upon men’s consciences; so, on the other hand, we are far from joining with or strengthening such libertines, as would stretch the liberty of their consciences to the prejudice of their neighbors, or the ruin of human society.
We understand therefore by matters of conscience, such as immediately relate betwixt God and man, or men and men, as to meet together to worship God in that way which they judge is most acceptable unto him; and not to incroach upon or seek to force their neighbors, otherwise than by reason, or such other means as Christ and his apostles used, viz. preaching, and instructing such as will hear and receive it; but not at all for men under the notion of conscience, to do anything contrary to the moral and perpetual statutes generally acknowledged by all Christians; in which case the magistrate may very lawfully use his authority.
The doctrine here preached is excellent both for those in, as well as those under authority, as it may clearly appear from thence that “in things religious,” such as he there mentions, he apprehends the magistrate has no just power, and that conscience may safely be pleaded; but observe the care and caution with which he writes, and how positively he excludes from that sacred claim “any thing that is acted contrary to the moral and perpetual statutes generally acknowledged by all Christians.”
But it may be asked, what are those moral and perpetual statutes?
I at once take it for granted that the laying and paying of taxes for the support of human and civil governments, and acknowledging the authority of the same, are material parts; seeing they have been very generally assented and submitted unto by Christians of all sects and denominations, at and from the personal appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, in all countries, and under all revolutions, down to this very day; and without which “human society” could not be supported, but inevitably verge into confusion and ruin: From which I would as concisely as possible, according to the worthy author’s manner, and nearly in his own words, lay down a position, and then draw and prove what I apprehend to be an undeniable and conclusive argument, as follows:
Position: That it is unlawful and improper to counteract the moral and perpetual statutes generally acknowledged by Christians.
But the laying and paying of taxes for the support of human and civil governments, and acknowledging the authority of the same, are of those moral and perpetual statutes, etc.
Therefore it is unlawful and improper to counteract them.
If the cause of refusal and non-compliance were a matter of mere faith and conscience toward God, the case would be exceedingly different, and there would probably be no dissent; but as it appears to be only of civil concern, and relates solely to human affairs, it is therefore apprehended not censurable by the church, or properly cognizable thereby:
According to a note at the end of the pamphlet, the remainder of the text after this point was “added by a Friend of the Author’s, who was entrusted with the publication while he was in the country, with a discretionary power to add whatsoever he thought necessary.”
The arguments that follow have a strong resemblance to those in An address to the people called Quakers, concerning the manner in which they treated Timothy Davis, for writing and publishing a piece on taxation which came out several years later (see The Picket Line, ).
And here I cannot but remark one reason why I believe many among us are led into a mistake, and scruples arise against paying of taxes for want of a well informed judgment.
It is a received opinion among us, that all wars without distinction are sinful: Hence arises this scruple against paying of taxes for the support of war; but this is not the genuine doctrine of our ancient friends, as will fully appear in the following extract from the writings of Isaac Pennington, where speaking to what he very properly styles “a weighty question concerning the magistrates protection of the innocent,” it is to be observed that this enlightened author views magistracy and defensive war as the same thing, or, if I may use a simile as one building (though consisting of diverse parts) standing on the same foundation.
The question is as follows:…
Whether the magistrate, in righteousness and equity, is engaged to defend such, who (by the peaceableness and love which God has wrought in their spirits, and by that law of life, mercy, good-will, and forgiveness, which God, by his own finger, has written in their hearts) are taken off from fighting, and cannot use a weapon destructive to any creature
Answer:
Magistracy was intended by God for the defense of the people; not only of those who have ability, and can fight for them, but of such also who cannot, or are forbidden by the love and law of God, written in their hearts so to do.
Thus women, children, sick persons, aged persons, and also priests in nations (who have ability to fight, but are exempted by their function, which is not equivalent to the exemption which God makes by the law of his spirit in the heart) have the benefit of the law, and of the magistrates protection, without fighting for the defense of either.
Now if magistracy be appointed by God, and if it be magistrates duty to defend such, who are either not able, or cannot for conscience sake defend themselves; is it possible any can be right who lay waste this ordinance, or speak of such defense as sinful?
If any man be appointed by God to defend my life, is it possible that God can authorize me to call him a sinner for doing his duty? or is it possible that I can, consistent with my duty, refuse him that tribute which is absolutely necessary to enable him thus to defend me?
But had I much greater abilities to speak to this subject than I am conscious of, no reasoning of mine could be of equal authority with the author above quoted.
Hear him therefore again… where, treating on this peaceable principle professed by the society, he says,
I speak not this against any magistrates or peoples defending themselves against foreign invasions, or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and evil-doers within their own borders; for this the present state of things may and does require, and a great blessing will attend the sword, when it is uprightly borne to that end, and its use will be honorable; and while there is need of a sword, the Lord will not suffer that government, or those governors, to want fitting instruments under them for the management thereof, who wait on him in his fear to have the edge of it rightly directed; but yet there is a better state which the Lord has already brought some into, and which nations are to expect and travel towards.
A candid and judicious author, to wit, Richard Finch, in a treatise called Second Thoughts concerning War… after the above quotation, further adds,
It is evident that this great man holds forth plainly the divine economy I have hinted at above.
We see it was his judgment that men using the sword, in this gospel day, may be God’s instruments; and that herein, though not come to the better state or summit of Christian perfection, they may yet be good enough to use or direct the sword to be used religiously in God’s fear: When perhaps many would think that religion in all, instead of using the sword, would if regarded, lead directly from the use of it; but it seems this writer, though a great advocate of our doctrine, thought otherwise; and I profess myself to be his proselyte, though at present, if there are a few persons so pious, I should almost as soon expect to find the philosophers stone, as a whole army of such warriors: And I am persuaded a due regard to what may be urged upon his and my principle, will require more benevolence and reflection of mind than can be expected from unthinking bigotry.
Again the same author,
I admire the wisdom and charity of this writer, in his prudent and generous concessions, though some may think he thereby gives his cause away; but I believe them so essential to the preservation of it, that what he writes is the very truth, and that without such concessions it will be impossible to maintain our ground against a keen adversary.
All attempts to explain and defend our doctrine, which go upon the literal sense of the precept, or consider defensive war as a thing in itself wicked, how specious soever worked up or received by shallow judges, instead of honoring and serving, have injured a good cause by multiplying many if not needless absurdities and contradictions upon all such ill-judged attempts to state and clear the controversy.
The same author…:
The sword then which in tenderness of conscience you can not draw, may in another (whom for wise reasons it has not pleased God to lead in the manner he has done you) become the outward providential means to preserve you and others, as well as himself; upon which principle his arms may protect thy person and property, and thy virtue and piety be a defense and blessing upon his arms.
Again…:
King William the Third was a great warrior, and a great blessing to England, as he interposed for its deliverance in a trying time, when the liberty of the subject, under a specious solemnity of preserving it, was secretly undermined; and the great duke of Marlborough, instead of being convinced of our principle, was a glorious instrument in a warlike way.
From what has been laid down we may strongly conclude, that though a measure of divine grace, according to scripture, is given to every man, yet there may be an infinite diversity in degrees, and all things considered, it seems even impossible that it should by the giver, in every age and person, be designed to make precisely the same discoveries, and exalt to the same degrees of knowledge and perfection.
The above doctrine corresponds with a matter of fact, wherein the apostle Paul himself was nearly interested: It was at the time when upwards of forty of the Jews had “bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul” (Acts 23:16–24):
And when Paul’s sister’s son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.
Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he has a certain thing to tell him.
So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me to him, and prayed me to bring this young man to you, who has something to say to you.
Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that you has to tell me?
And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire you that you would bring down Paul tomorrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly.
But do not you yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from you.
So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See you tell no man that you has showed these things to me.
And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Cesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night.
And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe to Felix the governor.
It is evident here that the apostle’s life was preserved through the interposition of the chief captain; and Paul hesitated not to put himself under his protection, although he had been previously assured of the Lord’s particular providence and protection; the Lord having stood by him, and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul, for as you has testified of me in Jerusalem, so must you bear witness also at Rome.”
Upon the whole, much more might be produced to show that it is perfectly consistent with the doctrines of Christianity, and the practice of friends to acknowledge allegiance to the government that God, in the course of his providence, has thought proper should take place, and to conscientiously pay our proportion of taxes for the support thereof; but it is hoped the above is sufficient with every unprejudiced mind.
