Here’s another rarity: a pamphlet from Timothy Davis urging his fellow-Quakers to consider the rebel Continental Congress to be their legitimate government, and to pay taxes for its support.
There was a variety of Quaker tax resistance during the American Revolution that based the resistance on the theory that because the Continental Congress existed for the purpose of a rebellion against the established ruler, that any taxes paid to the Congress were not only war taxes that violated the Quaker peace testimony but were also taxes paid to support an anti-government campaign, which violated the apostle’s command to support existing governments (see Romans 13) — a part of Christian scripture that was more frequently deployed against Quaker tax resistance.
Davis tries to show in this pamphlet that Quakers had in the past been content to pay taxes to the de facto governments they were living under, without raising a fuss as to their legitimacy or origin.
Davis 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.
A Letter from a Friend to some of his intimate Friends on the subject of
paying Taxes, etc.
Dear Friends,
With a heart painfully apprehensive of the distressed and calamitous situation of human affairs in the English dominions in general, and in the American Colonies in particular, I address you.
— The experience I have had of your candor and christian concern for the good of mankind in an especial manner manifested at our last interview, gives me sufficient reason to think that you will excuse my freedom in thus communicating my thoughts on that branch of taxation that at some times raises scruples in the minds of some people; I mean when the charges of war are blended with those that arise in support of the various exigencies of civil government.
Although we, as a society, concern not ourselves in setting up, or pulling down the kingdoms of the earth; nor seek to have much share in legislation, or execution of human laws, yet friends to all just laws and administration; and feel, deeply feel for our fellow subjects in their various trials and conflicts; nor are we forgetful of them in their remotest sufferings; but more especially those occasioned by the unhappy disputes between Great Britain and the colonies; in which we expect to continue to be sharers with them, until it shall please the Disposer of all events, to bring about a happy and lasting reconciliation, which is the hearty prayer of all true well wishers to their country.
While my thoughts have been engaged in this afflicting scene, I have entered very closely into that part of it which nearly concerns us, (viz.) that of Taxation.
— The peaceable profession which we have long made to the world, (which constitutes a very amiable part of our religious character) will not admit of our taking up arms (it is painful to think it is reduced to that of Brethren’s pouring out the blood of each other as water spilt upon the ground) we may nevertheless expect to be taxed in common with other people, to pay the charge of the unhappy war, together with such civil charges as may arise for the support of government; which I perceive is like to be matter of scruple with some; yet, many others think they may as safely pay it, as many other taxes which they have had no scruple of paying.
They say, and I suppose truly, that “Friends in England have freely paid their taxes, when by far the greatest part has been for the defraying military charges,” if it be said, “but not against our own nation,” — This upon examination will appear to be a mistake, which will be farther considered before I conclude.
— in the colonies it has frequently been the case, that we have paid our taxes without hesitation when much the greater part has been for the charges of war.
For instance, there is the province of Massachusetts Bay, when it has been taxed near a hundred thousand pounds, their currency, for one year scarce twelve thousand of it went for civil uses, that, eighty thousand pounds or thereabouts, went to defray the charges of war, but say they, “this tax came to us blending civil and military charges together, which it was hard to separate” — and perhaps the taxes we expect, will come to us in the same manner, it is beyond a doubt they will, and be as hard to separate.
— If it be said in the present case — “we ought to separate them” — if we do, we shall show ourselves partial, which will justly expose us to the censure of every considerate person, in being so very exact as to examine into one case and not the other; for we might, with as much ease and propriety, have examined the votes of the former general court of assembly, as of the present.
— If it be further objected that “we cannot consistently join in opposition to the king and parliament, so far as to pay a tax which will strengthen their opposers, who are not almost the whole of the American colonies.”
— If it be safe to follow the example of our predecessors, I think we may very safely do it.
— “Why, what did they do?”
— I answer, they have from their very first appearance as a separate society, been subject to such who were invested with the authority of the nation, without meddling with the various disputes that have arisen since their time, concerning regal authority, and on whom it ought to devolve.
For a farther consideration hereat, you may remember, that Friends made their appearance in ; who by his too much aspiring after sovereignty or despotism alarmed the people; who, headed by Oliver Cromwell, prevailed against the king, and took the reins of government into his own hands, and governed the kingdom himself, under the character of lord protector.
—
Here we do contend but that Friends who had paid their allegiance and their taxes to the king, continued to pay them to Oliver Cromwell, during ; And what can be said of him, but that he headed the populace, and was as opposer of kingly authority, not merely as such, but as it became, through the hands of the king, subversive of the rights and privileges of the people: What harder things can be said of those who are at the head of the present opposition, that may render them less worthy of receiving taxes to defray the charges of government.
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 that are legally assessed, except the priests’ rates.
, king Charles the second came to the throne, and they paid taxes to him also.
After which, the crown continued in the family of Stuarts, ; who, by his favoring popery, justly alarmed and incensed the people against him that thinking himself not safe among a justly provoked people, took shelter in France, which made way for the Prince of Orange.
Here we find the line of Stuarts interrupted again, which devolved on them according to legal succession, and the Prince, in conjunction with the people, opposing the then kingly government in James; much the same as is laid to the charge of those who are at the head of the present opposition; and Friends who were desirous to live in peace with all men, paid taxes to him likewise; but say they — “James favored popery and endeavored to introduce popish government and therefore forfeited his right to the crown.”
Be it so — but is favoring popery the only instance in which the kings of England can forfeit their rights to reign over a free people?
— I should think that when the sword is put into the hands of a king, to be directed for the punishment of evil doers, and praise to them that do well, we might have some reason to expect him to act, in some measure, answerable to his exalted station, and the trust the people have reposed in him, (as kingly authority originates from the people) — But if to the contrary he should act so far below his exalted station as to turn the point of the sword at the vitals of the people, it must be very alarming, especially when they have conferred all the favors upon him that were in their power, confident with the safety of the kingdom, he as fully forfeits his right to reign over them as in the case of popery, nor can we assure ourselves that the interest of popery is not at the bottom of the present ministerial plan.
Every considerate man, no doubt, would be glad of such a form of government as might be unexceptionable; but we have no reason to expect it, in this imperfect state of things: Yes we ought to use all just and reasonable means to rectify all disorders in government that are in the compass of our power, consistent with the peaceable profession we make; and at the same time, to be as careful not to complain without just cause, but be as content as we can, under such a form of government as it has pleased Divine Providence to cast our lots: And it must be a very bad one indeed that is not preferable to a state of anarchy.
I believe it may be very well allowed that even the present state of government in the Massachusetts Bay is better than none, and, if the inhabitants receive any advantage from it, they ought to be willing to bear a proportionable part of the charge that arises in support of it; though it may not be in such a state as they could with.
— in a word, let a man be under any form of government he can imagine to himself, where he receives any advantage by it, and while he remains under it, he ought to bear his proportion of the charge of it; for the thoughts of having our lives and every thing that is near and dear to us lie wholly at the mercy of every invader, without any possibility of redress from any legal authority, I should think would incline us to be willing to bear our just proportion of the charge of such government as we are under, if it should not in every respect be consistent with the most perfect system.
Our Savior has set this matter in an indisputable light, to me, by the conversation he had with Peter on that subject, at a time when those who received tribute money came to Peter querying with him whether their Master paid Tribute or not, Peter said he did.
Christ willing, it appears, to take advantage of this opportunity to leave an example to future ages of his approbation of paying taxes, in a case similar to the present, in every thing essential in the present argument, and as an additional weight to the holy example, introduced a conversation with Peter, not waiting for him to introduce it, or propound any questions on the subject, but prevented him, as with design to remove every hesitation, proceeded thus, What thinks you Simon, of whom do the kings of earth take custom or tribute, of their own children or of strangers?
Peter says to him, of strangers.
Jesus says to him, Then are the children free. As much as if he had said “then have they no just demand on us, we, being children, may very well refuse paying of it.
— Nevertheless, lest we should offend them, it is best it should be paid, therefore I would have you do it,” which he was enabled to do by an extraordinary miracle.
I cannot see how it is possible for any thing to be expressed more clearly to remove every scruple.
It is further observable that there is not one word of objection either from Christ or Peter that part of this tribute money went to defray military charges, (for it undoubtedly did) which we might expect to find here if any where, seeing they were then upon the point of paying taxes.
If it be argued, “that this happened before the abolition of the Mosaical constitution, while war was lawful, and consequently the paying tribute for the support of it,” I answer, whether the law was wholly abolished at that time or not, is not necessary to be inquired into in this case, it is sufficient to our purpose that the words of our Savior which are commonly urged to disprove the lawfulness of war were delivered in his sermon on the Mount, sometime before the conversation he had with Peter concerning paying tribute; and if war was forbidden in his sermon on the Mount, the paying taxes ever after that must have affected his followers in the same manner as it does at this day, unless it can be made to appear that the lawfulness of war did not cease at the same time when we generally supposed he forbade it; but that the cessation thereof was reserved to some future period; which we have little reason to believe.
If our rulers pursue measures for the defense and support of civil government, that we think not strictly consistent with the rules of the gospel, even by repelling force by force, to the shedding of human blood, it is our of our power to help if they proceed in the defense of government as it suits them best; and if their manner does not suit us, that may not hinder, but we may receive as much advantage from it as if they pursued such measures as we may think we could point out.
However, let them proceed in a hostile manner or not, in the defense of our rights and privileges, it is certain if we receive advantage from civil government, we ought to bear our part of the charge of maintaining of it, or else have no recourse to it in any case whatever; for it would be very odd for us to seek protection against the encroachments or abuse of our fellow creatures from an authority that we refuse to help to support.
It may farther be observed, that the tribute that Peter paid by our Savior’s direction, was at a time when the Jews were under the Romans, and Cesar at great expense in supporting his legions for the defense of his empire: That as Christ by the hand of Peter paid a tax, He must consequently pay a proportionable part of such charge.
In one place Christ says, Render to Cesar the things that are his; but in the instance before us, he sets us an example of paying the requisition of civil authority, not only when the soldiers received a part of it, but even where not strictly due, rather than give offense; although it helped to uphold a government under which they (i.e. the Jews) were reduced by the dint of sword; an example of meekness that ought to have place in every considerate mind; that while we remain steady to our testimony against shedding human blood, we may preserve our consciences void of offense toward God and man, and by no means at any time throw out any unbecoming reflections against those in authority, nor mistake will for tender scruple of conscience in paying taxes, or in any thing else, nor give civil authority any unnecessary trouble.
If it be said that “Christ submitted to the paying of a tax to show his subjection to kingly authority,” I answer, but I believe not to show that he gave the preference to kingly authority, for there appears to be a clear instance to the contrary in that of Israel’s asking for a king, at which time it was shown them what the consequence would be, which they afterwards felt to their sorrow.
1 Samuel 8 “He showed them what should be the manner of the king that should reign over them: He will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots.
And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers, and he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants, — and he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
He will take the tenth of your sheep: and you shall be his servants.
— And they said, nay, but we will have a king, etc.” That, from this instance, or any other, we have little reason to prefer a kingly government.
— The Evangelical Prophet Isaiah seems to have had a very lively idea of their being formerly governed by judges before they had any king and speaks of it in a way and manner that very clearly indicates it to be far preferable to a kingly government, and foretells, very clearly, its return: ch. 1, v. 25, 26. “I will turn my hand upon you, and purely purge away your dross, and take away all your tin.
And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning.
Afterwards, you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”
— Before this becomes our condition I believe I may say, without breach of charity, a very great reformation must take place in the heart of every denomination among us, when “Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness.”
v. 27.
But with respect to kingly government, I hope there are none among us, such sticklers for a republic, but that it would be very acceptable to all well wishers to America, if the controversy between Great Britain and the colonies should subside, and that things might return to their old channel.
The apostle Paul seems to have had a very great regard for civil government, and discourses largely upon the subject in his 13 ch. to the Romans, and carries the matter so far as to say, “There is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.”
Without criticizing particularly on what he says, we may safely conclude thus much from it; that all power capable of serving God and mankind, whether by means of civil authority, or otherwise, is of God, and no other; and that when this power is exercised by those in authority for the good of mankind, they ought to be encouraged and obeyed in it; but whenever they act from a contrary power and principle, the mischievous effects of it will presently appear, either less or more, to the distressing and corrupting the people, that when the wicked bear rule the land may very well be said to mourn.
To conclude, I meet with some who appear to be well disposed persons, who from some disagreeable circumstances they have taken notice of, are led to doubt the sincerity of the intentions of some, who have some influence in the American counsels; and that they fear their designs are to enrich and aggrandize themselves at the public cost.
How well grounded these suspicions may be, I cannot pretend to say; but thus much I think I may say with safety, that I am fully persuaded it is far from being the case with the most of such whose conduct therein I have been able to form any judgment about; but if there be any such, who in this time of deep distress, act from motives so mercenary and repugnant to every idea of justice and humanity, they ought to be ranked among the worst of enemies, as well as among the most impious of men.
— Let us now call to mind, that it is a time that calls aloud for all closely to examine their standings, tradition or education, although of the best, will not be able to support us in the time that is swiftly approaching; although it may be of excellent use, in regulating our manners, if rightly regarded; nor will others being firmly established on the immovable rock of ages, as an everlasting foundation, be any alleviation to us in the day of our distress: We must experience this for ourselves, or sink into perdition; but I hope we shall, while the door of mercy is open to us, seek earnestly to be redeemed from the earth and earthly mindedness, that our minds may be stayed upon the Lord, that we may be preserved in perfect peace while the world is in confusion, like the troubled sea, casting up mire and dirt.
Anthony Benezet is one of the giants of 18th century American Quakerism, particularly well-known for his efforts towards the abolition of slavery.
He was one of the signers of the “epistle of tender love and caution” that can be considered the founding document of American war tax resistance.
I’ve tried to find some additional information about Benezet’s attitudes toward tax resistance, but have so far only been able to find a fragmentary record that hints at more extensive writings that either no longer exist or that I haven’t managed to locate yet.
I found some good information in George S. Brookes’s Friend Anthony Benezet ().
From a letter to John Smith, :
Some time last week we understood a meeting was proposed by William Brown and John Churchman [two other “epistle” signers] to be held with all those who had refused to pay the Last Year’s Tax, to which we understood our English Friends intended to attend; as this proposal begat some uneasiness in some of us O.J. [“Very likely Owen Jones” — George S. Brookes] and myself went up to William Brown and told the Friends there that we must declare our disunity with said meeting, and on our own and the behalf of many of our Friends who we were assured could not approve of it as it will have a tendency to prejudice the mind of many young people and induce them to come to hasty conclusions.
Howsoever we were told the time was too short to contradict the meeting, which was held.
Where after a pretty deal of conversation it was concluded that the matter was now grown to such a height as to make it necessary to carry it to the Yearly Meeting.
The only matter in debate seemed how it should be introduced there, which I understand to be concluded to be done by the channel of the Meeting of Suffering, and as the matter will be probably debated at that Meeting next Fifth day, thought it necessary to acquaint ffd. of Burlington of it.
I hope they will with me think it their duty to attend.
We are also to have a Meeting of Suffering next Seventh day morning, before the meeting of ministers.
I need not expatiate on the matter as it speaks for itself: but remain in great haste as the boat is just going.
We have professed to be called & redeemed from the spirit of the world, from that prevalent pride & indulgence so contrary to the low, humble, self-denying life of Christ & his immediate followers; but have we indeed been such, has not our conformity to the world, our engagements of life, in order to please ourselves & gain wealth, with little regard to the danger to the better part, been productive to all the evils pointed out in the Gospel, has it not naturally led us & begot a desire in our children to live in conformity to other people; hence the sumptuousness of our dwellings, our equipage, our dress; furniture & the luxury of our tables have become a snare to us & a matter of offence to the thinking part of mankind; and the mind has been raised in our children & often in ourselves from the meekness & self-denial of the Gospel, into resentment in defence of what is become as our Gods; and the meek humble & poor self-denying life of Christ is become of no repute, or rather as a Shepherd was to the Egyptians.
The suffering providence which now is displayed over us seems particularly calculated to bring us to our selves, in some respects, as the trials & devastation is greater upon those whose possessions are most expensive, & have been at the greatest pains & expenses in adorning their pleasant pictures.
I trust this, at least, will teach us, in future, to live more agreeable to our profession; whereby our wants being made less, the perplexing, dangerous snares & engagements which attend the amassing & use of wealth would be much lessened.
If this afflictive providence does induce us to begin anew upon the true foundation of our principles, in that low & humble state of mind & conduct which becomes & indeed constitutes the real followers of Christ, it will have done much for us.
In , French diplomat Gérard de Reyneval, who was stationed in America, reported back to his government on the troubles caused to the revolutionary war effort by Quaker pacifism.
He said he had interviewed Benezet and that Benezet “at last declared, yielding to my arguments, that, agreeing with most of the fraternity, he thought that the Quakers ought to submit to the actual government and pay taxes, without questioning the use to which these might be put; but that they had weak brethren among them, whose scruples they were obliged to respect.”
Perhaps so, but I hear tell that there’s a letter co-authored by Benezet and a “B. Mason” under the title “Some Brief remarks offered as Reasons why we ought not to pay Taxes to support War.”
Alas, I haven’t yet been able to find a copy of this.
(See The Picket Line for for the text of that letter.)
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your several favors… except your thoughts on the payments of taxes for war, which by some mistake I conclude was left out in closing the packet.
As that is a subject much under the consideration of Friends [it] would have been particularly satisfactory to have seen your thoughts upon it.
Inclosed I send a few of mine of that subject on the occasion therein mentioned as they are the first I have communicated to any friend in writing.
If there be anything too strongly suggested I shall take it kindly if you’ll note it, as I have a care on me that we do not, in furthering this testimony which I have faith to believe is founded in the truth, do anything to support it in a wrong zeal and not according to knowledge.
As it is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony in Society more than perhaps any other, we had need to step wisely in it.
The want of your thoughts on paying taxes has hitherto prevented my sending Timothy Davis an account of your care and concern for him, hoping they would before long come to hand.
I have not seen him for some time but often hear from him; he is doubtless too much in the love of, and conformity to the world, and not enough the meekness and simplicity becoming his profession, as, indeed is the case with too many others.
Our friend Abraham Griffith had a large opportunity with him and his adherents who stand out against the body, please to be referred to him for his state and that of the shattered meeting where he lives.
He has been writing against Friends under the character of vindicating of himself, with which I was grieved and sent him word by his and my friend, who had seen his performance, my prospects of such a procedure.
He has not fit yet to publish it.
Davis eventually did publish it, in , under the title “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 haven’t seen this leaflet yet, but hope to get a peek at it through interlibrary loan.
(See The Picket Line for ) One of these days maybe I’ll have a chance to scavenge through the various Quaker archives back in Pennsylvania.
Brown continues:
I have several times felt much for Timothy and longed for his restoration, and though I have several times begun to write to him I have felt a cautious fear, and though when I saw him while under dealing, the way to freedom seemed open between us, yet it is not to write.
Perhaps you may not be so restrained.
His letter to Abraham upon the subject of taxes shows him to be in the reasoning.
Benezet wrote to George Dillwyn about Moses Brown’s letter (unmatched left-quote in the original):
What I mentioned to Sister Peggy was the desire I had to communicate parts of Moses Brown’s letter relating to the payment of taxes for the purposes of war.
This testimony he appears fully convinced is founded on truth, and sends me a copy of a letter he had purposed to send to friends in England on that head, but at the same time he appears very desirous friends should not do anything in a wrong zeal, not according to knowledge more especially as he says it is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony in society more than perhaps any other, we had need to step wisely in it.
He adds: “It is apprehended the many difficulties friends were under at their first appearance and the manner of the English collecting their taxes, being such that a refusal must have greatly encreased them, the first reformers were excused from that burden, and permitted to pay them, that by so doing they might (as George Fox said in an epistle on the subject in ) better claim their liberty.
The trials (he further says) of those who may refuse the payments of taxes will be increased at this time by their conduct being construed into a disaffection to their country; and we hope will be a bar to any’s running in a forward spirit to become reformers without feeling the meek & humbling evidence of truth.
“we fear some take up the testimony more on account of the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war”
Another letter to Benezet from Moses Brown, dated , touches on Timothy Davis again:
Having had a concern for some time for Timothy Davis I took an opportunity with our friend John Lloyd and paid him a visit, and while there introduced your concern for him and read your observations concerning him and his state, which he seemed to take well, and said they would be of service if attended to, and on the whole I believe Timothy sees he has missed it but can’t get down enough to submit to the cross and acknowledge his mistake whereby he might be reconciled to his brethren.
He seems to think friends have been too hard with him, but yet said he thought at times Friends were as near or nearer than ever.
He continues to have Meetings by himself and goes some in the neighborhood round and preaches to his adherents.
As to taxes, he told us he expected one account that he could not pay, which I have since to mention to others who have paid all, even some who had been on appointment to treat with Timothy.
I think if he could be prevailed on to drop his Meetings at home and not go abroad preaching to others he would very soon apply to be restored, which I mention believing if you attend to your concern on his account it may be useful to him.
Your notes on taxes are satisfactory.
We having for some time an apology for those who refuse the payment of taxes, our meeting for sufferings have of late appointed a committee to examine it, which has been done, and alterations & additions made, and it has been proposed to send it to your meeting for sufferings for your approbation before it is printed, and I expect it will be forwarded soon after our next Meeting for Sufferings.
It is pretty extensive on the subject, containing near 60 quarto pages.
Should friends think it suitable at this time to publish it, I have thought it might come in as an appendix although it has been written by one friend, diverse others having assisted in collecting material and suggesting their prospects, it is at present undetermined whether it will be best for one or more to sign it, which occasioned the proposal of sending it to you.
The subject is weighty and should be well considered, those friends in our meeting who pay the taxes of whom there are a number of concerned friends and leading members seem to be much more cordially consenting to the publication than could be expected.
The principle difficulty with some of them and those of us who decline is we fear some take up the testimony more on account of the authority that demands the taxes than because they are used for war.
Such we fear instead of forwarding will eventually retard the testimony, and as some Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, it has been a fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work.
Could we be more united in the ground of our testimony and in our practice in it, I should have more hopes of its speedy obtaining in society.
A time will doubtless come when a smaller proportion will be for war than at present when the greater part being for civil uses, friends may pay as there is and ought to be according to the apostle, a conscientiousness in paying to the support of civil government as well as refuse that for war, to refuse the payment of such when even a lesser part be mixed for war before we applied to the authority to separate them would not at present be my place, but probably before that time come when the lesser part will be for war friends may be agreed to ask a separation which, if it should be refused, we might be united in refusing even those the greater part of which may be for civil uses.
I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness, for I see a material distinction between civil government and military, or a state of war, and on this distinction our ancient testimonies was and remain to be supportable of paying tribute & customs for the support of the civil, and yet to refuse to pay trophy money and other expenses solely for war.
Civil government is in the restoring & supporting power, yet there is a separation, as of the precious from the vile, in respect of this subject, through the lusts and fallen ages under the specious claim of being the disciples and followers of the Prince of Peace, have greatly contributed to cloud and obscure it.
The thoughts on paying taxes of Samuel Allinson is well thought of even by those who yet pay them, and as he has got diverse arguments not in the piece now sent to the clerk of your Meeting for Sufferings, I have suggested to him if Friends with you should agree to the publication of anything, I thought some Friend might, out of them all, make the apology much more complete, which I could wish as done in preference to publishing this now sent.
On , Benezet wrote to Robert Pleasants, saying:
The consistency of paying tax for war is becoming so interesting a subject to the Society that I trust it will be agreeable to you to see some note which we have made on that weighty subject and which by a copy or other I request you will communicate to our dear Friend Edward Stabler with whom we much sympathize in the loss of his dear companion; but cannot write to him as I could wish, I have not even time to read over the copy so that you must help omission we have a care that is furthering this testimony which we have faith to believe is founded on truth not to do any thing to forward or support it in a wrong zeal and not according to knowledge.
As it is a step in the reformation that so directly crosses a received testimony in Society more than any other we had need to step carefully and wisely in it.
He that believes makes not haste.
And that’s the last word I’ve been able to uncover.
Benezet died in .
Timothy Davis rejoined the orthodox Meeting in .
It seems from these excerpts that a number of war tax resisting Quakers were working to assemble a major argument or statement of doctrine on the subject that could be published by the Society under the imprimatur of their Meeting — probably incorporating Allinson’s work.
I haven’t been able to find any drafts of this, though, if any exist.
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.
I have been long waiting for an opportunity to write, in answer to thine of the & and expected to have had one by Willm Turpin, but his departure was so unexpected that I had but just time to give him a packet for thee, containing the Thoughts I had collected on the payment of taxes, which thou desired to see; which thou wilt find mostly coincide with thy own; also a number of pamphlets both in French & English which have been lately published, by direction of Friends of the Mg of Suffering, after they had been received & corrected by them; It’s a matter I had long had in prospect, & is chiefly intended for the information of my country people, but may also we hope be of service in removing mistakes & prejudices from others.
The perusal of thy remarkes, in thy letter, on the payment of Taxes for war, & those thou proposed to communicate to Friends in England, both afforded me much satisfaction.
I am much concerned with thee that nothing be done in a wrong zeal, & I have been particularly desirous, as well for my self as others, that we don’t undertake to become reformers without feeling the meek & humbling evidence to attend, more especially, as thou observes, “this is a step in the reformation that crosses a received testimony”, so long & strongly established by the practice & the writings of several Friends of note, which will remain as a standing plea to cavillers & such as are inclined with Naaman, to say, “Pardon thy servant in this thing;” who tho thy may receive as quieting an answer as he did, may swerve from the most excellent way.
However, I believe in the consistency of such a testimony, & that if it is of the truth, it will make its way in the love & patience; and that great care should be exercised that no censure, or even slight should be cast upon an honest hearted brother in that and all other cases, that cannot see as I do.
To make our union to consist in a conformity of sentiments & practices in matters in which faithful men are not agreed from their different apprehensions of what the Gospel requires, is a great mistake; & has a greater tendency to beget hypocrisy, than true fellowship.
It cannot be expected that children in the Truth will have the same prospect as young men, & these may not see things in the same light as elders; here the necessity & advantage of meekness, patience & charity is experienced.
Our Friends so freely paying taxes, the greatest part of which they knew was appropriated for military purposes, has from my first coming amongst them, which is near 50 years; as well as their being so active in government, even when military matters were mixed with civil always appeared to me inconsistent, & was what I have frequently expressed, even in the Yearly Meeting, more than 20 years past.
I have observed that foreigners with whom I have conversed upon this weighty subject, have looked on the payment of these taxes to be inconsistent with a clear testimony against war: Nay the very thoughtful Indian has reproached us on this head.
I trust, if such who apprehend themselves called to bear a testimony of this kind, do it with meekness & consistency, it may bring some to deeper considerations of Truth’s Testimony against War.
The love of the world & the deceitfulness of riches, the desire of amassing wealth, of living a life of ease, delicacy & shew, is the great rock against which our Society has dashed, & Many not to rise again; from this mighty snare, I trust, the Almighty will, in a measure, deliver us by means of this testimony.
Here it is the minds of the young people are carried away in the air & the world; and the parents, as in the case of Eli, give way: hence we are, generally, more like those clothed in purple & fine linen, — in soft raiment in kings’ houses, than conformable to our Saviour’s example & imitation of his followers, (ie) that cloud of witnesses, of whom the Apostle bears record, of whom the earth was not worthy; far opposite to the state of Pilgrims & Strangers, followers of him, who, tho Lord of all, claimed not so much in the world, as, even where to lay his head.
— Now when this is the case of the young & unexperienced, it’s not to be wondered at, considering how strongly the bent of the human heart flows towards the world, its pleasures, honors & friendships; but to see those who have apprehended themselves peculiarly called to follow Christ in the regeneration; gifted ministers, well qualified elders, engaged in laying up riches, even sometimes by means of business, such as disputed titles, distillations, &c. doubtful as to their moral rectitude; as well as of a contentious nature & dangerous in themselves; others endeavouring to advance themselves by marriage with persons, on account of their wealth, who are unacquainted with the truth: Nay, I have in several, I may say in many instances, with sorrow of heart, seen preachers both young & old, whom the Almighty had called to his service in a low situation, so far insinuate themselves in the farms of the rich, by means of the esteem & respect gained thro the jewels God had adorned them with, for the carrying on his spiritual work, as to get advanced in the world & even join hands in marriage with people, which, had they not been rich, they would, as Job expressed it, not even “have put with the dogs of their flock”; making public declaration that they took one another in the presence of God; whence a query may arise, What God?
Why the God of this world.
Moreover, this terrible deviation from the path of truth, has been generally approved & even vindicated by professors, under the specious pretense, that, by means of the wealth thus attained, they would have more leisure to attend upon their ministry; forgetting that the Gospel has been predominantly dispensed to, & by, the poor, rich in faith, whom God has especially called, & will enable to perfect the work to which they are called, without going to Egypt & Babylon for help.
Many who have too much given way to a self seeking, worldly spirit, have nevertheless retained in a great measure their prospects of many Gospel Truths, by means of which, & their wealth, they have become as leaders in their several Meetings; from hence our church has suffered much.
People have been pleased they had the example of active members who seemed to have so good a prospect of things relating to the kingdom of God; not considering the many instances recorded in Scripture, where it appears, God did not withdraw a prospect of the truth, as an ability for service, from those he had once called, notwithstanding their deviation from the narrow way of the cross, as, in the case of Balaam, who so clearly prophesied to the rising of the Star of Jacob, even when he was seeking occasion to curse Israel, for the wages of covetousness.
Well, if a faithful testimony prevails in the matter of taxes for war in those who are favored with the prospect, who, I am inclined to think, are many, I trust it will have a great tendency to wean such from the world, teach us to bring our wants & desires into a much narrower compass than they are at present; hence those corrupt propensities which are thereby so much fed in ourselves & our children, may more easily be kept under.
I would judge the state of no man, with respect to God & him, but I cannot look upon the love of the world & giving way to a desire of riches, as many do, as a pardonable frailty; but rather esteem it a departure from the divine life, which must either gradually kill all religion in the Soul, or be itself killed, by it.
If one tittle of the law was not to fail but all be fulfilled, can we believe we may act with impunity in so diametric opposition to solemn truths so agreeable to the nature of the Gospel, & so plainly verified to be so in their effects, particularly on the offspring of those who deviate from them, & yet retain the favor of God?
Love not the world &c. Lay not up for yourselves treasure on earth, &c. How hardly shall those that have riches enter, &c. Wo unto you that are rich, &c &c. They that will be rich fall into snares &c. These are certainly fruits of the flesh; & the watch word still is, That ye cannot serve two masters, — Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, — If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if thro the Spirit, ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
But, putting Christianity out of the question, let me say that there is a certain proportion of wealth in the world, which should be applied, & circulate for the general benefit & comfort of mankind; according to each’s particular circumstances, this is the duty & will be the concern of every feeling heart; Now that one more knowing or crafty than the rest, should, by buying cheap & selling dear, get possessed of such an heap, which might answer the sober wants of hundreds, who are actually under great discouragements & difficulties for want of their share thereof: to see this person make use of his abundance, principally to increase his heap, &, finally, leave it solely or even principally to his heir or heirs, to the gratifying their idleness & pride, & every other noxious passion of the human mind, this appears to me to be an atrocious degree of Vanity.
I fully believe that a people will arise, whether Friends or others, who will absolutely refuse wealth, will make it one article of their fellowship that none suffer more wealth to accumulate than may be necessary to enable them to follow their several callings, & thereby remove from themselves & their children that grievous snare, which has arisen from the Society’s being so fond of amassing & enjoying wealth, in opposition to our Saviour’s positive injunction, indeed to the whole nature of the Gospel.
The situation of our Friend Timothy Davis is a matter of great importance to himself, & may in its consequences be so to many others.
If the innocent childlike nature of the Gospel was suffered to prevail, how easily would matters of this nature subside; our very steps & mistakes would become an occasion of instruction to us, & rather tend to strengthen our union & mutual charity than otherwise.
Ah! the strong will of man, the corruption of the human heart; nowhere more manifest than in the support of our own missteps, which we have, often, some distant prospect we were mistaken or too hasty in, & yet what havoc it has made, & nowhere more than under an apprehension (I would rather say, than pretense,) of zeal for the truth.
I do not know that it is safe for me, at this time, to say anything to Timothy, not having yet seen Abraham Griffith; perhaps thou mayst think well of communicating to him these or part of the thoughts I now express, with the Thoughts on Taxes for war.
Timothy is a friend & held in much estimation & whom I still love.
I earnestly wish for him, as for myself, that in any contention of this kind, [self?], that enemy of all good, may be held in no estimation, but that the honor of God & the good of our fellowman may be the only object of our desires; & then I have no doubt but things between Timothy & his Friends, will soon settle right.
“I will be more vile than thus & will be base in mine own sight,” saith king David; & when reproached for his humiliation, gives this weighty reason, It was before the Lord, — who chose me.
Oh that this may likewise be Timothy’s situation.
It is recorded of our Lord, That in his humiliation his judgment was taken away.
I take it to be the reasoning part, which so strongly asserts, I am right.
When we are favored to pierce thro the mists & crowds that surround us, as well arising from our own passions & wrong pursuits, as the incumbrances of the world, & are favored with a sight of that which is of an eternal duration, that which soon will be all in all to us, — even a communication with a state & with beings of as different nature from humanity, as exalted above it, — all Contention & Striving will subside, & we shall feel the truth of [Edward] Young’s assertion, —
Th’ Almighty from his Throne, on Earth surveys Nought greater, than an honest, humble Heart, — An humble Heart, His residence; pronounc’d His Second Seat.
Well, it is time to conclude, by saying that I am persuaded the testimony to the peaceable, suffering spirit of the Gospel will prevail, in opposition to the cruel & corrupting spirit of war, & that it will be attended with blessed effects to individuals, who will be thought worthy, thro suffering, in innocent simplicity to be the promulgators of it.
—
I have expressed myself with great freedom, but I fear without sufficient guard, tho I trust in great good will; nevertheless if thou apprehends me under any misapprehension, be so kind to mention it to him, who is indeed, with much sincerity thy affectionate friend Anthony Benezet.
[P.S.] I find there was a considerable debate amongst Friends in the year , on account of a tax laid for to assist queen Ann’s troops in an attack upon Canada.
I have a pamphlet published at that time, by a Friend Jos. Rakestraw, grandfather to Isaac Zane, wherein he tells us he was disowned, in consequence of the debate which arose amongst Friends on that account.
Here’s a note from a committee of the New England Yearly Meeting of Quakers to the Sandwich Monthly Meeting concerning Timothy Davis, who led a faction of Quakers who split from the main Meeting over the question of whether it was acceptable to pay taxes to support the American revolutionary army:
To the Monthly Meeting of Friends, held at Long Plain, for Sandwich, .
Dear Friends — We being under appointment, by last Yearly Meeting, to visit your Meeting, and such members thereof as might seem necessary, and to give such advice as might seem suitable, respecting Timothy Davis’s publishing a pamphlet on taxation, as well as the matter of the pamphlet, do first advise and recommend that each one settle down in close attendance to that Divine and enlightening gift, measurably bestowed on each one of us; and we fully believe that therein you will discover that there remains a labor for you yet to do, in order to clear our holy profession and testimony of truth from the suffering and reproach occasioned by said pamphlet, as well as the manner of publishing it; and in that state of humbly waiting on Divine wisdom, we doubt not you will find truth to open the way for further counsel and advice, and friendly admonition to Timothy, and we advise that you fully discharge yourselves therein; and if after all he shall remain inflexible to your labor of love, and cannot be brought to a sight and sense of his missteps, and in Godly sorrow which worketh repentance not to be repented of, give forth a condemnation of said pamphlet, and publish the same as our discipline requires; that you then put the rule of discipline prescribed for obstinate transgressors in execution.
But in case you remain divided in sentiment, and there be such among you as shall not conform and submit hereto, our advice is, that you lay the matter before your Quarterly Meeting, in order, that if it cannot be finished by their assistance, they may send the same to our next Yearly Meeting.
Signed: Benjamin Barney, Jr., Joshua Fulsom, Daniel Newhall, Benjamin Buffington, William Buffum, George Comstock, Abraham Dow
Davis at first refused to renounce his views, and in the Sandwich Monthly Meeting disowned him.
Some other Quakers with similar views left with him and started their own, separate Meeting.
In , Davis changed his mind, renounced his heretical views, and rejoined the orthodox meeting.
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
Is the dilemma facing pacifist Quakers who are asked to pay a war tax best resolved by conscientious objection and civil disobedience, or by lawsuits and lobbying?
Both approaches could be found in the pages of the Friends Journal in .
On , the Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, in U.S. v. Lee, that an Amish person who conscientiously objected to the social security system did not thereby have a First Amendment right to opt out of it.
The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge it because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.
Because the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax.
As a reductio ad absurdum on the losing legal argument, the court noted that if Lee were allowed to assert the right to opt out of social security on conscientious grounds, it would open the door to other similar challenges:
If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax.
A note in the issue of the Friends Journal noted that this had also slammed the door on the various First Amendment arguments for conscientious objection to war taxes that people had been pursuing:
In the light of a negative judgment rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court against an Amish employer on , the judicial action committee of the General Conference Mennonite Church has recommended to its General Board that a planned suit against the IRS on the issue of tax withholding “be put on indefinite hold.”
Having been turned away by the judicial branch, they decided to double-down on the legislative:
Rather than take a negatively-shrouded course of action at this time, the General Conference committee urged the General Board to make more money available “to promote the World Peace Tax Fund.”
an ad from the issue of Friends Journal
The issue reviewed two books on war tax resistance: Affirm Life: Pay for Peace from the Historic Peace Church Task Force on Taxes, and People Pay for Peace by William Durland.
The first of these opened with this challenging statement:
A wedge of contradiction is opening a wide fissure in our peace testimony.
While nearly all of us declare ourselves to be conscientiously opposed to war and preparations for war, and while many work tirelessly for its elimination, the overwhelming number of us continue voluntarily to pay for what we openly abhor.
The book, according to the review, covered the “biblical and historical basis for military tax refusal” and presented “a systematic exposition of the proposal for a World Peace Tax Fund.”
It also “gives large place to the significance and importance of achieving religious clarity and motivation.”
However, “[i]t does not… adequately address the mechanics of military tax refusal.”
That gap was filled by the second of the books, of which the reviewer said: “Most useful, I think, is the section entitled, ‘How to Refuse to Pay the Military Tax.’ ”
The same issue had an obituary for Lois Mae Handsaker which noted: “Before there were any peace marches in , she was apprehended during the picketing of the local post office to protest the use of income taxes for war.”
The issue announced that the Iowa Peace Network would be collecting money withheld from taxes by war tax resisters and using it to buy grain which it would submit to an IRS office in lieu of tactics to “symbolize opposition to taxes for the Pentagon and emphasize the need for funding human services.”
The article noted: “In the event that the IRS refuses to accept the grain, it will be donated to local meal programs for the needy.”
Alas, the notice followed-up that news with the silly idea of protesting against war taxes by writing “not for military spending” in the memo field of the check you write to the IRS.
“If enough people take this step, a class action suit against the IRS may be filed” — by some sort of magic, one supposes.
At Canada’s Parliament passed a “Constitution Act” which made it yet more independent of the British government.
The act enshrined “freedom of conscience and religion” as a fundamental freedom.
The Canadian Peace Tax Fund Committee said it was going to “test” this “by assuming that [our legislators] mean we can divert our defense taxes from killing to peaceful uses, on conscientious grounds.”
The notice of this, in the issue, didn’t give any details as to how this “test” would take place, but pretty quickly shifted to “hopes” that the legislature would enact a Peace Tax Fund in the spirit of the new Constitution Act, so lobbying may have been all the testing they planned to do.
ad from the issue of Friends Journal
Similarly vague was the report from the meeting of Carolina Conservative Friends, which decided on “asking ourselves and other American Friends to make some sort of statement against the use of tax money for military purposes, through coordinated activity in filing our returns .”
A report on the Lake Erie Yearly Meeting also vaguely mentioned “continued explorations within monthly meetings about war-tax resistance.”
Another report on the New York Yearly Meeting said that “[s]ome Friends planned to take further individual action supporting nonregistration and tax refusal.”
This consistent vagueness makes me suspect that there was some embarrassment and certainly no consensus about war tax resistance in these meetings.
Trudy Knowles brought things more in the brass tacks direction in the “Memoirs of a War Resister,” an article that concentrated mostly on the plight of Vietnam War veterans in the United States, that she shared in the issue.
Her resistance included tax resistance:
I do not pay the federal excise tax on my phone bill which is earmarked for the military.
I refuse to pay the 50 percent of my income tax that goes to preparing this country for war.
I put this money instead into an escrow account to be held until the government establishes a means by which this money can be used for the peaceful resolution of national and international conflicts — or until they take it by force.
There was a thoughtful overview of the “Holy Experiment” of William Penn’s founding of a colony run on Quaker principles in Pennsylvania by Margaret H. Bacon in the issue.
Toward the conclusion, it discussed war tax resistance as a possible way of advancing the experiment:
Through [John] Woolman we come to the most pressing unfinished business of our Holy Experiment: freeing ourselves from complicity in war.
Penn and his colonists hoped to govern without weapons, placing their hopes on “seeing what love can do,” as well as on the establishment sometime in the future of the instruments of arbitration, Penn’s Congress of Nations.
Neither the personal practice of nonviolence nor the best efforts of the United Nations have yet worked to rid the world of the threat of war, and now time is running out.
Earlier Friends were at least able to separate themselves from complicity in preparations for war by refusing to pay militia taxes as well as refusing to serve in the militia.
Today the principle of conscientious objection for the bodies of our young men (and perhaps young women) is well established with us, having been pioneered by a handful during the Civil War, a few hundred during World War Ⅰ, and some thousands in World War Ⅱ.
The idea of demanding conscientious objector status for our tax dollars is in its infancy.
In the past years, a few courageous souls have refused to pay the government that portion of their federal income taxes that supports war.
Today more and more monthly meetings and yearly meetings are beginning to wrestle with the problem.
Is it time for the Society of Friends as a whole to get behind this move?
Surely if we did it, and the Mennonites did it, and the Brethren did it, we could make a change in the law.
Is there not some simple, single forward step that we could make together in ?
Some Friends find this issue complicated, because the graduated income tax supports many good things, and Friends who designate their taxes solely for peace purposes are just making it necessary for others to pay solely for war.
The same arguments can be raised against conscientious objection to military service.
But is there not a deep and inward side to tax refusal?
Do some Friends feel, as Woolman felt, that they cannot pay these taxes and still keep in touch with the living and life-giving Holy Spirit?
Let us be tender before we argue with our tax refusers, for they may be pointing our way to new light.
The issue brought the news that “25 members of the Friends House staff in London” had embarked on war tax resistance.
The Meeting for Sufferings of London Yearly Meeting agreed to put 34% of the taxes withheld from the objectors into an escrow account, “the intention being to release it to Inland Revenue after assurances that it would be used for non-military purposes.”
An obituary notice of Roberta Dickinson in the same issue noted that “[s]he supported the peace testimony through organized war tax resistance.”
At the meeting of the Friends World Committee for Consultation, that group decided to refuse to submit withheld taxes to the government from its war tax resisting employees (according to a Journal report ).
Walter Ludwig reflected on contemporary and historical Quaker war tax resistance in an article he wrote for the issue.
Excerpts:
The writings from George Fox, John Woolman, Joshua Evans, Timothy Davis,
Moses Brown, and Samuel Allinson that are mentioned in Ludwig’s essay can be found in the book American Quaker War Tax Resistance.
Members of our meeting [Rahway and Plainfield (New Jersey) Monthly Meeting] several years ago began as individuals to withhold a percentage of their income tax in protest of its use for war.
No devastating consequences have resulted.
Courteous, almost sympathetic Internal Revenue Service agents have visited one member, telling her a red tab has been affixed to her folder in the file.
She hopes the IRS will soon run out of red tabs.
I have withheld the military third, sending it the first year to the American Friends Service Committee and since then to the Quaker Peace Tax Fund, custody of Albany (N.Y.) Monthly Meeting.
The first response from the IRS came just .
They want the “underpaid tax,” $939.58 in penalty and interest.
My refusal to support mass murder will likely be ignored, as have been my explanatory notes of “conscientious deduction” sent quarterly during the past three years
In my letters of refusal I have mentioned membership in the Religious Society of Friends.
Do I thereby leave with the IRS the impression that of course Quakers do not pay military taxes, as they once refused to pay tithes to a state church they could not in conscience support?
But has refusal to pay taxes for war been within the main stream of Quakerly testimony and practice?
May war-tax-resisting Friends today take aid and comfort from a tradition of military tax refusal?
George Fox was clear on the matter.
A restored portrait of Fox presents him as a man of property from a well-to-do family with enough investments to give him private means.
He paid his taxes.
If we pay we can plead with Caesar and plead with them who hath our custom and hath our tribute.
Refuse to pay and they will say: “How can we defend you against foreign enemies and protect everyone and their estates and keep down thieves and murders?”
And again:
To bear and carry weapons to fight with… the man of peace cannot act… but have paid their tribute [taxes] which they may still do for peace’s sake… In so doing Friends may better claim their liberty.
Sara Fell kept the Fox family account book after George married her mother, Margaret.
Her accounts disclose that the family paid the poll tax to carry on England’s war against the Dutch in .
When England fought the French, the entry reads: “ by M paid to the Poll Money by father and mother 1 pound 2 shilling.”
Robert Barclay, foremost Quaker theologian, wrote in :
We have suffered much in our country because neither ourselves would bear arms nor send others in our place, nor give our money for the buying of drums, standards, and other military attire.
Such “trophy money,” as these direct taxes were called, many early Friends refused to pay.
Most, however, paid the general or “mixed” taxes even in time of war.
Their willingness may be found in the advice of the gathering at Balby encouraging “all who are indebted to the world endeavor to discharge the same.”
As Fox put it in , “Keep out of debt; owe to no man anything but love… Pay to Caesar, as to your fellows, what is due.”
[H]omespun-clad John Woolman was given a cool reception by elegant London Friends.
They were securely of the propertied class with enterprises in heavy industry and were largely in control of the Atlantic trade.
They would not give their persons to the business of war-making, but did they make nice distinctions in how the empire used their tax money in extending colonial rule?
Philadelphia Friends, like London’s, were well placed in government and trade.
“The richest,” wrote a visiting London doctor, “talk only about selling of flour and the low price it bore.”
Using George Fox as authority, some Quakers tried to persuade others to pay a tax levied for an armed expedition against Canada in .
When war with the French and Indians finally came in , John Churchman, Anthony Benezet, John Woolman, and other Friends refused to pay war taxes that were mixed with taxes for civil uses.
In extenuation of Fox and early war-tax-paying Quakers in England Woolman said:
To me it appears that there was less danger of their being infected with the spirit of the world than is the case with us now.
[They] had had little share in civil government… our minds have been turned to the improvement of our country, to merchandise and the sciences… and a carnal mind is gaining among us.
When ten Quaker members of the Pennsylvania Assembly resigned rather than vote for the War Supply Bill of , the remaining “secular” Friends voted the war taxes and penalties for nonpayment.
The abdicating legislators and their supporters in the Society then began close cooperation with Mennonites, Dunkers, and other pacifist groups that carried on through the Revolution.
When military officers appeared in Mount Holly to draft for the French and Indian War, Woolman noted in his Journal, “In this time of commotion some of our young men left these parts and tarried abroad till it was over” (a prelude to Vietnam).
Woolman in had recorded his uneasiness about paying war taxes:
A few years past, money having been made current in our province for carrying on wars… by taxes laid on the inhabitants, my mind was often affected with the thought of paying such taxes… To refuse the active payment of a tax which our Society generally paid was exceedingly disagreeable but to do a thing contrary to my conscience appeared yet more dreadful.
Joshua Evans in wrote:
I found it best for me to refuse paying taxes on my estate which went to pay the expenses of war, and although my part might appear at best as a drop in the ocean, yet the ocean, I considered, was made up of many drops.
Committees appointed by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting agreed on an “epistle of tender love and caution to Friends in Pennsylvania” signed by those who felt free to do so and forwarded to monthly and quarterly meetings.
It was in keeping with William Penn’s earlier statement, made when he refused to send money to England for war against Canada:
No man can be true to God and be false to his own conscience, nor can he extort from it a tribute to carry on any war, much less offensive, nor ought true Christians pay for it.
I’ve tried many times to track down a source for this Penn quote, with no success.
The war was in full swing when queries sent annually by London Yearly Meeting to English Friends were adopted in by yearly meetings in Virginia, Maryland, Philadelphia, New York, and New England.
They asked:
Do you bear a testimony against bearing arms and paying trophy money or being in any manner concerned in privateers letters of mark, or dealing in prize goods as such?
Friends were expected not to pay voluntarily to hire a substitute for military service or voluntarily pay any tax solely and directly for military purposes.
Every other tax, even mixed taxes that would be used in part for the military budget, Friends were expected in conscience to pay.
The Revolution shifted the locus of tax-raising authority for Americans from London to state and federal governments.
Whereupon Timothy Davis in circulated his tract titled, “Advice of a Quaker to Pay Tax to American Revolution.”
War taxes, especially mixed ones, should be paid, wrote Davis, and he quoted a weighty Friend, Thomas Story, who had declared, “If the officer demand tax from me and tell me ’tis to maintain war, I’ll pay it.”
Sandwich (Mass.) Monthly Meeting took a dim view of the Davis publication and disowned its author.
Quaker books of discipline of the time counseled disowning members who paid war taxes.
During the Revolution Moses Brown reminded Friends:
Our ancient testimonies were and remain to be supportable of paying tribute and customs for the support of civil and yet refuse to pay trophy money and other expenses solely for war.
He suggested Friends might ask, with the war over, for a separation of taxes into their several budget purposes.
“If it should be refused we might be united in refusing even those the greater part of which may be for civil uses.”
The clearest Quaker statement on war taxes during the Revolution came from the pen of Samuel Allinson, a young Friend of Burlington, New Jersey.
In Allinson circulated manuscript copies of his “Reasons against War and paying taxes for its Support.”
War is not a defensible function of civil government, reasoned Allinson, and each generation must apply biblical truths to the issues of its own time.
Peace committees of monthly meetings might well spend a session with Friend Allinson’s cogent thinking.
Quaker support of withholders of war taxes was recorded in a minute approved by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in , reaffirmed in , and used as model for a minute approved by New York Yearly Meeting.
It reads, in part:
Refusal to pay the military portion of taxes is in keeping with an honorable testimony, fully in keeping with the history and practice of Friends… We warmly approve of people following their consciences and openly approve civil disobedience in this matter under divine compulsion… We ask all to consider carefully the implications of paying taxes that relate to war-making… Specifically we offer encouragement and support to people caught up in the problem of seizure, and of payment against their will.
The same issue noted that a minute passed at the gathering of the New England Yearly Meeting “supported efforts to establish a World Peace Tax Fund and current forms of war tax refusal.”
Also in that issue was an announcement about the formation of a war tax resisters’ penalty fund:
The Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund is a network designed to distribute the burden of penalties or interest levied against military tax resisters.
For example, 200 people would share a $500 penalty at $2.50 each.
For information contact TRPF, Box 25, North Manchester, IN 46962.
The fund was still in operation at that address until fairly recently.
It has not formally disbanded, though it appears to no longer be operating effectively.
At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).
Today I’m going to try to coalesce some of the notes I’ve assembled about how the Quaker practice of war tax resistance evolved, particularly in America, during the period of time surrounding and including the American Revolution.
The American Revolution and Aftermath ()
When Quakers resisted tithes, militia exemption taxes, explicit war taxes, and things of that nature, the government would usually respond by seizing the resister’s property and selling it at auction in order to recover the tax.
(In the earliest years of the Society of Friends, many such resisters were imprisoned, but this practice later became uncommon.)
Quaker meetings developed a protocol that good Quakers were supposed to follow when such property seizures took place.
They were not supposed to cooperate in any way, but neither were they supposed to resist.
They were not supposed to suggest which property the tax collector might seize, and they certainly were not supposed to leave the amount of the tax lying out on the table in plain view (some Quakers evidently tried this way of getting out of resisting).
Instead, when the collector came and said he was going to seize property for unpaid taxes, the Quaker was supposed to step aside and say something along the lines of “do as you think you must,” perhaps explaining the reason for his refusal to pay, but not otherwise interfering.
If the collector seized property worth more than the amount of tax, and was able to auction it off for more than the amount owed, the collector (if honest) might try to return the surplus to the resister.
A Quaker was not supposed to accept such money, it having been tainted by the process.
(However, if the collector seized too many items, and only auctioned off some of them, the Quaker could accept the return of the additional items themselves.)
This part of the protocol made Quakers especially vulnerable to particularly unscrupulous tax collectors.
Such a collector could seize the most valuable thing he could get his hands on, sell it, apply some of the proceeds to the tax, and then pocket the rest.
Many other collectors were also accused of selling property at cut-rate prices to themselves, to their friends, or in exchange for kick-backs.
The result of all of this meant that tax resisting Quakers were often setting themselves up for considerable financial losses.
These “sufferings” were part of the glory of being a Quaker, and, as such, were well worth the price to some Friends, but to others they were just an unwelcome financial hardship.
Meetings had to be diligent to keep wavering Friends from trying to sneak out from under the requirements to refuse to pay certain taxes, to refuse the return of surplus money, and to not cooperate with the tax collector as a way of trying to ameliorate the burden of the seizure process.
If a Friend failed in any of these ways, someone at their meeting might “produce a testification” against them.
The meeting would then investigate the charges and would send out a delegation to talk to the wayward Quaker and try to bring them back into compliance.
This often would include the Quaker standing up at a future meeting to read an acknowledgment of their error and promise never to do it again.
If the Quaker refused to get with the program, the meeting could “disown” them — basically kick them out of the meeting.
Simply not reporting any “sufferings” to the meeting for failure to pay war tax might be enough to start this process.
(“We notice thou hastn’t had any property seized this year for failure to pay the bounty tax, Friend Johnson.
Care to tell us how thou hast been so lucky?”)
American Quakers during the American Revolution were, in many places, pillaged ruthlessly by the authorities by this process of property seizure.
Several things contributed to this:
The Society of Friends was not united.
Dissident Quakers promoted paying taxes to the rebel government, and some “Free Quakers” even abandoned the peace testimony entirely to enlist in the rebel army.
This made it even harder for resisting Quakers to appeal to Quaker beliefs and practices as an explanation for their stand.
Quakers had wavered in their war tax resistance stand in the recent past, for instance when the Quaker-led Pennsylvania Assembly voted to tax the colony to pay for fortifications during the French & Indian War.
This was deployed as a precedent to argue that Quakers only have scruples against war tax paying at convenient times or depending on their sympathy with the particular war or government.
The Quaker peace testimony was often publicly expressed with an eye to being reassuring to the authorities.
So often it would include phrasing like this:
[T]he 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 business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty, under the government which God is pleased to set over us.
For this reason, some Quakers felt that to adhere to this testimony they could not cooperate in any way with the rebel government, as to do so would be to contribute “to plot and contrive” against the king (others disagreed, feeling that the rebel government had become the one “which God is pleased to set over us”).
Such absolutist resisters were easy targets for patriotic anger.
Both armies were authorized to take any property they needed during the course of their campaigns.
They were usually supposed to pay for what they took, but Quakers, being under an obligation not to supply goods to belligerents, could not accept money in such cases.
This made their farms and stores particularly tempting targets for thrifty officers.
Quakers who would neither serve in the military, pay war taxes, nor take oaths of allegiance to the rebel government (Quakers generally would not take oaths of any kind) were suspected of using their conscientious scruples as a cover for loyalist sympathies.
Speaking of oaths, Quakers could be fined for refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the new American government.
They were forbidden by Quaker discipline from paying such fines.
So this became another opportunity for plunder and to me it looks like this was used deliberately as a revenue-raiser or as a way of punishing Quakers for their lack of enthusiasm for the rebel cause.
An additional complication for Quakers at this time was the fuzziness over what counted as a “war tax.”
For example, one of the ways the Continental Congress funded its military campaign was to issue its own paper currency and make the acceptance of this currency as legal tender mandatory.
This was certainly easier than trying to raise the money through an explicit tax, but it amounted to just as much of an imposition: as the Congress issued more and more currency to finance the war, the value of the currency plummeted, taking resources away from people who were forced to use it.
Some Quakers refused to handle the continentals, and some were imprisoned and others were threatened with execution.
In other cases, such refusers were declared outlaws and boycotts were enforced against them — in one example “it was publicly proclaimed that there was no protection for him [John Cowgill], that all persons were forewarned at their peril to have no dealings with him.
Even the miller was threatened with the destruction of his mill if he ground for his family, and the school-master forbid receiving his children at school.”
The official stand of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was neutral on the currency question, and asked Friends to come to their own decisions and not to chastise one-another about it.
The Virginia Yearly Meeting, on the other hand, formally forbade Friends from using continentals.
The official Philadelphia Yearly Meeting position on war taxes, as put forth in , was much as it had long been: “It is the judgment of this meeting that a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colors, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony.”
Timothy Davis published a tract in laying out the case for why American Quakers should pay most of the taxes being demanded by the rebel congressional government.
He was disowned by his Monthly Meeting, both for the content of the tract and for publishing it without the Meeting’s approval.
He left and took a few other Quakers with him to found a rival Meeting.
This conflict was still dividing the Society a decade later, when the Revolution was over and American Quakers had pretty much all adjusted to the new government God was pleased to have set over them.
The tract was well argued.
Those Quakers who were trying to strengthen and broaden the practice of war tax resistance beyond what the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was willing to advocate tried to come up with an authoritative and thoroughly scripturally-backed response.
Benjamin Mason, Anthony Benezet, Moses Brown, and Samuel Allinson all pursued efforts in this direction.
I’ve seen some drafts of their work and their correspondence, and Allinson’s draft, at least, seems to have been widely-distributed in manuscript form, but as far as I know, no official version ended up being published.
Benezet believed that because the stronger position they were advocating would demand more from Quakers than before, and would subject them to more persecution than before, it would make the Society of Friends stronger and less-corrupted by worldly riches:
[It] will not be like a passing storm but an abiding trial, which, as it will come heavier upon those who are most loaded & encumbered with the clay of this world, will have I trust a blessed effect to every one who will willingly receive it to keep us low & humble.
Part of what may have restrained them from publishing was caution about introducing new doctrinal innovations at a time when the Society of Friends was already beginning to show signs of fracturing on party lines.
Part also may be that the Meetings that would have to authorize the publication of such a pamphlet were probably hoping to quiet such debate rather than stir up a new hornet’s nest.
But there was also the emerging trouble of an ultra-radical war tax resistance position that was beginning to develop.
Moses Brown wrote to Anthony Benezet about this concern, saying:
[S]ome Friends refuse all taxes, even those for civil uses as well as those clear for war and others that are mixed, and thereby dropping our testimony of supporting civil government by readily contributing thereto, [and] it has been a fear whether this variety of conduct won’t mar rather than promote the work… I understand some Friends have fallen in with or been overpowered by the common argument that civil government is upheld by the sword, and therefore they decline paying to its support, which appears to me a great weakness…
Around this time, you start to see meetings supplementing their discipline about not paying explicit war taxes (“for drums, colors, and military attire”) with advice that Friends not criticize one another over their positions on whether or not to pay “mixed” taxes.
Apparently the arguments in Meetings had become troublesome and did not seem to be near a resolution.
The way Quaker Meetings recorded “sufferings” went something like this: When a Quaker was subjected to persecution of some sort for taking a conscientious stand required by Quaker discipline, that Quaker would report this to his or her Monthly Meeting.
That Meeting would periodically forward on a list of such reports to its Quarterly Meeting, which in turn would compile these into a report that it would submit to the Yearly Meeting.
At each stage, a Meeting might decide that some particular report wasn’t worth recording for some reason.
During this period, for instance, some Monthly Meetings were recording the sufferings of Quakers who were persecuted for resisting mixed taxes, as well as for explicit war taxes.
Some Quarterly Meetings dropped these reports from their submissions to the Yearly Meetings.
This could lead to debate in the Meetings, which would bring the issue of war tax resistance back on to the front burner.
The Rhode Island Yearly Meeting, for instance, decided to begin accepting such reports in .
The Salem Yearly Meeting debated the issue and eventually followed suit.
The war tax question didn’t end with the end of the fighting.
The war still needed to be paid for, and the continental currency that funded it needed to be redeemed, and the government used a variety of taxes to do this.
Among these were a new set of import duties instituted in to pay war debts.
A few Quakers took note of this and decided they could not pay.
For example, Joshua Evans stopped using imported goods.
Isaac Martin, who ran a drug store, stopped stocking and selling imported products.
The new government was also working on a unified militia law, which, though it enabled Quakers to be exempt from service, required any such conscientious objectors to pay a fine in lieu of service.
A representative of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting addressed Congress, telling them that Quakers would feel obligated to refuse to pay such a fine and to suffer the consequences.
Many Quakers did refuse to pay and were fined (and, as usual, the tax collectors took far more from them in property than the amount of the fines).
In one area, a law was passed exempting members of the volunteer fire department from militia service without necessity of paying a fine, and this led many Quakers to sign up.
Meanwhile, what was happening in England?
Quakers there were much more restrained than their American counterparts on the war tax question.
When they reprinted John Woolman’s Journal in , they omitted the parts where he talked about his war tax resistance.
There were some exceptions to this relative conservatism.
John Payne, for example, boarded up a third of the windows of his home to avoid a property tax, put his coach up on blocks to avoid a vehicle tax, and rode miles out of his way to avoid toll gates, all to avoid paying for the war to suppress the American rebellion.
He also wrote a tract chastising the Society of Friends for investing in government bonds, on the same grounds.
In the years before his death he gave away his property to members of his family so that he would not be liable for any estate tax.
The War of 1812 was largely funded, on the American side, by debt spending, and so explicit war taxes did not become such an acute issue, though the issue of “mixed” taxes again became a heated topic.
The military would again requisition supplies from Quakers, which Quakers felt obligated to refuse to voluntarily give them or to accept money for.
And Quakers were frequently fined (and then plundered for their refusal to pay) when they would not join the militia.
Influential Quaker Elias Hicks reported in (before the Hicksite/Orthodox split) that he had addressed his Meeting’s “meeting for discipline” to ask “whether while we were actively paying taxes to civil government, for the purpose of promoting war or warlike purposes in any degree, we were not balking our testimony in that respect and pulling down with one hand what we are pretending to build with the other.”
He compared this to abolitionist Quakers who nonetheless supported slavery by buying slave-produced goods.
In , several young Quaker men were imprisoned in Baltimore for their refusal to pay militia exemption fines.
The state court would not interfere, as they were imprisoned under a federal regulation at the pleasure of the military, and the judge recommended that they instead apply to President Madison for help.
They did, and the president said that he wouldn’t do anything about it, as the law was clear on the point.
But as the Quaker delegation was leaving the president’s makeshift office (the White House had been put to the torch by the British the year before), the president’s wife, Dolley Madison, called them aside and asked to speak with them.
She had been raised a Quaker.
When she heard what had happened, and what the president’s response had been, she told them “I am determined that the President shall never close his eyes in sleep until these children are liberated from confinement.”
It took the delegation two days to return to Baltimore, and when they got there they learned that the Quaker conscientious objectors had been released on the President’s orders.
I end this period, somewhat artificially, at .
This doesn’t represent a firm boundary in the evolution of the practice of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends, but it does mark a significant milestone in the Society itself.
By that year, the society had fractured into irreconcilable Orthodox and Hicksite factions that would each form their own structures of Meetings and would evolve separately in parallel for decades.
This was caused in part by a passion for strengthened religious purity among American protestant Christians that peaked in .
This striving probably both contributed to a strengthening of war tax resistance (among other traditional Quaker practices) and distracted from it by making other issues more central.
