Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Quakers →
18th century Quakers →
Thomas Story
Joshua Maule, in his book Transactions and Changes in the Society of Friends, and Incidents in the Life and Experience of Joshua Maule (), gives a good look at how the debate over war tax resistance played out among Quakers during the American Civil War.
… If the Society of Friends was in a healthy condition, there would, I have no doubt, be some action taken in the yearly meeting, in giving counsel and encouragement to strengthen the hands of Friends faithfully to maintain a Christian testimony against war and all warlike measures, including the present levying of a tax for the support of the war.
The latter subject was brought before the meeting, but the spirit which prevails, and has ruled for years past, turned judgment away backward, and the honest-hearted, who had hoped for counsel and advice from the Church, were discouraged through the position taken by the leaders of the meeting, who endeavoured to make it appear that our testimony did not require us to decline paying the tax now demanded.
They referred to the writings of early Friends on the subject of taxes, intimating that their testimony was not against such a tax as the present; but they did not produce the proof of such an assertion, neither could they.
I am satisfied there are no writings of sound Friends of any period in the existence of the Society which justify or seek to defend or excuse the payment of a clear and direct war tax such as ours.
But there is abundant evidence that they bore a clear testimony against it.
The discipline of Ohio Yearly Meeting says:
Believing, as we do, that the spirit of the Gospel breathes peace on earth and good-will to men, it is the earnest concern of the yearly meeting that Friends may adhere faithfully to our ancient testimony against wars and fightings, avoiding to unite with any in warlike measures, either offensive or defensive, that by the innocency of our conduct we may convincingly demonstrate ourselves to be real subjects of the Messiah’s peaceful reign, and be instrumental in the promotion thereof towards its desired completion, when, according to ancient prophecy, “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea; and its inhabitants shall learn war no more.”
Following this, the discipline enumerates a number of things which it is the judgment of the yearly meeting our members should not engage in, and says “that a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colours, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony.”
The whole chapter on war in the discipline is well worthy to be read.
It clearly shows that those who now control and direct the affairs of our yearly meeting are not the same in principle with the Friends who framed the discipline; as they pay taxes which are named as being direct for war, and discourage others from maintaining a testimony against them.
There were many hindering considerations presented to my mind, and many arguments were used to discourage from declining to pay this tax, by Friends who were intrusted with the important concerns of the Church, and whom I had much esteemed and would have looked to for help, instead of hindrance, in supporting the testimonies of Truth.
Amid the “strife of tongues” and the abounding of reasoning, which I often thought brought darkness rather than light, it remained clear to my mind, as I endeavoured to look to the only sure Guide, “the Wonderful Counsellor,” that, let others do as they would, the only safe way for myself was to entirely decline paying the war tax, and leave the consequences.
Fully impressed with this feeling, I went to the County Treasurer, and informed him how I wished to pay my tax.
He objected to receiving it as I requested, as he thought the law would not allow it, but he did not find any law to prohibit him from so doing.
I told him I was aware that the authorities would collect the unpaid part of my tax by distraint, but that I believed it was not right for me to pay money to support war.
He made many objections to complying with my wishes, all which I answered as well as I found ability.
He heard me patiently and kindly, and admitted that he understood the ground of my declining to pay the war tax, and he seemed about to accede to my request when a new difficulty arose in his mind.
He said “he did not know whether the law would allow him to do so; he might suffer loss or be fined, and he must consult his law-books.”
I saw this might unsettle the conclusion he had almost arrived at, and so increase the difficulty, and feeling more strength than when I entered his office, — for I went in weakness, — I said, if he should sustain any personal loss in the matter through being adjudged to have failed in his duty, I would be accountable to him for such loss.
This seemed to be assuming a serious responsibility.
I may have been in error therein, and have been censured in this particular by some Friends; but I felt satisfied at the time, and have so continued.
A faithful testimony, however, subject to all that it may involve or incur, is a question of obedience rather than of dollars and cents.
The Treasurer took my word in the matter, and I paid him the full year’s tax, thinking it best not to avail myself of the legal privilege of paying one-half six months later.
It was entered on the receipt that I had paid all my tax for , except 8½ per cent., which was the part expressly named in the tax-list as for the war at that time.
A few days since a neighbor, who frequently comes to my store, asked me to loan him a sum of money for a few days.
I gave him the amount he asked for, and he then said what he wanted it for was to pay my war tax; that the delinquent tax-list had been sent to him for collection.
I had not expected the unpaid tax would be collected before the expiration of the year, or till after the time fixed by law for the last payment; neither did I suppose that a man in such a position — a farmer of considerable property — would engage in such a collection, so that I was taken by surprise.
I immediately told him he could not have the money for that purpose.
He appeared unwilling to give me any offence or to take my property, and said he thought I would surely be willing to let him do as he intended, as he had borrowed the money.
I told him I would rather have paid the Treasurer myself than have it done in this way, and that he must return the money to me.
He did return it, but seemed perplexed, and to regret having undertaken to collect the tax.
He said he would have to take property, and when he afterwards came for that purpose, he wished me to show him such things as I would rather he should take.
I told him I would not take any part in the matter, either to help or hinder; he must take his own course.
He was very respectful, and went away manifesting disappointment and uneasiness with the business he had taken in hand.
I felt to rejoice that I had escaped the snare laid in borrowing the money, and had not submitted to compromise my testimony.
Weak and unworthy I am, and unfit I feel myself to be, to put forth a hand to support the ark of the testimony, fearing I may not be able to stand through all, though I am in measure sensible of having been sustained and helped with a portion of that strength which is made “perfect in weakness.”
Earnest are my desires that I may be enabled to stand through all the trials and provings of this uncommon time, and be preserved consistently with His holy will unto whom alone the cause belongeth, so that honour, praise, and thanksgiving may be rendered unto Him.
the taxgatherer came for property to pay my war tax.
He seemed embarrassed, and wished to talk with me on the subject.
I felt free to converse with him, and explained the nature and ground of my declining to pay, and the view held by Friends in regard to all war.
He admitted it was correct, and he believed I was acting from conscientious motives: He said “he thought it was easier for me than him.”
He took several pieces of goods, some of which he afterwards returned.
And so what appeared at the first like a mountain of difficulty has passed comfortably away, and renewed cause remains to trust in Him who careth for all who fear and obey Him.
He later tells of his worry about some of his fellow Friends who were a little wobbly on the subject:
.
While at Flushing attending our quarterly meeting, Isaac Mitchell informed me that Asa Branson and Joseph Hobson, with himself and some other Friends who had paid half of the tax, were fully decided they could not pay the war tax, but that they would leave it unpaid when they made the last payment.
I was glad to hear they had so decided, though I feared they had missed the right time, in making the first payment without then maintaining the testimony against the war tax; as they must have paid half of it when paying the other; and I knew that delays in such important matters were often dangerous.
.
Our friends Isaac and Mary Mitchell being at my house, I inquired how Friends of Flushing had fared in regard to the war tax.
Isaac replied “that they had paid the whole tax without reserve.”
On my expressing surprise, he said “they had conferred together and reconsidered the matter after his informing me that they were decided that they could not pay it.”
“They had consulted Friends’ writings, &c., and come to the conclusion that as this was a mixed tax, and as Friends had always paid taxes, part of which had gone to support a military establishment, it was better to pay this tax, and make no trouble about it.”
I had feared this result when first informed that they had paid the one-half without reserve.
It was a sorrowful consideration to me that leaders of the people had let fall this Christian testimony, on the first trial of their faith, when a pecuniary sacrifice was required, had forsaken the vital principles of their profession.
After acknowledging a clear view as to right and wrong, they had rejected the light and its leadings, and so missed the reward that might have been extended to them, and, through their example, to many others.
The question as to paying this tax came before our quarterly meeting, and there was a serious concern on the minds of some that Friends should stand faithful to our testimony against war.
But this feeling was, for the most part, among those less forward in the meeting.
Those who had the management of affairs had no encouragement to hold forth for any to maintain this testimony; it was far otherwise with them.
They represented that the writings of early Friends justified the payment of such taxes; and while the meeting was engaged with the subject, Asa Branson declared, boldly and with an evident sense as well as tone of authority, being clerk of the meeting and a recorded minister: “We can pay the tax, but we cannot fight!”
And with dark and subtle reasoning he laboured to destroy the conscientious scruples of others.
Their voices were silenced, and darkness and death, spiritually, were, in my apprehension, brought over the meeting, which seemed to acquiesce in the decision of the clerk that we were at liberty to pay the hire of others engaged in war, though we could not fight ourselves.
I have no doubt the sin was less with many who, without proper consideration and ignorant of the precepts and commands of Truth, went into the field of battle, than with those whose eyes had been enlightened to see the peaceable nature of the Redeemer’s kingdom and were professing to uphold it, and who yet voluntarily paid the wages of the warrior, in a war that imbrued the nation in blood.
The arguments and conclusions of the clerk and others in authority appeared to convince, or to suit the feelings of, most in the meeting: by pursuing the course indicated they could save their property and avoid suffering, though plainly transgressing the letter of the discipline.
This was much kept out of view, and other things were brought forward which are not named in the book of discipline, and were represented as being of like character with the war tax in its respective bearings, such as the use of government money, &c., — a mode of reasoning well calculated to lead to evasion of our testimony and to confuse and bewilder the honest-hearted.
There seemed to be no concern with these leaders to commend a regard to our excellent discipline and to stand faithful to the Truth, — no recommendation to a course in accordance with the words of George Fox: “I was glad I was commanded to turn people to that inward light, spirit, and grace, by which all might know their salvation and their way to God.”
Nothing of this nature was introduced.
The war and the bounty tax was paid by all this class of Friends; the blighting assertion being often heard from them “that the tax demanded was a mixed tax, and they could not avoid paying it.”
The members of the quarterly meeting were not all drawn into this apostasy from first principles.
Some of them adhered to the law and the testimony, trusting in the arm of Divine Power for help and preservation.
I extract as follows from the writings of Thomas Story:
Though the discipline now in use in the Church is of God through the openings of His wisdom and dictates of His Spirit, yet it may be said now of discipline, as Paul, personating that state, said of the Law: “The law is spiritual, holy, righteous, just, and good; but I am carnal, sold under sin.”
The discipline is settled to great and glorious ends; but as Satan regards not what be the law, if he can be judge to pervert it, so even in this age the mystery of iniquity hath so wrought as that ungodly men in some places have advanced themselves into the seat of judgment, whose spirits and ways are for judgment and condemnation; who by that means, being unseen of some and awing others, turn the edge of judgment backwards, and pervert right, put truth for error, and error for truth; which being the highest abomination and indignity to the Lord, He will shortly arise to the discovery and overthrow of all such, with their evil work, throughout the world.
The writings of early Friends were often at this time spoken of and referred to in general terms, both in our meetings for discipline and in private discussion, for the purpose of depreciating the testimony then involved; and the assertion was advanced that such taxes as the present were paid by early Friends; but in no case, I believe, was any definite expression of theirs ever shown, or actually adduced, to sustain the assertion.
Having, from my youth, been an interested reader of the history, the journals, and other approved writings of Friends, I have not found, either in their early or more modern standard writings, anything to support an argument in favour of paying a war and bounty tax, such as is now demanded; so that, as I apprehend, to assert that faithful Friends have ever paid, or advocated the payment of, such a tax, is to misrepresent them.
Thomas Story, being at in New England on a religious visit, thus writes:
I think proper to observe here that this being , the government of New England was preparing to invade Canada, and there being many Friends at that time within that government who could not bear arms on any account, as being contrary to our conscience and sentiments of the end and nature of the Christian religion, which teacheth not to destroy, but “to love our enemies,” the people of New England made a law “that such of the inhabitants of the government as, being qualified or able to bear arms and regularly summoned, should refuse, should be fined, and refusing to pay the fine, should be imprisoned and sold, or bound to some of the Queen’s subjects within that colony for so long a time as by their work they might pay their fine and charges.”
On we went to an appointed meeting at Bristol on the main, where two of our young men, namely, John Smith and Thomas Macomber, were prisoners, being impressed, by virtue of this law, to fight against the French and Indians.
The prisoners being brought into court, Thomas Cornwell and I, and many other Friends, went in with them, and though we had our hats on, the judge was so far indulgent as to order us seats, but that our hats should be taken off in a civil way by an officer.
I replied we did not do that with any disrespect to him or the court, but our hats being part of our clothing we knew not any harm nor intended any affront to the court by keeping them on.
And though religion be not in the hat, yet where it is fully in the heart the honour of the hat will not be demanded, or willingly given or received by the true disciples of Him who said: “I receive not honour from men.
But I know you that ye have not the love of God in you.
How can ye believe which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
The prisoners being at the bar, the judge asked them the reason of their obstinacy, as he called it, running again into several high charges against us as a people.
The young men modestly replied: “It was not obstinacy, but duty to God according to their consciences and religious persuasions, which prevailed with them to refuse to bear arms or learn war.”
But the judge would not by any means seem to admit there was any conscience in it, but ignorance and a perverse nature; accounting it very irreligious in any who were personally able to refuse their help in time of war, with repeated false charges against us as a people, saying “since we could pay public taxes which we knew were to be applied to the uses of war, why could we not pay those which were by law required of us instead of our personal service?”
I desired leave of the court to speak, which was granted, and said: “If the judge would please to keep to the business of the court concerning the prisoners I would, with leave, speak to the point of law in the case; but if he thought fit to continue to charge us, as a people, with errors in matters of religion, not properly before him, I should think it mine to answer him in the face of the court,” adding “that I could give the court a full distinction and reason why we could pay the one tax and yet not the other,” which the whole court, except the judge, was desirous to hear, and he, too, was silent.
I began with the example of Christ Himself for the payment of a tax, though applied by Cæsar to the uses of war and other exigencies of his government, and was going on to show a 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, and affects not the person.
“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.”
The judge interrupted me, saying, “I would preach them a sermon two hours long, if they had time to hear me.”
Then Thomas Cornwell desired them to be careful what precedent they made upon this law, since neither he nor any of us knew what might be the effects of it, or how soon it might be any of our cases; and that it would be very hard upon us to be sold for servants.
He then demanded a precedent, where, at any time, any of the Queen’s subjects ever sold others of them for the payment of taxes, where conscience and duty towards God and Christ the Lord were the only cause of refusal; adding “that he could never pay any of those taxes, though he should be sold for the payment of them.”
Here, Maule adds some excerpts from John Woolman’s journals, which I have reproduced at this page.
John Woolman’s journal and writings fully and clearly set forth his views and feelings on the subject of war taxes: they are well worthy the attention of those who are seriously disposed to follow the requirings of Truth in this important matter.
John Churchman, also in , being in Philadelphia at the time when the Assembly of Pennsylvania was sitting, says:
We understood that a committee of the House was appointed to prepare a bill for granting a sum of money for the King’s use, to be issued in paper bills of credit to be called in and sunk at a stated time by a tax on the inhabitants; on which account several Friends were under a close exercise of mind, some of whom, being providentially together and conferring on the subject, were of opinion that an address to the Assembly would be proper and necessary, and one was prepared accordingly, presented, and read.
From this address I take an extract, as follows:
The consideration of the measures which have lately been pursued and are now proposed having been weightily impressed on our minds, we apprehend that we should fall short of our duty to you, to ourselves, and to our brethren in religious fellowship, if we did not in this manner inform you that, although we shall at all times heartily and freely contribute according to our circumstances, either by the payment of taxes or in such other manner as may be judged necessary, towards the exigencies of government, and sincerely desire that due care may be taken and proper funds provided for raising money to cultivate our friendship with our Indian neighbors, and to support such of our fellow-subjects who are or may be in distress, and for such other like benevolent purposes, yet, as the raising sums of money and putting them into the hands of committees who may apply them to purposes inconsistent with the peaceable testimony we profess and have borne to the world appears to us in its consequences to be destructive to our religious liberties, — we apprehend many among us will be under the necessity of suffering rather than consenting thereto by the payment of taxes for such purposes.”
“We sincerely assure you we have no temporal motives for thus addressing you; and could we have preserved peace in our own minds and with each other we should have declined it, being unwilling to give you any unnecessary trouble, and deeply sensible of your difficulty in discharging the trust committed to you, irreproachable in these perilous times.
John Churchman further says: “Many Friends thought they could not be clear as faithful watchmen without communicating to their brethren their mind and judgment concerning the payment of such a tax; for which purpose an epistle was prepared, considered, agreed to, and signed by twenty-one Friends.
Copies thereof were concluded to be communicated to the monthly meetings, as follows:
Here, Maule reproduces the text of that epistle, which I included in a Picket Line entry .
The following is taken from the “journal of Job Scott:”
At our yearly meeting this year, , the subject of Friends paying taxes for war came under solid consideration.
Friends were unanimous that the testimony of Truth and of our Society was clearly against our paying such taxes as were wholly for war; and many solid Friends manifested a lively testimony against the payment of those in the mixture, which testimony appeared evidently to me to be on substantial grounds, arising and spreading in the authority of Truth.
It was a time of refreshment to an exercised number, whose spirits, I trust, were feelingly relieved in a joyful sense of the light which then sprung up among us.
It does not appear from anything that I have met with, and I believe there is no evidence, that at the rise or in the very early days of the Society there was any tax demanded expressly for the support of war.
But the pure doctrines of the Gospel of life and salvation being clearly against all “wars and fightings,” and teaching “peace and good-will to men,” Friends, as they were steadily concerned to be faithful to the True Teacher “who teacheth as never man taught,” were shown from time to time their religious duty in this important matter; and many of them, at an early period, became satisfied that the Spirit of Truth required them to refrain from contributing in any way to the support of war.
The taxes being so levied that they could not distinguish in regard to them, when the nation was engaged in war they believed it was more consistent with the Divine will and safer for them to suffer distraint and loss of property than to pay the mixed taxes.
As their testimony was faithfully maintained, and defined to their understanding, they became unanimous in their belief, as Job Scott informs us, that it must be clearly against paying taxes which are specially for war; and this principle became incorporated in the discipline of the Society.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting makes record accordingly, at different times , and offenders were considered disownable.
Ohio Yearly Meeting, afterwards established, has similarly recorded its judgment and decision.
This subject of taxes occupied much time in our monthly meetings.
The reasonings and arguments of those who controlled the action of the meeting being so different from those above quoted from the writings of early Friends, who were so careful to advise and encourage a faithful testimony, I now propose to rehearse some of them; and for that purpose I refer to a letter received from my friend Nathan Hall, an elder of much influence: it embraces several subjects which agitated the Society.
I extract the part relating to taxes:
.
Dear Friend, — I have for some time thought of writing to thee.
The tax question being a prominent one, I will first allude to it.
In paying the bounty tax that I did, though it was not known or intended to be as it turned out, I never have stood, and trust never shall stand, in defence of it.
I was very sorry and sorely distressed on account thereof, more so than of any other act of my life, and am willing to condemn it in any way the Truth requires.
If my friends think, as thee and some others do, that nothing short of a course of disciplinary treatment will do, let it be so; however humiliating such a course would be, I hope I may be willing to bear it if it is for the clearing of the Truth.
As for the other or mixed tax, as I conceive it to be, we have viewed it differently and, I believe, honestly.
So while condemnation has been passed upon me for endeavouring to ascertain the true position of the trouble, that I might abandon my former views if I found they were wrong, I have thought that if some others had been willing to have given the subject the investigation its importance demands, they could hardly have failed to discover they were paying the very description of tax they are objecting to, and spared the censure of their friends.
However any may endeavour to quiet their apprehensions or press their views upon others, it cannot change the fact plainly expressed and carried out by the law, — that whether we pay less or more of that tax, a certain proportion of it goes for military or war purposes; and it avails nothing to say: “We did not pay it for that purpose, and if wicked and bad men so apply it, it is their lookout, not ours.”
We can say that of all the tax as well as a part.
If the law had said so many dollars to be raised for war purposes, instead of such a portion of each and every dollar, it would have been plain and not a mixed tax.
Such is not the case; it is all collected together and thrown into one general treasury, where it remains till it is apportioned out for the different purposes designated by the law.
There might be as many different classes of objectors or withholders of tax as there are purposes for which it is appropriated, and the officers of government know nothing of the nature or cause of any of them; they would only know there was a deficiency, and apply that on hand in due proportions for their different purposes, and the deficiency, when collected, in like manner.
To illustrate it more fully I will suppose a case which I believe is strictly parallel, thus: We both have a testimony against the use of ardent spirits, but are, being very thirsty, placed in a situation where we can get no water except some that has a small portion of whiskey in it.
Being under the necessity of taking something, thee may, by inquiry and calculation, find what proportion of the objectionable article is contained in it, and leave just that much in thy bowl; while my understanding will be that in partaking I partake of both good and bad, and in refusing refuse both.
So that with me the question is and has been, not what portion I should pay so much as whether any at all.
I know thy argument is that it is a direct war tax, for it plainly says so much is to be applied for that purpose: so it is with the liquor; we know it is there, but can we separate either of them?
If we can I would be willing to do it.
I have not yet felt at liberty to withhold the just dues of government on account of a portion being woven in with it that I do not approve of; nor can I call in question the decision of different high authorities where I believe they were similarly tried.
Though I have thus expressed myself, it is by no means intended to apply to or influence those holding different views; I would encourage every one to attend strictly to his or her feelings in the case, — ”To him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean;” nor, as before expressed, do I want to foreclose labour one with another; if it is done under a right feeling or authority, it will have a tendency to bring us nearer together in the right thing.
In thus labouring we will have to extend charity one toward another, — more than is sometimes done, — and in our zeal for the testimony examine well its different bearings.
In so doing suffer me to call attention to one part that some are tried with that may have escaped thy notice, or, having noticed, been passed over.
Thee is very positive that thee is right in thy view of the subject, while there are others as much so that thee is pursuing a course more objectionable than the one complained of.
They say thee pays a tax as exclusively to carry on war as any other, — for liberty to sell goods; and thee pays another in the purchase of those goods, and then charges sufficient in the sale of them to amply cover the two former; that thee is not only paying such a tax, but employed in collecting it off of others; and for what?
— for the love of gain, as a competency has already been obtained.
There is another feature that has not passed unnoticed: that thy suffering for the testimony is very different from what it would be with many others; the cash sale of a few goods at auction, probably for their full value, bears no comparison to selling a farm at perhaps less than one-five-hundredth part of its value where there is no possible means of ever having any redress or restitution.
This is not an imaginary event that may never happen, but something that doubtless often happens.
There are persons — and, it may be, many — who own real estate in other counties than the one in which they live, with no personal property on them, when the land would have to be sold.
No collector, under any circumstances, can go out of his own county to collect.
I don’t advance this as an argument to evade suffering: if it is right, we should passively bear it, be the sacrifice what it may; but I do think it should be a caution how we press matters of doubtful expediency.
Thy friend, Nathan Hall.
The positions taken in this letter and its arguments, with other similar ones, were set forth and pressed upon Friends who were not easy to pay the war tax; and Nathan Hall rehearsed them quite fully in our monthly meeting, endeavouring to show by the same reasoning as to the position and action of the officers of the law that it would be in vain to undertake to maintain a clear testimony.
Other Friends turned their influence in the same direction in the meeting, with various modes of reasoning.
Louis Tabor said “we ought to withstand the tax as long as we could, and testify against it before we paid it.”
Ann Branson was at our meeting at one time when this matter was under discussion, and, the shutters being opened at her request, she directed her communication very much towards it.
She compared those who were paying and encouraging others to pay the war money to the man with an unclean spirit, “who came out of the tombs;” and said it was a “swinish spirit” that promoted this evil work, declaring that the covering would be stripped off them; and, suiting the action to the word, she stripped her shawl from her shoulders.
I am not able to distinguish, as Nathan Hall has, between the war tax and the bounty tax, both being for the same purpose, and both being publicly set forth, in print, in their several amounts, clear and distinct from that required for civil purposes, a certain percentage being indicated as for each, — war, bounty, and other war purposes.
The distinction appears to me to have no real difference, in fact, to sustain it, and both continued to be paid by those who used the arguments referred to.
Those who so far abandoned our vital testimonies and led others in the same path took their own course and made their own record; and while sad and troubled in view of these things and the failing of those who should have been “standard-bearers” amongst us, I made my record also; and though I did not hide my views and feelings as to what was taking place, I endeavoured to keep clear of censuring or condemning others.
The arguments used in reference to what disposition the officers of the law might make of the money collected appeared to me to be valueless.
What has any one to do with this kind of reasoning who is concerned to bear a testimony against war?
Besides, I am not accountable for the acts of other men: if I owe a just debt, I must pay it; if the person receiving the money uses it for a bad purpose, the accountability is with him; but if he demand money of me avowedly to be used in any way to the plundering of my neighbour, destroying his property, or taking his life, then if I furnish money thus demanded I become an accomplice in the evil work and accountable for the sin.
I consider our civil taxes a just debt that should be promptly paid, but I am satisfied that no human authority has either a moral or a religious right to demand of me money or means of any kind to aid in destroying the lives and property of my fellow-men.
The teachings of the Saviour of mankind forbid me to comply with such demands if made, and His precepts also require me to submit peacefully to the powers that be, in whatever course they may take in regard to my person or property on such account.
The words of Christ, “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” have often been brought forward as evidence that He approved of paying all taxes; it being said, in connection, that Cæsar was then engaged in war.
The distinction, however, is sufficiently clear: the things that were Cæsar’s were, doubtless, those which appertain to the civil government; the things which belong to God are, surely, a clear and full obedience to His commands and to His laws.
We know that all the precepts and commands of Christ which can be applied in reference to this subject are of one tendency, enjoining “peace on earth and good-will to men.”
We do not know, after all, however, what was the exact nature and use of the tribute collected in those days, nor what were the situation and circumstances in which Christians or others were then placed in regard to such things.
The Judge of the whole earth has declared by the mouth of His prophet: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
This assuredly applies to the Christian dispensation, — a law of Divine authority which Christians were to be governed in accordance with; and so the early Christians understood it.
As history informs us, for the first two centuries of the Christian era the followers of Jesus Christ maintained a faithful testimony against war, and when commanded to enter the army, the answer was such as these: “I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight;” “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”
For their unyielding integrity and faithfulness many were put to death.
They rendered unto God the things that were God’s, but what ground is there for supposing or asserting that they rendered unto Cæsar pecuniary means, in the form of tribute, to carry on war, when it is certain that they yielded their lives rather than do an act to promote it?
May we not reasonably conclude that in their understanding the command to render unto Cæsar included nothing more than that which appertained to civil government?
Jonathan Dymond, in his essay on war, says, on recounting some of the expressions of Christians when commanded to take part in war,
These were not the sentiments and this was not the conduct of insulated individuals who might be actuated by individual opinion or by the private interpretations of the duties of Christianity: their principles were the principles of the Body; they were recognized and defended by the Christian writers, their cotemporaries.
The same writer says:
Let it always be borne in mind by those who are advocating war [and, I may add, how can it be more effectually advocated than by furnishing the means by paying taxes to carry it on?] that they are contending for a corruption which their forefathers abhorred, and they are making Jesus Christ the sanctioner of crimes which His purest followers offered up their lives because they would not commit.
The paying of a license is one of the things named as being more objectionable than paying a war tax.
I paid license for my business, having no knowledge or intimation that it was for any other use than the general purposes of civil government.
Nothing appears in our books of discipline in relation to this subject, though I have no reason to doubt Friends and others have paid business licenses for many years.
I apprehend that it was a measure of that light — ”that true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” — which manifested to my mind the sinfulness of paying money for war, and the need there was for me to refrain from doing it; and had I been sensible of any restraint in regard to the license, I believe I would have declined paying that also.
The argument adduced by Nathan Hall and others, in the framing whereof it is asserted that I am employed in collecting war tax of others, is grounded also on my paying customs and duties on the goods I sell.
My business is almost exclusively in goods manufactured and produced in this country, though I have sold imported goods on which, no doubt, duty had been paid before they reached me.
But in the discipline of Friends there is no adverse mention made of customs and duties; the Society evidently had not seen in the common payment of them any violation of the testimonies of Truth.
But members are warned against dealing “in public certificates issued as compensation for expenses accrued or services performed in war.”
These certificates were used in the purchase of land, similarly to “land warrants,” and Friends who bought land with them were amenable to the discipline.
While there is nothing in the discipline or in the writings of Friends, that I have met with, disapproving of paying customs and duties, simply as such, I will now bring forward a powerful testimony of a faithful Friend that they ought to be paid.
William Edmundson, soon after , was engaged in selling goods in Ireland, which he bought in England, and he writes:
Whilst I was at sea, self reasoned strongly to save the duty on my goods, for I had an opportunity to do it, the troop my brother belonged to quartering at Carrickfergus and Belfast, who would have helped me, night or day.
But I durst not do it, my conscience being awakened to plead for truth, justice, and equity; yet there was a great contest between conscience and self, and in this conflict many Scriptures were opened in my understanding that duties and customs ought to be paid; and, though self struggled hard for mastery, yet at last was overthrown, and the judgment of Truth prevailed.
William Edmundson was a bright example of steadfastness and unyielding integrity to the Gospel principles of life and salvation.
He was an eminent minister, greatly esteemed and beloved; one that suffered exceedingly, both in person and in property, for his testimony.
He knew what the Truth cost him, and that it was of inestimable value through life as well as in the hour of death, saying in the time of his last sickness: “I am now clear of the world and the things of it.
Heaven and earth, sea and dry land, and all things, shall be shaken: nothing must stand but what is according to the will of God: so look to it, Friends.
I do not see anything left undone which the Lord required of me when I had strength and ability, or that the Lord chargeth me with any neglect or transgression.”
His friends could say of him: “Having run the race with patience and kept the faith, he departed this life in sweet peace with the Lord, in unity with his brethren and good-will to all men.”
Another assertion made in reference to our position was to the effect that the use of the national currency involved a paying of money for the support of war, — a position to which I did not feel to assent.
The money coined by the government has always been used, without scruple as to propriety, by Friends and others, and I am not aware of any sound reason why paper-money issued by the government should not be used also.
I am satisfied that if I do not myself apply any of either in paying taxes for or otherwise supporting or promoting war, I shall be clear of accountability, whatever amount may be applied by the government to war purposes of either specie or paper-money.
The bonds used by the government I had no doubt were issued for war purposes; and it appeared to me that buying them was, in effect, loaning, and, so far, voluntarily furnishing means for carrying on the war; and entirely a different thing from using the public money in ordinary business.
I never had anything to do with the government bonds.
I have felt a propriety in compiling the foregoing statement of the means used to influence Friends to forsake an essential testimony, and the views and testimonies of accepted teachers of the Truth as regards this and kindred subjects, adding concurrent evidence presented to my own mind.
It will have been seen how that many honest-hearted Friends became bewildered, whose judgment at the first was clear that this tax could not be paid without violating a Christian principle, that which was once clear being confounded by the influence of the leaders and their many arguments and sophistries (not advanced for the defining of a reliable position or the uplifting of a standard abandoned by themselves, but, mainly, to stumble, to weaken, and destroy), and, further, by the arraying of matters and questions beyond the mental powers of some, and which the true witness in the heart had not called up or the disciplinary records mentioned.
In the resulting confusion “self” no doubt grew strong, and, as said by William Edmundson, strove in the mind to avoid pecuniary loss and suffering.
Many were turned and swept by the current, some of them, as afterwards confessed, sadly to their own hurt.
I’ll continue with some more excerpts from Joshua Maule’s Transactions and Changes in the Society of Friends, and Incidents in the Life and Experience of Joshua Maule .
Thomas Story, an English Quaker convert who lived in America , left an account of Quaker conscientious objection to conscription and military fines in America at that time:
This being , the governor of New England was preparing to invade Canada, a French colony on the same continent; and there being many Friends at that time within that government, who could not bear arms on any account, as being contrary to our conscience, and sentiments of the end and nature of the Christian religion, which teacheth not to destroy but to love our enemies; and the people of New England, willing to take advantage of the occasion to oppress us, made a law to this effect: “That such of the inhabitants of that government, as being qualified or able to bear arms, and being regularly summoned, should refuse, should be fined; and refusing to pay the fine, should be imprisoned, and sold or bound to some of the queen’s subjects within that colony, for so long a time as by their work they might pay their fines and charges.”
On we went to an appointed meeting at Bristol on the Main, where two of our young men, viz. John Smith and Thomas Macamore [another version says “Macomber”] were prisoners; being impressed by virtue of this law, to fight against the French and Indians, under the government of Boston.
The meeting was in the prison, and several of the people came in, and some were tender: after the meeting, having exhorted the young men to faithfulness, we went in the evening back into Rhode Island, and next day to Newport, to their week day meeting; where I was much comforted in the Divine Truth in my own mind, but had no public exercise.
After I was at meetings at Portsmouth and Newport, also at Bristol, where the two young men were prisoners; being in the prison with them, and many other Friends present, we were favoured with a good time in the presence and love of God together; and the same evening had a meeting at the house of one Job Howlands.
The prisoners not being called before the court that day, Thomas Cornwell and I went to Colonel Byfield’s, about a mile from the town, next morning.
When we went in he was very boisterous, reproaching Friends in general as a sort of people not worthy to live on the earth; particularly those of Rhode Island and New England, who would not go out nor pay their money to others, to fight against a common enemy so barbarous as are the Indians; wishing us all in the front of the battle until we had learned better; charging us with many errors and heresies in religion by the lump; instancing only our refusing to fight, and believing a sinless perfection in this life.
When he had a little vented his fury, I, being over him in the Truth, returned upon him and said: “I was sorry we should find him in that temper, and that too in his own house, especially on such an occasion, when we, being strangers, were come only to request a reasonable favor of him, he being judge of the court; and that was to desire him to consider the case of our Friends as a matter of conscience towards God, and not of cowardice, nor of obstinacy against rulers or their laws.”
[H]is anger being much over, he became more calm and friendly, and told us what he intended to do with the young men, our Friends; and that was, to send them to the governor at Boston, that seeing they would not fight nor pay their fine, they might work at the fort till they had paid it by their labor.
We said: “That was hard, it being only a case of conscience with us, in which we ought to obey God and not man, whatever may be the consequence of it.”
Thus conversing together we walked into the town; and notwithstanding his former passion, being now much altered, he took us kindly by the hands in the street, before many people, when we parted.
After this we went to the prison to see the young men, and acquainted them, that we could find little ground to expect any favour; at which they seemed altogether unconcerned, being much resigned to the will of God at that time; and we stayed with them in prison most of that day, they not being called into the court till the next afternoon.
The prisoners being brought into court, Thomas Cornwell and I, and many other Friends went in with them; and though we had our hats on, the judge was so far indulgent as to order us seats, but that our hats should be taken off in a civil manner by an officer.
I said: “We did not keep them on with any disrespect to him or the court, neither did any of us at any time; but our hats being part of our clothing, we know not any harm nor intended any affront to the court by keeping them on: and though religion be not in the hat, yet where it is fully in the heart, the honour of the hat is not demanded, nor willingly given or received by the true disciples of Him who said: ‘I receive not honour from men; but I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
How can ye believe, who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?’ ”
The prisoners being at the bar, the judge asked them the reason of their obstinacy, as he called it.
The young men modestly replied, it was not obstinacy but duty to God, according to their consciences and religious persuasions, which prevailed with them to refuse to bear arms or learn war.
But the judge would not, by any means, seem to admit there was any conscience in it, but ignorance and a perverse nature; accounting it very irreligious in any who were personally able and legally required, to refuse their help now in time of war, against enemies so potent and barbarous as the French and Indians; with repeated false charges against us as a people; saying: “Since we could pay to public taxes, which we knew were to be applied to the uses of war, why could we not pay those which were by law required of us, instead of our personal service and to excuse us?”
Then I stood up and desired leave of the court to speak, which was granted; and said: “If the judge please to keep the present business of the court, concerning the prisoners, I would, with leave, speak to the point of law, in the case; but if he thought fit to make it his business to continue to charge us as a people with errors in matters of religion, I should think it mine to answer him in the face of the court; public, and undue charges, laying a necessity for, and excusing as public answers; adding, that I could give the court a distinction and reason, why we could pay the one tax, and yet not the other. not the other.
Most present being desirous to hear these reasons, 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 on to show a 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, and affects not the person.
For though we readily pay such taxes; 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.
The judge perceiving how inconsistent this would prove to their present purpose, interrupted me; but several of the justices wished to hear me further on the subject.
There are multiple versions of Story’s journals out there, and they differ.
Another version of the Life has a very different version of this short paragraph, which reads: “The judge interrupted me, saying, I would preach them a sermon two hours long, if they had time to hear me.”
Then Thomas Cornwell, a Friend of good repute and interest in Rhode Island, desired them to be careful what precedent they made upon this law; since neither he nor any of us knew what might be the effect of it, or how soon it might be any of our cases; and that it would be very hard upon us to be sold for servants.
He then demanded a precedent, where, at any time, in any other of the queen’s dominions, any of her subjects ever sold others of them, for the payment of taxes laid by their fellow-subjects, on any pretense whatsoever, where conscience and duty towards God, and Christ the Lord, was the only cause of refusal: adding, that he could never pay any of those taxes, though he should be sold for payment of them.
Truth came gradually over them, and things grew very heavy upon them, though they still persisted in their own way;…
Another version of the Life adds at this point: “and John Smith, one of the prisoners, said to judge Byfield, that he also must come one day to judgment, before a greater judicature, and therefore desired him to be careful what he did.”
…at last the court adjourned till towards the evening, and then ordered the young men to be returned to prison, there to remain till some person or persons appear to pay the sums demanded, or shall tender to take them into service, for such time as the justice and sheriff shall think reasonable; or until the governor, by warrant, shall remove them to the castle near Boston, where they are to work as prisoners for such time as their services will pay the sums now due, with other charges that may become due, and then to be released.
This comes from The Life of Thomas Story, Abridged by John Kendall, Revised and Considerably Enlarged from the Folio Edition Written by Himself by William Alexander Vol. Ⅰ.
(), pages 267–78.
I finally tracked down a copy of a rare tract published around
with the typically-loquacious
title of
TRIBUTE TO CÆSAR,
How paid by the Beſt Chriſtians, And to what Purpoſe. WITH
Some Remarks on the late vigorous Expedition againſt CANADA.
Of Civil Government, How Inconſiſtent it is with the Government of Chriſt in his Church.
Compared with the Ancient Juſt and Righteous Principles of the Quakers, and their Modern Practice and Doctrine.
With ſome Notes upon the Diſcipline of their Church in this Province, eſpecially at Philadelphia.
The given author is a pseudonymous “Philalethes,” a pseudonym used by Thomas
Maule (though I’m not entirely certain this particular tract was written by
Maule). (The author was probably William Rakestraw.)
It’s all kinds of delightful — a bit like an internet flame war hundreds of
years ahead of its time. In sharp contrast with most of the records of Quaker
debates about tax resistance, which tend to be civil, sober, and respectful — this one sneers and pulls no punches.
His argument goes beyond the question of war taxes to address the thorny
issue of whether Quakers, now that they found themselves able to wield
political power in some of the American colonies, could with integrity serve
both the church and the state, or whether this inevitably meant trying and
failing to serve two masters — God and Mammon.
I’ll reproduce some excerpts from the tract here today, with some editing:
I’ve updated the 18th centuryiſms — strange
spellings, obsolete pronoun forms, the amuſing
long “s”, arbitrary
capitalization of nouns, and other such.
I’ve made some changes to punctuation for clarity and to conform to modern
use.
I’ve omitted a long section in which the author complains about the
injustice of internal Quaker meeting disciplinary proceedings (of which
clearly he had been on the losing side one too many times). I’ve also left
out a postscript, which I’ll probably post another day, that has to do
with specific cases of Quaker war tax resistance and what happened to the
resisters.
I’ve tried to interpret as best I could the publisher’s odd and
inconsistent use of italics, small-caps, quotation marks, parentheses, and
such.
Every once in a while I had to guess at a word that was unclear in the
copy of the tract I had to work with.
I’ve expanded some abbreviations when I knew what they stood for.
And I’ll interpolate some comments when I think it will be helpful.
Dæmona non Armis, sed Morte subegit Jesus.
He that never said nor acted any Evil,
Jesus, by Death, not Arms, Conquer’d the Devil.
Preface to the ensuing Discourse
If private conferences, remonstrances, or capitulations, for almost four
years past, would have prevailed with the gravest heads we have, to have
debated the point in controversy betwixt me and the church, I had not
exposed in print these few sheets, so very much against the mind of some to
near related to the charge. Most concerned have or might have seen it,
before I sent it to the press, but it returned only with these notes: some
said, “it was sharp,” another very ingenious person, of great
sense, advises, not to publish it, for no other reason but my own
ease; but I am more easy to print than to forbear. But what is meant by
sharp I know not, unless too too true, and if so where’s the damage? I
have fetched no blood; if I have, like a file, rubbed off the rust, it is
but to show the pure clean mettle.
“Rebuke them sharp,” says Paul.
And why? because the corruption will
imposthumate and turn to
gangrene. The reformation was never effected by encomiums, nor polite
meanage. “He’s too polemic” or “satyric” said
another. No! I am neither lewd nor malicious; then satyr is proper. But who
is so sharp as our own folk, whose language would not become me now. But
were it no more for the sake of innocent truth, then the damage I have
sustained, and the unjust wounding of my reputation, this had never peeped
into the world in so mean clothing. But truth had none at her first entrance
till she was dressed up by the learned, and then they made her look more
like a whore than a chaste virgin. But I a plain rustic and hope to be
plainly understood, without Thomas Story’s key to open the nice point,
as he called it, for such was his sermon up and down the country, so nice,
so new and strange, never heard of in our pulpits before, as by and by will
appear; wherefore his advice was, to come to him to open the
mystery.
Know Reader, this discourse is intended for none but such whose known
principles from the beginning have been against coercive power and force,
professing regular conformity to the laws of our blessed lord and master
Christ Jesus, both in doctrine, practice, and discipline; but if any have
missed it in either, I find it my duty to let them know where and
how, and clear the truth from error and innovation; and if I have
wronged any person or cause, let me know it, and I’ll repent and recant.
But it would look very strange if after four years pause on my papers and
searching, for all I had sent to our elders, and carrying them to our yearly
meeting at Burlington (for what, judge Reader) and to this day, no man ever
told me of one error in all my scribbles. I say, now to charge would look
very oddly; however I am not too old to learn yet; but if what I have
written be unanswerable according to our own axioms, then, I hope,
somebody will thank me for taking so much pains to wash the spots out of
mother’s coat, not with gall but with clean water of the word of truth. No! I
am neither prejudiced nor biased; but if all my labor be lost (which I hope
will not) I must leave the issue to the Great Baptizer, that can wash and
must wash us if ever we are clean. “Why do I differ with Friends” (say some)
to which I answer that I don’t see where I differ in the least point, if by
“Friends” is meant such as were called “Quakers”
. But woe is me! my
mother, that hath born me a man of strife and contention. I do not affect
quarrels; but for strife or lawful striving, and contending heartily for the
principles of our primitive, most holy profession, it falls to my lot; and
woe is me if I do not do it. Is there not a cause when I see errors creeping
in so fast? What! though the church have a plenipotentiary power let her not
exceed her commission, nor bind that which her head, Christ, has freed,
etc. He never
allowed her a juridictive power. The highest degree of her authority is but
a censure. If that will not do the civil magistrate must. But if the members
of the true church will be civil magistrates, they must divest themselves of
the canonic gown; lay by their spiritual sword and put on their wardrobes
and take up the carnal weapon. This is and has been the trade of our
spiritual shepherds this thirty years, to my knowledge; and when this piece
of carnal drudgery is over, it is but putting on their
pontificalibus,
and then go to church and sing divine service and be as spiritual as ever,
till next court,
etc.
Tribute to Cæsar
That which induced me to write the following periods was the one half of a
sermon preached by Thomas Story beginning with this
text: “Except a man be born again, he cannot enter or see the kingdom of
God.” Had he kept here and so ended, we had been edified to the furthering
our progress thither.
You may remember Thomas Story from a
Picket Line entry , in which he gives his opinion of the proper
Christian position on war taxes. The tract continues:
But all the other half of his doctrine was to lead us to Canada; such a
digression, I believe, was never known in our pulpit before, nor in any
other. The text was forgot by hearers and preacher too (for ought I to know)
for he never came to it again
, and so left a great army of
us (near two thousand souls) either to follow the camp, or pay others in our
stead (which is all one) for so doing. Tribute to Cæsar was the
whole burden of the story. No High-Church-Man in England, no,
not Sacheverill himself could have managed the subject better.…
That’d be the Reverend Henry Sacheverill, who was railing against dissenters
from the Anglican Church back in England at the time. His inflammatory
rhetoric was famously parodied by
Daniel Defoe in his
tract “The Shortest Way with The
Dissenters” — a sort of precursor to the more well-known satirical style
of Swift’s “Modest
Proposal” that urged England to launch a campaign of bloody extermination
against dissenting sects. Sacheverill didn’t realize he was being parodied and
enthusiastically praised this satirical pamphlet.
Where were we?
…I confess it amazed me as much as if (at unawares) I had been in the midst
of the camp between New York and the lake. “Strange doctrine” (says one) “I
never heard the like,” says another. What! was this the Quakers’ doctrine
formerly? “I know it was not,” says another.
But from John 3:3 we skip to
Romans 13:1–7.
“Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,”
etc. If by the
“higher powers” is meant here kings and rulers, let
George Fox
answer for me, as on the same occasion elsewhere, to persuade us to pay our
taxes (of which more anon) see his book, entitled
Several Papers Given Forth,
, page 8. “Friends, to you all that desire
an earthly king,
etc. are not you
worse than they in the days of Moses, and as blind as the Jews?
etc. Did the
Christians in the days of Christ and his apostles cry up any king but
Christ? or to have any other ruler over them? Is he not the head of the
church? Has he not all power in heaven and earth given to him? Must not
all bow to and be subject to him, and all things to be done in his name? You
say Peter said, honor the king and love the brotherhood, and honor all men.
This doesn’t hold forth that Peter bid them set up an earthly king
over them, neither do you read, though there were so many thousands
convinced among them, that there was an earthly king among them; neither do
you read that there were any kings since the days of the apostles, but
amongst the apostate Christians, and false church, the mother of harlots.”
But to the powers that are ordained of God, if all the powers that are, are
ordained of God, then God ordains powers to plague and vex his own royal
seed, which is absurd to affirm. Besides,
when the devil
took Christ into the mountain, and showed him all the world,
“these,” said he, “are mine, and” (Christ did not
gainsay it) “I give them to whom I please;” I, the prince of
this world; can any suppose this power was ordained of God? permitted it
might be, as he permits wicked princes, and popes too, that tyrannize over
their subjects. Are these the powers the apostle means? “Yes,”
says Thomas Story, “Cæsar must be obeyed, though a Tyrant.”
But I can prove all the ancient and modern reformers (Robert Barclay not
excepted) oppose him. The whole world wandered after the beast; the dragon
gave his power to the beast, see
Revelation 12, 13, 17,
prove sufficiently what powers were of God and what not. And pray, who
ordained our powers here? Why,
William Penn. And
who ordained him supreme ruler and governor?
Charles the
second. And who ordained him, the whole course of his life and actions
speak louder than words. But by George Fox’s rule, we as well as other
earthly powers are apostates, false church and mother of harlots.
Thus by our own rules I have answered what rulers ordained are, that rule
for Cæsar and themselves more than for God. I charge nobody.
The next verse, Romans 13:2:
“He that resists the powers receives damnation.” I have received
no damnation for resisting the ordinance; no, though I am a Low Church-man, I am for passive
obedience; and where for conscience I cannot assist, I’ll not resist
but suffer my pewter dishes to be taken from me, and not so much as murmur
at it, as I did.
Thirdly,
rulers are not a terror to good, but evil works; he that resists such rulers
deserves to be whipped; and this answers and agrees with George Fox’s
printed sheet sent up and down the country here to make us pay our taxes; for
Cæsar’s weapons are for punishment of evil doers,
etc. for which
he is to have his tribute,
etc. I wonder
how this made for the cause in hand, to pay tribute for a vigorous war
against Canada.
But hear Samuell Claridge in the same paper: “We don’t think it concerns us
to inquire what the Queen does with the taxes we pay her.”
All this is granted. But take a parallel case,
1 Corinthians 10:27–28:
“If any, etc. bid
you to a feast, and you are disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you,
eat, ask no question for conscience sake; but if any say, this is offered in
sacrifice to idols, eat not,”
1 Corinthians 8:7:
“Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge, for some with
conscience of the idol to this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol;
and their conscience being weak is defiled.” Hence I observe we ought
not to ask Cæsar what he does with his dues or tribute, but pay it
freely. But if he tells me it is for no other use but war and destruction,
I’ll beg his pardon and say “my Master forbids it.” But
some have now, as then, who with conscience defiled eat it as a thing
offered to idols. Thomas Story for one, before five or six, said, “If
the officer demand a tax of me, and tell me it is to maintain war,
I’ll pay it.” And another preacher,
C.B., “If a ship of war comes
here for supplies to fight, I’ll assist to my power.” All which
exceeds the text and every article of our fundamental doctrine and practice,
and which is so obvious that everybody knows it. Nay, to corroborate the
case, at a meeting at Byberry he the said Thomas Story thus: “Friends
in England pay their taxes to kill Friends in Holland, and
they in Holland to kill Friends in England.” At
another meeting he said, “Friends paid their taxes, and tyrants must
be obeyed, but not in their tyranny.” But these dilemmas are plain
deliriums, cant, and jargon, and the whole a lump of sophistry;
Romans 13:4:
“For he’s the minister of God to you for good.” But if I do no evil, I need
not be afraid.
Romans 13:5:
“You must needs be subject not only for wrath, but for conscience
sake.” How for conscience? not against conscience, as being implicitly
enthralled to Cæsar instead of God. By all which it plainly appears,
all the noise, we have made for Tribute to Cæsar is only to his civil
capacity, in the apostle’s sense, and the sense of the old Quakers too.
“Render therefore to all their dues.”
This literally understood would make sad work; for had the apostle Paul
obeyed all his commands, he had saved his head. It was an objection wisely
answered by John
Milton, viz.
“religion to God and loyalty to Cæsar cannot be parted,” for it is Contrary
to the plain teaching of Christ; no man can serve two
masters. Our Penn as wisely says, “Our civil obedience is only due to
Cæsar, not to confound the things of God with Cæsar’s; for
no man can be true to him, that’s 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 to pay it.”
This is a fantastic quote from William Penn, but it’s proven difficult to
track down (I’m not the first to try). It may be that Philalethes is quoting
from memory, or from oral tradition, or from a written source that has since
been lost. The surviving writings of Penn do not, as far as I know, contain
anything like this direct and unambiguous endorsement of war tax resistance.
But before I go further, let me tell the Reader the cause of this great
dispute about Tribute to Cæsar: thus our powers here ordained an order
without any ordination but their own (for the Queen never thought on it or
expected it from Quakers) for two thousand pounds for military uses (though
it is denied) but if I prove it not to all but bigots, I lose the cause, but
if I do (I have heard many say) they are great hypocrites.
Just upon news of the expedition to Canada our powers convened, the governor
was ordered to send two hundred men (not a word of money) for this
expedition. Our powers to show their loyalty to Cæsar, very frankly
orders two thousand pounds to be levied in form, and the severest that ever
was known here or elsewhere (it is said). And when the army was on their
way, Samuel Hariot told me his sloop had been pressed, and another master
sent with her if he had not gone himself, with bread and flour, freighted by
the treasurer Samuel Carpenter
and ordered by our governor to go first to the governor of New York, and
thence to the governor of New England at Boston, to whom this cargo was
delivered. How or to what uses this cargo was employed is not my business,
but some that knew the thing, and can tell, and would if it did not
interfere with the honor of our religion; however, it is said the army was
little the better for it.
The meaning of this politic fetch (you must know) was kept under the thumb
in the House, but a member, a man in boots, told them they had better be
plain and above board with the country.
“Politic fetch” was a term coined by Milton for one of his rants
against corrupt clergy who “countenance with their prostituted gravities every
politic fetch that was then on foot, as oft as the potent statists pleased to
employ them.”
But why so private, when the Jersians at the same time (a Friend the
Speaker) raised a larger fund, directly and in express words for the
expedition against Canada; and all the country (some few excepted) paid it,
and nobody to call them to account for such unaccustomed practice among the
Quakers; and yet, at the same time, the same people, to a nicety, scruple
and will not pay Cæsar’s militia nor the poor parson, a civil minister, that
has had acts of parliament for five hundred years to pay him tithe; “This we
can’t do for conscience,” though the powers ordained do order it. How do we
obey the power then, though defensive, as this was an offensive war.
But secondly, to prove this two thousand pounds was for war only
too, though affirmed to the contrary, it was to the Queen and to her
disposing only; if so, was it not presumption to rob her of her prerogative
and give her money, ten pounds per month, to all the runaway servants that
went to serve the Queen in this war? Was not this paying to maintain war? I
need say no more, all the country believe it, and Thomas Story, the oracle
to the powers, advised to it, with, G.O.
and I.L.…
“G.O.” is probably Griffith Owen.
“I.L.” might be James Logan?
…Who need then be ashamed to own it? But this was nuts for prelate
and presbyter. “Now,” says one, “the Quakers can pray, and pay, and
fight, and obey,” who before
railed at them for doing neither. The other to me said, “Now you are
gone, Thomas Story and G.O. have given
up the cause.” By all which, I observe (as well as all thinking men)
that the pulpit has always been the magazine of firebrands that used to set
the world in flames, and so it does still (with grief and shame it’s
spoken) in our communion, as well as in others; and all this happens because
the pulpit sets up too near the chair of state.
That’s a fine quote, and a good summary of his argument, so I’ll pause to
repeat it: “The pulpit has always been the magazine of firebrands that used to
set the world in flames… and all this happens because the pulpit sets up too
near the chair of state.”
We must have ministers of the gospel to be the powers, governors, judges,
justices, statesmen, and every thing that belongs to the powers,
viz. the civil,
military, classic, and provincial, (George Fox notwithstanding to the
contrary).
It’s no improper question, if again I ask: Who ordained these powers?
for
they were never heard of. If they had properly belonged to Christ’s kingdom,
we should have had order upon order, and a continued succession (no doubt) of
the same form of government; but alas! it’s absurd, ay, and preposterous too,
to plead for such a government where Christ’s kingdom is not nor never was
nor will be,
viz., in the
state’s polities. Another question follows: What do we there then?
We, we, I mean, that above all people pretend to be most Christ-like (chew
upon this a while, and try how it will digest in your stomach). I have told
you often, and now again, that Christ’s kingdom is his church only;
and if it be true, (and I know of none that dares to deny it) how comes it
to pass that you weave the church and the state into one garment or piece?
Though they were one corporation under the law, Christ made them two
distinct functions, unless you’ll have gospel to be law and law
gospel. I have often told our church doctors they have no more to do in
Cæsar’s court than in his camp; the last they decline in
conceit. But doesn’t the court maintain the camp? Doesn’t the
camp defend the court? Then where’s the difference? We deny the camp
in words, but in works we do maintain it, witness the bread and flour we
sent them by Samuell Harriot at the very juncture, when they were going to
Canada. Tush! it is mere cant to deny it. But from whence do all these
blunders proceed, but from ambition, ignorance, carelessness, and a
superstitious veneration to the clergy. But more of this by and by.
I hope I have sufficiently proved the above fund and tax was raised and
levied on the country for no other end but to maintain an offensive war.
The next point is to prove how inconsistent it is with our own fundamental
principles, as well as the doctrine of Christ and all the primitive
Christians.
Again we have suffered much in our country because we neither could
ourselves bear arms, nor send others in our place, nor give our money for
the buying of drums, standards, or other military attire,
etc. Let it be
remembered that when the emperor would have employed the Christian soldiers
to fight against their brethren, they refused (see Sleiden, page 487), lest
we destroy by our works what we establish in words.…
I haven’t tracked down this “[Johann] Sleiden, page 487” reference
yet… any leads?
…I need say no more; all the world that know us, know that this is our very
professed principle; and the whole doctrine of Christ is love,
faith and good works. Upon what topic Thomas Story builds
his anti-Christian as well as
anti-Quaker sophisms, I know not. If his doctrine be orthodox, this
must needs be heterodox; and if so, I am gone and have lost the prize. But I
fear him not, let him defend in print what he has said in the pulpit, if he
can or dare. But that this is an anti-Christian principle, either to indulge
fraudulent stratagems of war, as Robert Barclay says Christians dare not do,
which is a deceitful insinuation to make people believe we don’t pay to
maintain war, nor make laws for that purpose, when at bottom it is so and the
consequence proves it. A sharp reprimand for which I’ll give you from the poor
Indians of Nantucket in New England, Thomas Pots, one of our preachers being
on the spot, and the same juncture of that expedition, was told by Friends
there that the inhabitants of that island, the English,
etc. ordered
these Indians to appear in council, to give their result what they intended to
do in this affair; (take their answer and record it with our ancient brethren
that first learned us to depend wholly on God). These Indians met, told the
council as follows, “If Canada Indians and French are permitted to come down
upon us, we will go out and meet them, and
capitulate with them, and see if we can persuade them not to hurt us, for, and
because, we are an innocent people, and never intended to hurt them
etc. But whether
they will hear or forbear, we know not, but will trust in our God; for he is
able to deliver us.” (Observe, these Indians are Christian proselytes.)
Another Indian in Long Island told the people there their God was angry with
them, because of a great dearth that their cattle died so fast that a cow was
offered for six shillings; and the reason of this, said he, is because you are
continuing to kill an innocent people that never did you any hurt. I wonder
who hurt us? unless God almighty, who at the same time killed seven or eight
in one day, when we were continuing this underhand mischief against a people
who never did, nor never (I believe) could or would hurt us, had we kept our
hands clear of their blood. But, — God make us to see this weak side and
repent.
Now I’ll compare Thomas Story with Robert Barclay, an old soldier of divine
mettle, whom none dare deny for a true Quaker and Christian, whose memory
lives, and will forever. If inconsistency in fundamental truths makes false
doctrine, as two contradictions can’t be either true or false, I’ll leave it
to the verdict of the learned which of these is the best champion, or the
greatest man for truth.
Robert Barclay: “If a magistrate be a true Christian, or desires to be, he
ought in the first place, to obey his lord and master, King Jesus; but if not,
we ought not to obey him, but our lord,
etc.” But
Thomas Story says, “Cæsar must be obeyed, though a tyrant.”
Reader, judge of this harmony betwixt Robert Barclay and Thomas Story. A
tyrant obeyed, says
Luther,
Calvin,
Bucer,
Peter Martyr,
Zwinglius,
etc. No, spit on
their heads, etc.
Nay, says my author, it can be proved that fifty kings and emperors have been
deposed for their evil government. Then not obeyed.
Ezekiel 45:9:
“Thus said the Lord, let it suffice you princes of Israel, remove violence and
spoil, and execute judgment and justice; take away your exactions from my
people, says the Lord.” Robert Barclay: “We neither can ourselves bear arms,
nor may others.”
Thomas Story: “We ought to pay our tribute to Cæsar, though he demand it for
the bearing of arms, and killing our Friends, and we know it.” Christ and
Robert Barclay: “Do violence to none, love enemies, clothe and feed them.”
Thomas Story bids to pay, do violence, send bread and flour to feed such that
are going on purpose to kill (our Friends too for aught we know).
Pray untie this Gordian knot, this riddle and paradox. If war, or the
favorites of it, be altogether contrary to the law and spirit of Christ, the
maintaining of war by paying to it is altogether contrary to the law and
spirit of Christ; and if we, contrary to his law, do these things, then we
break his commands; and if breaking his commands, or exhorting so to do be
false doctrine; (for this Thomas Story did) ergo for the
whole. And if this be not sound argument, I’ll lay down the cudgels.
These truths I have been preaching (if writing be preaching, as I think it is)
this three years to our elders within doors; and for my love and good will
they have turned me out, and for no other cause, let them prove it if they
can. And seeing I have had so ill treatment, and a deaf ear to all the
epistles and remonstrances I have given them, I now appeal to all sober
Christians without doors whether I have deserved to be abused as you’ll see by
and by.
I’ll spare you most of this “by and by” which comes in a later section.
According to the apostle’s rule, and the Quakers too,
1 Corinthians 14,
let two or three speak and the rest judge. But for this presumption of
mine, of judging, am I called in question, and judged, in a more arbitrary
manner than ever I heard of any malefactor, either in church or state. What!
judge my testimony, arraign my doctrine, put me to prove what I have
preached! “Insolent fellow! I am not bound to answer you! What come
you here for with your rattles?” Here’s the foundation of this
dispute, occasioned by Thomas Story, and his language to me, who is so
conceited of his doctrinal notions, and so dogmatical that we ought to
believe it if it comes from his mouth; and such is the superstitious
veneration to this poor man, that rather than call him, or suffer him to be
called, to account for his doctrine, patiently take (like asses) all
that’s laid on their backs.
But William Penn against the clergy (not our clergy) says, “The
consequence of not doing it, has been the introduction of much false
doctrine, superstition and formality, which gives just occasion for
schism.” We blame other professions for their too much reliance on
their teachers and church ordinances, discipline (church discipline).
“Yes,” said Thomas Story, “the church is the ground and
pillar of truth;” so says papist and prelate too; so
say Thomas Story, ay! and so say I. But I ask Thomas Story too, what church
this was? Whether militant or triumphant? but no answer to this, only
“If the church believe his doctrine, I had no business to call him in
question.” No, yes but I will and do call him, and church too, to
answer for this anti-church doctrine; and if they defend either one or the
other, I’ll oppose (to my power) both. But it is too clear, ignorance
and carelessness is the very cause of implicit faith and blind
obedience. And thus when it comes to pass that after a people have had
a good degree of knowledge of divine truths, yet it may and often does
vanish away either through idleness and carelessness, attended with
formality and superstitious ceremony. What a natural propensity people have
to change! though truth cannot change. This saying we all have at our
fingers’ ends. Nevertheless, when the preachers change in their
doctrine, we ought not to persuade ourselves that we are incapable of
judging in matters of religion. No! we ought to be scrutinous, and cannot
sufficiently overhaul whatever we hear preached. But read William
Penn’s Address to Protestants,
it will sufficiently excuse me for examining Thomas Story with his false
notions. But false or true, here’s the misery, no such thing in our
church as debating any point of doctrine, in a monthly or weekly meeting,
though preached in the greatest general meeting of all America. Nay, so far
from debating that he is counted rude and absurd that dares contradict the
Doctor; No! have a care, if he does, by our new rule of discipline,
we’ll turn him out. But more of this anon.
…or not.
Now something by itself of Civil Government
I have observed before that civil government belongs not properly to the
church of Christ, nor was it ever introduced here
, that fast friend to
Pontifex Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum…
That is, “supreme pontiff, bishop of bishops,” a sarcastically pompous title
for a high church mucky-muck.
…viz. the
pope and the prelate, where the effect has lodged ever
since, not to the honor of Christ, nor his spouse, the bride, the
lamb’s wife. The woeful consequence of this hodge-podge mess of
medley and jumbling of church and state together again, that had been
so long parted by Christ himself, brought more trouble into the church and
was more occasion of the suffering of the church than all the sufferings she
ever met with before, as any one a little acquainted with reading may and
will easily understand. But to us that have been as great sufferers under
this civil ecclesiastical power as any in this last age (burning excepted),
for us, I say, in this province, to assume to ourselves the state politic
power, is the point I mean to debate with our church members in public,
after many years private conference with them and their weak opposition
dropped with these words, or the same in effect: “We wish it were come
to that, as there was no need of us in the state,
etc.” But
I’ll go on, and show what harmony there is betwixt church and state.
If we do but take our measures by the holy scripture of the New Testament,
and not fly to apostolical example, we shall resolve the case at once. In
the beginning, when men grew numerous they
contracted
themselves into societies for preservation of concord and good
discipline and began to think on foundations to set their structure upon,
and found by experience that no natural or artificial building, nor civil
nor ecclesiastic society of men, could be upheld without a bottom on which
they were first founded; first, the civil society united, that they
might live safely, and enjoy their liberties without opposition, and they
united into churches to live religiously according to Christ’s
doctrine and the example of the apostles. Now civil societies have their
laws proper and peculiar to themselves, and the churches have their rules of
discipline peculiar to themselves, and far different from each other. But
the cause of so many wars in Christendom, has been because the
civil magistrate and the church confound their jurisdictions under the law.
These societies were (as it were) one corporation, individual; for the
priests and
Levites had
their ministerial office in civil causes; but Christ has made them now two
distinct provinces. I would fain know how we come to unite them together
again? Or what rule or foundation our gospel ministers have to build a house
on such a bottom that has neither Christ nor his apostles for example? Then
if neither precept nor precedent be from, of, or by them, certainly it must
be against them; and if against them it must needs be anti-Christian and
anti-apostolical. That Christ never abetted such a discipline to his
disciples is plain from his doctrine to them of lording over one another. We
want him here to check our lords and masters that lord it over their
brethren with the utmost severity and without compassion make him pay, or
take from him more than the utmost penny, which too is not really due by
gospel right; ay! and delivered over to councils to be scourged,
etc.
viz. fined and
imprisoned, his goods violently taken from him, who for conscience sake dare
not obey these lords, which are our brethren in the church, and good friends
there, but out of the church, tyrants. How should it be otherwise — the state cannot be upheld without force and violence; but how this becomes
the spirit and life of our peaceable savior may soon be answered. If he had
been minded to uphold his kingdom by this rule, we now take, Cæsar nor
Pilate could never have stood before him. But it is as clear as the sun,
neither he nor any that belonged to him had any business in the state, nor
none of the primitive Christians, , who brought into the church more poisonous doctrine than
ever will be purged out until the general reformation and the restitution of
Christ’s kingdom. Hence it appears (as himself said)
“My kingdom is not of this world.”
I believe all this will be readily granted by our wise men, who will perhaps
tell me I may spare my labor
etc. Granted, I
answer: if he that knew not his Master’s mind was beat, what must be
done to them that knew it and did it not?
That this was our faith , I
remember, ay, and believe, had been our practice now at this time, had not a
long-headed state’s politician decoyed into the foil, as
ducks are. But is it not a pity that we that began in the spirit should end
thus in the flesh! But what business a gospel minister has out of the church
I would fain know. “Look to yourself, and the flock over which the holy ghost
has made you overseer: Have you anything to do with them that are without”
viz. out of the
church. Is this not apostolic doctrine? And I believe he’d find
business enough there too, if he’d mind it. Come I’d have us
take one pattern from Rome for once, and try the experiment:
The Roman censor, though a civil function, had no jurisdiction, nor courts
of plea, or indictment, nor any punitive force annexed. It stood more with
the majesty of that office, to have no other constable, sergeants or boms
about them, than that of terror and shame.
“Boms”? Whatever. I don’t know what source he’s quoting from here, though he
says later it’s Milton. (Turns out he’s loosely quoting The Reason of Church-Government Urged Against Prelaty) In
case you’re losing the plot at this point, “Philalethes” isn’t
suggesting that we need to bring back the
Roman
censor. He’s saying that the Church should exercise its moral authority in
a way that is compatible with the nonviolent, noncoercive strictures of
Christ, rather than trying to bend the violent, coercive apparatus of the
state to serve Christian ends. He’s using the Roman censor as an example of an
authority operating successfully without being backed up by violence and
coercion.
Then (pray observe) if the courts of judicature, to a politic censorship,
seem too contentious, much more may it to the discipline of the church, and
her members, to be quite divested of all jurisdiction whatever? for so much
the less contention, so much more Christian. And could this Roman office of
a censor, without his jurisdicial sword, strike such a terror and awe on
the great spirits of Rome, as with one dash of ignominy to make the guilty
tremble? Much more may the true Christian minister guard himself with more
piercing beams of dread and majesty to conquer the enemies of the true
church, without the keys of state to help; for when the church members,
without carnal weapons (indeed they ought to have none) are able to do so
great a work upon the unforced obedience of men, it argues a divinity about
them, well becoming their holy function.
Thus far Milton.
I wish our divines had this faculty of the Roman censor, there would be no
need of all the constables in the county to guard them with clubs and staves,
to knock down all that do not obey order.
But I guess what answer I shall have here: “Why we observe the same
rule in our church?”
Reply: But this was a civil capacity, nor is the same rule neither observed
in our church, for it has not the same efficacy nor power; for the offender,
without any shame at all, or regret,
etc. stand hold
his old course still (under the rose) and no show of reformation.
But to politics again, this has been objected: “The burden of
the state has providentially fallen on our shoulders in this uncultivated
land, where rules of discipline have been wanting; and why may we not assist
in the civil power? Seeing good men are fittest for government? and the act
seems to become them too very well; they encourage virtue, and punish
vice.” Well! of a civil plea, this is the best that can be offered.
Again: “The saints shall judge the earth.” Good still;
“besides, here’s acts of justice, mercy and…”
This paragraph actually just ends with the “and” — no ellipsis, no end-quote.
It’s at the end of the page, and the next page starts fresh with a new
paragraph, so something may have been left out at this point.
To all which I answer, if saints be judges, they must use none but saints’
weapons;
“The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, etc.” says Paul.
But then I query, are none good or fit to rule but such of our communion?
Yes! but though such; this interferes not with the discipline of the true
church; if the duty or office can be performed by love, persuasion,
argument, or by the authority of that power Christ gives his church, and
that is no jurisdictive power, I’m sure; as appears by the power he
used himself, to any of his churches (though some take more, as I’ll
prove before I have done). When the two brothers quarreled about their
estate and applied to him,
“who made me a judge or a divider,”
(said he). Again, the woman taken in the act of adultery,
“Go away, do so no more.”
I could paraphrase on these two examples, but wise men know the meaning
without it, and it plainly appears he used no coercion or punitive force;
and he forbade it to all his followers. Judge then! can you serve two
masters? In short, the government of Christ is economical in his church
only, and is altogether love and peace, and has no business with
any of the affairs of state any further than to admonish to justice,
etc. But is it
not strange to see a state’s minister, a justice of peace,
and a gospel minister in one skin; indeed he may have two cloaks,
his divinity cloak and his humanity cloak, but then he must lay by one when
he wears the other. It’s not common to wear two great cloaks at once; but to
be very exact, he should have three at least, one for the pulpit,
the other for the upper house, and the third for the honorable
bench; and this cloak too must be lined with stuff called patience, to
bear with all the billingsgate rhetoric, with the
brawls and hocus-pocus fatigues of the noisy bar; and what a fine show the
pulpit divine makes amidst the throng of K—s and F—s, judge ye.
Any guesses as to what “K—s and F—s” were?
I look upon this piece of politics in our church (I meddle with no other) to
be an innovation, and as great an abuse to our profession as any that ever
yet was introduced into the church, from the apostles to Constantine’s time.
And then the woeful presage was threatened from heaven: “This day is poison
entered the church;” I fear our church, too, is poisoned by the pill. Why
not? the quality is the same, it must needs then be so, for it is compounded
of the same drugs, which makes me, in consideration of our primitive
innocency, with wonder as well as grief, sing,
Great God! are these the Fruits of our Profession,
of which so long times we’ve been only Talking!
How comes it thus to pass we loose Possession
just by a Counter walking?
It had been better we had ne’er been born,
Then Truth, through us, should e’er be made a scorn.
What! must our Sixty Years long Travail all be lost,
Because of some mens Murmurs,
Be made of none Effect, and left at last,
On this side Jordan, for Moabs Tribe to scorn us!
’Twere better far in Thraledome we’d expired,
Then loose that Land by us so long desired.
At another time thinking of the fears and defeats of war, my muse jingled
thus,
But what a Noble Plot is Crost,
And what a great design is lost?
What Time is spent and Money Wasted,
And this great Enterprize is Blasted;
And that which Aggravates the Cause,
There’s some dare not obey their Laws,
And this begets more Civil Wars,
And Mixes with the Churches Jars,
That used to be no Carnal Power;
But if this hold, ’twill all Devour.
Some folk don’t love music, therefore I’ll make an end and call another
cause.
Advertisement
Suppose the government alter, and we are put upon to raise two thousand
pounds more in direct terms for defraying military expenses only, must we
deny or comply? Here will be the trial of our skill. If we refuse, the plea
is good against us; if we comply, we are gone then, sure enough, and nobody
will strive to help us.
It is an action never to be forgot, how our sapientipotent Thomas Story
busied himself in flaming zeal to Cæsar, when he rode post with his packet of
printed papers borrowed from George Fox and
S.C. (which papers was but a man of
straw neither) persuading us to pay our taxes to Cæsar, as a civil minister,
to punish evil and favor good, all which we knew to be our duty before he was
born. But he inverted the term, from civil to military, and
by his sophistic turns and false logic (for he has a special faculty in
tropes and figures,
viz. in
elench and dilemmas, that is) to make his story and arguments to
hold both ways; and such persons as were utterly averse to pay for war uses,
he had such power that he overawed their consciences, and instead of a
gospel minister of peace and salvation, he’s now a son of Mars
and minister of state; and by his military lecture preaches little but war
and destruction. Oh! how unlike this is to our primitive heroes that left
their swords in the field to make shares and coulters of them. But, behold!
this mysterious juggle and cheat! after he had with his charms amused the
poor people, he told them it was a nice point; but if they would come to
him, he would unriddle the mystery; but though I addressed myself to
him, in a humble manner, to know this “nice point,” as he called it, he asked
me what I came to him for with my rattles? Very unbecoming (I
thought) of one that should give an account with meekness and fear of his
faith. But instead of this account, I met with then, and since, before five
or six of our eldest members, nothing but insolent taunt, imperious, proud,
disdainful language and behavior, yet the church winks at it; and instead of
reproving him and satisfying my tender scruples, in behalf of one hundred
more, I am brought to the bar, to the
bilboes, and arraigned for an offender, and denied, for no other cause (that I know
or ever heard of) but for opposing Thomas Story with his high church
doctrine. It is pretended, indeed, I did not give him gospel order; but this
is not true neither. But what gospel order is there for a public heterodox
doctrine, preached before thousands of persons? It was no personal damage or
trespass, for which that order was intended, as appears by the text, and
William Penn upon the famous Address to
Protestants. But to wipe off all scruples, and to show how partial,
or rather maliciously, I was dealt with, I did first go privately to him,
and secondly, by order of the meeting with five or six, as above, yet from a
propensed and designed pique, or in plain true terms, malice
propensed (for I can prove I was judged six months before I appeared at
the bar) thinking if I were denied, nobody would regard what I had to say in
my own defence. Here’s discipline by a scheme! Nova
stilo.
That’s where the best of the argument ends. From here, it goes on into a long
address about how his Meeting fails to follow any reasonable protocol for
resolving disputes like this one. After that comes a postscript that’s worth
adding here, but I’ll do it some other day.
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.
Quaker war tax resistance took some time to evolve out of Quaker pacifism.
Here’s an anecdote about Thomas Story dating from around :
“Well,” said [The earl of Carlisle to Thomas Story], “you don’t like our ministers; but after all, I think you want but one thing to make you a very complete people; that is, to bear arms. Pray what would have become of this whole nation t’other day when the Spaniards were coming to invade us, if we had all, or the greatest part, been of your religion?
No doubt we should all have been destroyed or enslaved.”
To this I answered, it was upon this very political consideration that the Jews crucified Christ; for as he had raised Lazarus from the dead, it greatly awakened the people concerning him, and many believed in him; insomuch that the rulers began to fear, that if he continued to preach his doctrines among the people, and work miracles, the body of the people would follow him: and the consequence of that would be, the state would not have soldiers or people enough to defend them against their enemies: For as it was prophesied that, under the new covenant, “they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; and that nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more:” So Christ being the Mediator of that covenant, preached doctrines conducing to that end: “Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you; pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.”
And, to take away all suspicion of any disloyalty to Cæsar, or danger of the state from his kingdom (which was their pretense against him), he said to Pontius Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world: for if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight…” … Now, Christ laying the foundation of such a kingdom, which is not of the world, though in the world, and declaring his subjects will not fight, it is in this kingdom, which is a kingdom of righteous, truth, and peace, in which the prophecy before mentioned is begun to be fulfilled; and of this kingdom Christ himself, the Prince of righteousness and peace, is only King, Ruler, and Lawgiver; and which no way interferes with the kingdoms of this world: For as Christ himself, being born a Jew, and they, at that time, subject, in some sort, to the Romans, paid tribute to Cæsar, and thereby giving an example to all his disciples, in all countries and states, and in all future ages, as well as that time: so the disciples of Christ, though they may not fight, they pay taxes and tribute to civil states…
…[T]he earl… heard me with great patience and candor, and then replied, “Tis true,” said he, “so long as you behave peaceably, are loyal to the government, and pay your taxes, as you do, I think, when all’s done, there is not an absolute necessity for your personal service in war, since his majesty may always have soldiers enough for money, as he may have occasion.”
True, said I, and there are but few, in comparison of the whole body of the people, that serve personally in war; and without all doubt, volunteers, of all others, are fittest for that service; where no man jeopards his life but by his own consent, choice, and inclination, and has no man to blame but himself in the consequences of it, with respect either to body or soul, since both may be in hazard, as men may be stated in such undertakings.
This is from Nathaniel Richardson’s Conversations, Discussions, and Anecdotes of Thomas Story (), pages 314–18.
My weird obsession with the early years of Quaker war tax resistance brings me into contact with some of their other eccentricities.
For instance, they used the archaic English second-person familiar pronouns (thee, thou, thy, thine) long after they’d gone out of fashion because there had been a practice of using the now-ubiquitous second-person plural pronouns as a sign of respect — you’d address a shopkeeper as “thee” but a magistrate as “you” — and the Quakers would have nothing of such distinctions.
They also, for similar reasons, refused to doff their hats to people or in offices of the high-and-mighty.
For example, in , when Thomas Story went to court to help a couple of conscientious objectors, he wrote:
The prisoners being brought into court, Thomas Cornwell and I, and many other Friends, went in with them, and though we had our hats on, the judge was so far indulgent as to order us seats, but that our hats should be taken off in a civil way by an officer.
I replied we did not do that with any disrespect to him or the court, but our hats being part of our clothing we knew not any harm nor intended any affront to the court by keeping them on.
And though religion be not in the hat, yet where it is fully in the heart the honour of the hat will not be demanded, or willingly given or received by the true disciples of Him who said: “I receive not honour from men.
But I know you that ye have not the love of God in you.
How can ye believe which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
I bring this up because Pete Eyre, an anarchist activist from Keene, New Hampshire, was recently arrested for refusing to take off his hat in court.
It’s remarkable to me how many of the trappings of aristocratic presumption remain, mostly unchallenged, in the courts: The robes, the elevated bench, referring to the judge only indirectly through “your Honor” (like “your Majesty” or “your Highness”), having to stand and take off your hat when the judge comes into the room, and so forth.
It ought to embarrass us.
Imagine if the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve made a show of reading chicken entrails each time they released a statement.
American Quakers of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries were often
so confident in their war tax resistance that they assumed (and sometimes
said) that it had been a part of Quaker practice since the beginning of the
sect. But some of the earliest Quakers, on the contrary, seemed eager to
demonstrate their willingness to pay all taxes as a way of ingratiating
themselves with the governments they lived under while under pressure from
hostile establishment churches.
The payment of taxes to the civil authority was explicitly covered by
Christ’s words. [George] Fox, during the Commonwealth period, had advised
payment, and wrote as follows about one of the Poll Acts of Charles
Ⅱ.:
To the earthly we give the earthly: that is, to Caesar we give unto him his
things, and to God we give unto Him His things. And so in the other Power’s
days we did not forget on our parts, though they did fail on their’s…
Which, if Friends should not do and had not done — give Caesar his due, and
custom and tribute to them that look for it, which are for the punishment of
evil-doers — then might they say and plead against us; How can we defend you
against foreign enemies and protect everyone in their estates and keep down
thieves and murderers?
In , in conversation with Peter the Great,
Thomas Story said:
Though we are prohibited arms and fighting in person, as inconsistent we
think with the rules of the gospel of Christ, yet we can and do by His
example readily and cheerfully pay unto every Government, 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. … We, by so great an
example, do freely pay our taxes to Caesar, who of right hath the direction
and application of them, to the various ends of government, to peace or to
war, as it pleaseth him or as need may be, according to the constitution or
laws of his kingdom, and in which we as subjects have no direction or share:
for it is Caesar’s part to rule in justice and in truth, but ours to be
subject and mind our own business and not to meddle with his.
Richd Robinson []… was truly
Valiant in bearing his Testimony for ye Truth, both under ye Conventicle Act
& against Tythes & Steeplehouse Assessmts,
&c, and also
for not Paying as sending to ye Malitia, for wch faithfulness upon these
Accounts he suffered Deeply & Chearfully both by Imprisonmt &
Spoiling of Goods for ye Lords sake, who was his Rich rewarder.
He likewise Bare a faithfull Testimony against the paymt of Tythes, and
Bearing or finding a man to the Militia, for he was all along Charged with
finding a man, But allways kept very Clear and never after his convincement
would pay anything directly or Jndirectly, but suffered for the same by
fines & distresses, frequently Jncourraging other friends to stand
faithfull in their Testimony for Truth.
Refusal to pay legally mandatory tithes to the establishment church seemed to
be more common. For example, the same book also mentions the following cases:
a wife of John Watson who also “dyed a prisoner for her Testimoney against Tithes” amongst “Several Sufferings did attend [her companions] for their Testimony Against Tithes, And Several were Cast into Prison for their Testimony against ye Same”
“Robert Atkinson, of Lawerance Holme, [who] was Persecuted for his Consentious Refuseing to pay Tythe malt to George ffletcher, of Hutton, to Sequesteration, & took goods from him to ye value of Sixty pounds and upward, besides 8 or 9 monthes Jmprisonment in Carlisle”
“seurall of the frds of [Kirkbride] Meeting haue been deep Sufferers by Sequesterc̃on and otherwise, for bearing there Christion Testimony agt yt Grevious oppression of Tythe the Nation Groans vnder”
John Richardson, “wth William Bond, Adam Robinson, & Thomas Graham, for refusing to pay tithes were committed to Carlisle prison amongst ye Fellons, into a nasty, stinking place where they were like to be stifled for want of air.… Judgment was given, & goods distrained & sold; great havock was made, but nothing returned, so that their sufferings were heavy, both by rude people and by colour of Law.”
a Quaker convert, “ffrancis Howard, yt had before cast frds into prison for Tythes, and had said yet if he lost all his tythes he would never take yt rigid course to prosecute again”
“Jn , Many ffrds were brought Prisoners to Colchestr Castle for nonpayment of tithes”
Around Colchester, “there was great sufferings Jn ye County upon frds for non paymt of tithes & for speaking Jn Steeplehouses”
A priest got a Chancellors Court warrant against Roger Beck and William Beck “for Tythes, Offerings, or other Ecclesaisticall dues (as they might be called)… to take the sd Roger & William both to Gaol, Butt the same Warrt (partly by the Unwillingness of the Constables to whom the warrt wass directed) was not Executed soe farr as to take Either of them to Gaole” though “Two third part of [Roger’s] Estate were Confiscated, & Ceized for the Use of King Charles the 2d… This Confiscac̃on continued for about ten years, dyring wch tyme the Under-sherriffe (for the tyme being), or his Officers, frequently distreyned, & took away, & kept (or disposed of) a horse, or other Goods from the sd Roger Beck (as ’twas pretended) for the Ualue Confiscated. All wch persecuc̃on & much more, the sd Roger Beck did Undergoe with patience.”
“Richard Addams, of Limington… Layd Down his life in prison for his Testimony against Tythes.”
“Richard Bonwick… was uery often a sufferer in the Case of Tithes… for a little Farme of Ten or twelve pounds a yeare in which he dwelt, and had some times one Cow and some times two att a time taken from him by the priest for Tithes.”
“James Tennant… [was] taken Prisoner for his Testimony against Tythes, fro which he did not decline, but Patiently Endured Close Jmprisonment untill Death.”
“Nichlas Raw stood a faithfull man to ye Truth till his Death, wch was in Prison at Yorke, for his Testimony against yt antichristian Yoke of Tythes.” (a footnote adds a quote from Memory of the Faithful Revived: “Nicholas Raw was committed to prison in the Castle at York, by warrant of two justices, grounded on a Certificate of Contumacy out of the Ecclesiastical Court, in a Cause of Tithes at the Suit of Tobias West, Vicar of Grinton. After above four years and three months close confinement, he died a prisoner in the said Castle, on .”)
a Richard Geldart who “Dyed a Prisoner in Yorke Castle, because for Conscience sake he could not Pay Tythes”
a mention of a bailiff named James Foster who “had taken much goods from friends upon ye Account of Tythes” who died suddenly (under the heading “What Judgements fell vpon persecutors.”)
Rallies outside the courthouse or prison are one way of supporting resisters who are looking at doing time for taking their stand (see The Picket Line for ), and supporting their families while they’re being held captive is another (see The Picket Line for ).
Other ways to show support are to accompany resisters as they go to prison, to visit them or correspond with them while they are inside, and to be there to meet them when they are released.
Today I’ll give some examples of these ways of showing support for imprisoned tax resisters.
Sylvia Hardy
Accompanying resisters to prison
When elderly council tax rebel Sylvia Hardy was threatened with jail in , her supporters organized a convoy of cars to accompany her to the jail as a show of support.
In , Annuity Tax resisters in Edinburgh, Scotland, would go to prison in a parade of protesters.
One description of such a procession read:
[H]e was marched off to the Calton Jail, accompanied by the usual hasty muster of people carrying flags and poles, having placards on which were a variety of devices and inscriptions…
His daughter, a fine young woman, in a fit of heroic indignation which overmastered her grief and the natural timidity of her sex, seized one of the flags, and would have walked before her father to prison with the crowd, but was prevented by him and the interference of the humane bystanders.
When Kate Harvey went to prison for her resistance as part of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, fellow-resisters Charlotte Despard and Mary Anderson accompanied her to the prison gates.
When Elizabeth Knight was imprisoned on similar charges, she was accompanied to Holloway by resisters Florence Underwood and Isabel Tippett.
Visiting resisters in prison
Thomas Story, an English Quaker who was visiting the American colonies, was able to help two Quakers from Rhode Island who were in prison for not paying a militia exemption tax after having been drafted and refusing to fight.
Story helped them hold a Quaker meeting in the prison itself, and also (having some legal experience) tried to assist them in court.
When Zerah Colburn Whipple was imprisoned for failing to pay a war tax in , it was a comfort to him to have friends on the outside trying to get in.
He wrote: “Our friend John J. Copp, proved himself a true friend indeed.
Knowing that I would be lonely in the jail, he visited me every day after he learned that I was there, and when the keeper refused him admission, he demanded it as his right to visit his client, and claimed the right to see me alone too, which was granted.”
The Trafalgar Square Defendants’ Campaign helped to organize prison visits to people who had been imprisoned in the Poll Tax rebellion.
Corresponding with imprisoned resisters
I’ve done a lot of volunteer work with the Prison Literature Project in Berkeley, California.
Most of the letters we get are from prisoners requesting books — which makes sense, because that’s the sort of letter we explicitly ask for.
But a pretty hefty percentage of the letters we get are just expressing gratitude for the books and letters we previously sent — heartfelt, often heartbreaking gratitude, especially since many of the prisoners are of limited means and can barely afford to put a stamp on a letter.
This impresses on me how meaningful it is for people behind bars to get letters from friends outside.
The Anarchist Black Cross of New York City held a letter-writing evening for imprisoned war tax resister Carlos Steward in .
Brian Wright was the first person thrown in prison for Poll Tax resistance, during the rebellion in the United Kingdom, in .
While there he received over 800 cards and letters from supporters.
The Trafalgar Square Defendants’ Campaign made it a policy to ensure that at least one personal letter per prisoner per week came from someone in the campaign.
When Kate Harvey had barricaded herself in her own home to try to defeat government attempts to seize her property for taxes, a supporter sent her a poem to keep her mood up:
Good luck, my friend, I wish to thee,
In thy brave fight ’gainst tyranny.
Bracken Hill Siege will bring good cheer
To those who hold our Freedom dear,
And fight the good fight far and near.
And when oppression is out-done,
And Liberty, at last, is won,
When women civic rights possess,
They’ll think, I hope, with thankfulness,
Of those who bore the battle’s stress.
When a Colorado doctor was jailed for refusing to pay federal income taxes that fund weapons of mass destruction, it was reported that “[l]etters of approval have been pouring in to Dr. Evans, and since he is only allowed to write very few, his mother in Philadelphia has taken up the task of acknowledging them, sending at the same time a typewritten sheet explaining the affair in detail.”
Welcoming resisters back from prison
The campaign to resist Thatcher’s Poll Tax organized a march to Brixton Prison, which held most of the resisters then in custody.
Police attacked the march and arrested 135 people.
“That evening,” says campaign volunteer Danny Burns, “volunteers were sent to every police station to welcome those who were released on bail.”
This served not only to show solidarity, but also to make the arrested people aware of the legal support available to them and to encourage them to cooperate in their defense.
When Constance Andrews of the Women’s Tax Resistance League was released after having been jailed for a week for failure to pay a dog license tax, “a very large crowd — described in the local press as ‘an immense gathering’ — collected outside the prison to cheer Miss Andrews on her release.”
A procession with suffrage banners walked along with Andrews as she walked from the prison to a reception held in her honor.
When Mark Wilks was released from prison for failure to pay his wife’s income tax in , the Women’s Tax Resistance League held a reception for the Wilkses, saying that “not only do they wish to do honour to those who have made such a brave stand for tax resistance, but to use the occasion, as one of many others, to keep before the public mind the necessity for the alteration of the laws.”
Katsuki James Otsuka served a 120-day sentence for refusing to pay war taxes to the U.S. government (and then refusing to pay the fine he was given for his initial refusal) in .
A group of supporters demonstrated outside the prison at the time of his anticipated release, though “four carloads of state police” broke up the demonstration at one point, smashing a picket sign that read “You did right in refusing to pay taxes for A-bombs.”
During the white supremacist rebellion against the Reconstruction state government in Louisiana a man named Edward Booth was imprisoned for 24 hours for refusing to pay a license tax.
[I]t was agreed among his immediate personal friends, the members of the tax resisting association and their sympathizers, to make a grand demonstration, at the hour of his release, and escort him to his place of business, to show their sympathies, and in what approbation he was held for having become the object of an oppression, in the defence of his personal rights.
Before the hour of his release, a large concourse of people assembled before the doors of the prison, to hail the deliverance of the prisoner, and the anteroom was thronged with friends anxious to proffer the hand of sympathy and condolence. …
Mr. Booth filed out of the room and stepped into a carriage in waiting, amid rousing cheers and a stirring air from the band.
The carriage led off, followed by the band and the large concourse of people, who gradually fell into an orderly line of twos, to the number of about 400.
The marchers hung an effigy of the Reconstruction governor from a lamp post while loudly cheering.
When the procession reached Booth’s place of business, he gave a speech thanking the crowd for their support and urging them to renew their resistance.
William Tait, editor of Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, was imprisoned for refusing to pay the Annuity Tax in that city, which went to support the official church, of which Tait was not a member.
After four days, he was released.
The Scotsman covered the story:
[Tait] stepped into the open carriage, drawn by four horses, which stood on the street…
At this moment, one of the gentlemen in the carriage, waving his hat, proposed three cheers for the King, and three cheers for Mr. Tait, — both of which propositions were most enthusiastically carried into effect.
The procession was then about to move off, when, much against the will of Mr. Tait and the Committee, the crowd took the horses from the carriage, and with ropes drew it along the route of procession…
As the procession marched along, it was joined by several other trades, who had been late in getting ready; and seldom have we seen such a dense mass of individuals as Prince’s Street presented on this occasion.
In the procession alone, there were not fewer than 8,000 individuals; and we are sure that the spectators were more than thrice as numerous.
Mr. Tait was frequently cheered as he passed along, — and never, but on the occasion of the Reform Bill, was a more unanimous feeling witnessed than on that which brought the people together yesterday afternoon.
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 the second, and possibly most important, period of Quaker war tax resistance — between the establishment of the Quaker colony in Pennsylvania and the relinquishment of political control there by Quakers during the French and Indian War.
The Pennsylvania experiment ()
The advance of war tax resistance among English Quakers had ground to a halt.
Quakers in England still would not pay certain explicit war taxes like “trophy money,” nor pay for substitutes to serve in their places in the military, nor buy goods stolen at sea from enemy nations by government-sanctioned pirates, but attempts failed to extend this testimony to other taxes that were clearly designed to pay for war.
For example, Elizabeth Redford tried to convince Quakers to refuse a new tax in on the grounds that it was obviously meant to fund the Seven Years War (the act that enacted the tax was entitled “For granting to his majesty certain rates and duties upon marriages, births, and burials, and upon bachelors and widowers, for the term of five years, for carrying on the war against France with vigour”).
Her meeting brought her up on charges of violating the discipline and declared that whatever the purpose of the tax, it was being raised by the crown for expenses of its choosing and Quakers should not inquire further into what those expenses were but should pay the tax without question.
Several years later, during the War of the Spanish Succession, this got thrown back in Quaker faces.
William Ray, in a letter to Quaker Samuel Bownas, argued that Quakers should stop resisting tithes because they had stopped resisting war taxes: “though the title of the act of parliament did plainly show that the tax was for carrying on a war against France with vigour” he wrote, “since the war against France began your Friends have given the same active obedience to the laws for payment of taxes as their fellow subjects have done.”
Bownas did not deny this, but instead he tried to argue that tithes were different.
Meanwhile, Quaker William Penn was granted a royal charter for a large North American colony, to which many Quakers emigrated and established a colonial government that would be run, to some extent, on Quaker pacifist principles.
I say “to some extent” because it was still a royal colony, under the military protection of the crown, and with an explicit colonial mandate to engage in military battles against enemies of the home country.
The Quaker Assembly of the colony was also subservient in many ways to the crown-appointed governors and to the British government itself.
Occasionally during wartime, that government would appeal to the Pennsylvania Assembly to raise some funds to help out the war effort — to help defend Pennsylvania against pirates, Frenchmen, hostile Indians, and the like.
The Assembly would sometimes respond to such requests with noble-sounding statements of Quaker principle, like this one by Assembly Speaker David Lloyd in : “the raising money to hire men to fight or kill one another is matter of conscience to us and against our religious principles.”
But most commentators on the period, even those who are sympathetic to the Quaker pacifist position, tend to read these statements cynically.
The Assembly used these requests for money as opportunities to try to wrest more control from the governor and from London.
These statements of conscience seemed often not to be principles so much as gambits in the negotiation process.
The Assembly would usually, in the end, grant the requested money, or some amount anyway, but would thinly veil its nature by eliminating any wording about the money being intended for the military and instead would simply decree that it was intended as a gift to the crown from its grateful subjects, “for the Queen’s [or King’s] use.”
This was such a transparent dodge that it became hard for anyone to take seriously the part of the Quaker peace testimony represented in Lloyd’s quote.
On one occasion, according to colonial legislator Benjamin Franklin, the Assembly refused to vote war money, but instead granted funds “for the purchasing of bread, flour, wheat, or other grain” knowing that the governor would interpret “other grain” to include gunpowder.
The Assembly were able to get away with this, in a colony full of ostensibly conscientious Quakers, because the orthodox point of view about war tax resistance in the Society held that only explicit war taxes were to be resisted, while generic taxes that only happened to be for war were to be paid willingly.
So long as the government kept the name of the tax neutral and didn’t detail how it would be spent, a Quaker could pay it without having to worry about it.
But some Quakers were unable to remain blind to the Assembly’s sleight-of-hand.
In , the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting sent emissaries to some of its rebellious Monthly Meetings who were beginning to refuse to pay state taxes on these grounds.
In , William Rakestraw published a pamphlet in which he agreed that “we ought not to ask Cæsar what he does with his dues or tribute, but pay it freely,” but added: “if he tells me it is for no other use but war and destruction, I’ll beg his pardon and say ‘my Master forbids it.’ ” He argued that the latest “for the Queen’s use” grant, in spite of its generic name, should fool nobody: it was meant to fund war, and no Quaker should pay a tax for it.
Thomas Story, who visited the colony from England, defended the orthodox position, and had traveled Pennsylvania encouraging Quakers to pay their war taxes.
During the French & Indian War, Pennsylvania was invaded from the west.
The westernmost European settlers in Pennsylvania were largely non-Quaker, and were impatient for a military defense — they felt that the Quaker pacifists in Philadelphia were using them as a shield.
The Pennsylvania Assembly eventually gave in to their demands.
It organized a volunteer militia and appropriated money for fortifications.
This time it did not use the “for the King’s use” dodge by giving the money to the crown and letting it allocate the funds to war expenses, but instead the Assembly appointed its own commissioners to spend the money, and so became responsible itself for the war spending.
(The legislation itself still tried to put a happy face on things, saying the grant was “for supplying our friendly Indians, holding of treaties, relieving the distressed settlers who have been driven from their lands, and other purposes for the King’s service,” but it was that last clause — “other purposes” — that hid where most of the spending would actually happen: largely building and supplying military forts.)
This compromise pleased few.
Back in London there were calls to ban Quakers from colonial government entirely for their refusal to support the military defense of the colonies.
London Quakers were urging pacifist Quakers to resign from the Pennsylvania Assembly as a way of forestalling complete disenfranchisement.
At the same time, a set of American Quakers felt that this was the last straw and if Quaker legislators were going to abandon their pacifist principles and enact a war spending bill, it would be up to Quaker taxpayers to refuse and resist.
Several of them, including Anthony Benezet, sent a letter to the Assembly announcing that “as the raising sums of money, and putting them into the hands of committees who may apply them to purposes inconsistent with the peaceable testimony we profess and have borne to the world, appears to us in its consequences to be destructive of our religious liberties; we apprehend many among us will be under the necessity of suffering rather than consenting thereto by the payment of a tax for such purposes.”
That petition was not viewed sympathetically by the Assembly.
They reminded everyone that nobody had had any problem paying those “for the Queen’s use” taxes in the past, and that this new tax was really not very different, even though the fig leaf had been removed.
Meanwhile, the anti-Quakers in London got word of the petition which further inflamed them and gave them ammunition in their fight to get Quakers disenfranchised.
The London Yearly Meeting was furious about the petition and it sent two emissaries to the colonies with orders to “explain and enforce our known principles and practice respecting the payment of taxes for the support of civil government.”
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting held a conference in to try to come up with some guidance for Friends on whether or not to pay the new war taxes.
They were unable to reach consensus.
A group of them, including Benezet & John Woolman, sent a letter to quarterly and monthly meetings that set out the reasons why they were choosing to resist.
The Assembly’s attempt to hide its war tax as a “mixed” tax with beneficial spending in the mix did not impress them.
They wrote:
[T]hough some part of the money to be raised by the said Act is said to be for such benevolent purposes as supporting our friendship with our Indian neighbors and relieving the distresses of our fellow subjects who have suffered in the present calamities, for whom our hearts are deeply pained; and we affectionately and with bowels of tenderness sympathize with them therein; and we could most cheerfully contribute to those purposes if they were not so mixed that we cannot in the manner proposed show our hearty concurrence therewith without at the same time assenting to, or allowing ourselves in, practices which we apprehend contrary to the testimony which the Lord has given us to bear for his name and Truth’s sake.
This is one answer to the dilemma many Quakers find themselves in today.
The U.S. government is in a constant state of war and threatens the whole world with its vast nuclear arsenal and its drone assassins.
But it pays for this out of the same budget and with the same taxes as it pays for everything else it buys — including today’s equivalents of “such benevolent purposes as supporting our friendship with our Indian neighbors and relieving the distresses of our fellow subjects who have suffered in the present calamities” — so what is a good Quaker to do?
Benezet, Woolman, and the rest took the position that mixing good spending and bad doesn’t erase the stain from the bad, but stains the good.
The capitulation by the Quakers in the Pennsylvania Assembly was not a compromise that satisfied either the militant Pennsylvanians, the anti-Quaker antagonists in London, or the prominent pacifists in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
In , under pressure from all sides, most Quaker legislators resigned from the Assembly, and the experiment in Quaker government in Pennsylvania came to an end.
Meanwhile, what had become of those London Quaker enforcers who had come across the pond to knock some sense into the war tax resisting faction?
Something unexpected happened: they met with representatives from both the taxpaying and tax-resisting factions, held a two-day meeting on the subject, and ended up agreeing to disagree.
The London representatives, rather than chastizing the resisters, instead recommended that Quakers “endeavor earnestly to have their minds covered with fervent charity towards one another” on the subject without taking a position one way or the other.
That’s not what the London Yearly Meeting had in mind.
But the logic of the war tax resisters’ position, and the sincerity with which they presented it, had an infectious tendency.
Not long after the emissaries returned home, the London Yearly Meeting had been expected to issue a strong condemnation of the resisters who had signed the letter urging Quakers to consider refusing to pay the war tax.
Instead, the topic was dropped from the agenda entirely.
Why?
Because the more Quakers in England heard about the war tax resistance in Pennsylvania, the more sympathetic they became.
The Yearly Meeting authorities decided it was better not to discuss the matter at all rather than risk facing the sort of enthusiasm for war tax resistance that had rocked the Philadelphia meeting.
