Letter to the Quakers

To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing the late piece, entitled “The Ancient Testimony and Principles of the People called Quakers renewed, with Respect to the King and Government, and touching the Commotions now prevailing in these and other parts of America addressed to the People in General.”

To the representatives of the Religious Society of the People called Quakers, or to those among them who helped publish the recent piece titled “The Traditional Testimony and Principles of the People called Quakers Reaffirmed, Concerning the King and Government. On the Unrest Now Spreading in These and Other Parts of America. Addressed to the General Public.”

The Writer of this, is one of those few, who never dishonours religion either by ridiculing, or cavilling at any denomination whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable on the score of religion. Wherefore, this epistle is not so properly addressed to you as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling in matters, which the professed Quietude of your Principles instruct you not to meddle with.

I am one of the few writers who never dishonor religion by mocking or finding fault with any denomination whatsoever. All people answer to God, not to other people, for their religious beliefs. So I address you in this letter not so much as a religious group, but as a political body. You are dabbling in matters your stated principles of peaceful noninvolvement teach you not to meddle in.

As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so, the writer of this, in order to be on an equal rank with yourselves, is under the necessity, of putting himself in the place of all those, who, approve the very writings and principles, against which your testimony is directed: And he hath chosen this singular situation, in order, that you might discover in him that presumption of character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you can have any claim or title to Political Representation.

You have taken it upon yourselves, without proper authority, to speak for all Quakers. So, to stand on equal terms with you, the writer must speak for all who support the writings and principles you condemn. He has chosen this unusual position so you might see in him the arrogance you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he nor you have any right to claim Political Representation.

When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics, (as a religious body of men) is not your proper Walk; for however well adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.

When people stray from the right path, it is no surprise that they stumble and fall. And the way you have presented your testimony clearly shows that politics is not your field as a religious body. However suitable your testimony may have seemed to you, it is still an unwise jumble of good and bad. And the conclusion you draw from that jumble is both unnatural and unjust.

The two first pages, (and the whole doth not make four) we give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you, because the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is the natural, as well the religious wish of all denominations of men. And on this ground, as men labouring to establish an Independant Constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in a final separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of introducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils and burthens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will steadily continue to endeavour, to separate and dissolve a connexion which hath already filled our land with blood; and which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of future mischiefs to both countries.

We give you credit for your first two pages (the whole work is less than four pages long). We expect the same courtesy from you, because love of peace and the desire for peace are not limited to Quakerism. Peace is both a natural and a religious wish shared by people of all denominations. On this basis, we who work to establish an independent constitution of our own surpass all others in our hopes and aims. Our plan is peace forever. We are tired of conflict with Britain and see no real end to that conflict except a final separation. Our actions are consistent, because we bear today's hardships and burdens for the sake of lasting, uninterrupted peace. We are working, and will keep working steadily, to end a connection that has already filled our land with blood. As long as even the name of that connection remains, the connection will cause disastrous harm to both countries.

We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and on our own lands, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies in the character of Highwaymen and Housebreakers, and having no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish them by the military one, and apply the sword, in the very case, where you have before now, applied the halter—Perhaps we feel for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye mistake not the cause and ground of your Testimony. Call not coldness of soul, religion; nor put the Bigot in the place of the Christian.

We fight neither for revenge nor conquest, neither out of pride nor passion. We are not threatening the world with our fleets and armies or ravaging the globe for plunder. We are attacked beneath the shade of our own vines. Violence is committed against us in our own homes and on our own land. We see our enemies as highway robbers and burglars. Since civil law offers us no protection, we must punish them under military law. We must use the sword in the very cases where you have previously used the hangman’s noose. Perhaps we feel compassion for the ruined and abused victims in every part of the continent. Perhaps some of you have yet to feel such tenderness. But be sure you do not mistake the cause and basis of your testimony. Do not call coldness of heart religion, or put the Bigot in the place of the Christian.

O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles. If the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and mean not to make a political hobby-horse of your religion, convince the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies, for they likewise bear arms. Give us proof of your sincerity by publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders in chief at Boston, to the Admirals and Captains who are piratically ravaging our coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting in authority under him whom ye profess to serve. Had ye the honest soul of Barclay¹ ye would preach repentance to your king; Ye would tell the Royal Wretch his sins, and warn him of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives against the injured and the insulted only, but, like faithful ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye are persecuted, neither endeavour to make us the authors of that reproach, which, ye are bringing upon yourselves; for we testify unto all men, that we do not complain against you because ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be and are not Quakers.

You ministers apply your own declared principles unfairly. If carrying arms is sinful, starting a war must be even more sinful. The difference is as great as the difference between deliberate attack and unavoidable defense. So, if you truly preach from conscience, and do not mean to use your religion as a political tool, prove it. Proclaim your doctrine to our enemies, for they too carry arms. Prove your sincerity by publishing your doctrine at St. James’s and sending it to the commanders in chief at Boston. Send it to the Admirals and Captains who are plundering our coasts like pirates. Send it to all the murderous villains exercising authority under the man you claim to serve. If you had the honest spirit of Barclay¹, you would preach repentance to your king. You would tell that Royal Wretch his sins and warn him of eternal ruin. You would not direct your biased attacks only against those who have been injured and insulted. Instead, like faithful ministers, you would cry out and spare no one. Do not say you are persecuted. Do not try to blame us for the disgrace you are bringing upon yourselves. For we declare to everyone that we do not object to you because you are Quakers. We object because you pretend to be Quakers but are not.

Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if, all sin was reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and that by the people only. Ye appear to us, to have mistaken party for conscience; because, the general tenor of your actions wants uniformity: And it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to many of your pretended scruples; because, we see them made by the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming against the mammon of this world, are nevertheless, hunting after it with a step as steady as Time, and an appetite as keen as Death.

Alas! Some of your testimony and conduct make it seem as if all sin consists of the act of bearing arms. And only when the people bear arms. You seem to us to have mistaken party loyalty for conscience, because your actions are generally inconsistent. We find many of your supposed moral objections extremely hard to believe, because we see who raises those objections. The same men who denounce worldly wealth are, at that very moment, pursuing it. They pursue wealth with steps as steady as Time and an appetite as keen as Death.

The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third page of your testimony, that, “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him”; is very unwisely chosen on your part; because, it amounts to a proof, that the king’s ways (whom ye are desirous of supporting) do not please the Lord, otherwise, his reign would be in peace.

On page three of your testimony, you quote Proverbs: “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him”. You chose this quotation very unwisely. For it proves that the king’s ways do not please the Lord, though you want to support him. Otherwise, his reign would be peaceful.

I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that, for which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz.

I now turn to the last part of your testimony. All that came before seems only an introduction to this part, namely:

“It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, manifested in our consciences unto this day, that 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 business to have any hand or contrivance therein; nor to be busy bodies above our station, much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of them, but to pray for the king, and safety of our nation, and good of all men: That we may live a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty; under the government which God is pleased to set over us.”—If these are really your principles why do ye not abide by them? Why do ye not leave that, which ye call God’s Work, to be managed by himself? These very principles instruct you to wait with patience and humility, for the event of all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political testimony if you fully believe what it contains: And the very publishing it proves, that either, ye do not believe what ye profess, or have not virtue enough to practise what ye believe.

“Ever since we were called to profess the light of Christ Jesus, revealed in our consciences, we have held this belief. God alone has the right to establish and remove kings and governments, for reasons best known to himself. We have no business taking part in such changes or planning them. Nor should we meddle in matters beyond our station. Much less should we plot or plan the ruin or overthrow of any king or government. Instead, we should pray for the king, the safety of our nation, and the good of all people. We do so that we may live peaceful, quiet lives, in complete godliness and honesty, under whatever government God chooses to place over us.” If these are really your principles, why do you not follow them? Why do you not leave what you call God’s work for God himself to manage? These very principles teach you to wait patiently and humbly for the outcome of all public measures. They also teach you to accept that outcome as God’s will for you. So, what need is there for your political testimony if you fully believe what your testimony says? Publishing your testimony proves that you either do not believe what you profess or lack the virtue to practice your beliefs.

The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any, and every government which is set over him. And if the setting up and putting down of kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore, the principle itself leads you to approve of every thing, which ever happened, or may happen to kings as being his work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died not by the hands of man; and should the present Proud Imitator of him, come to the same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the Testimony, are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact. Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in governments brought about by any other means than such as are common and human; and such as we are now using. Even the dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Saviour, was effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other; but to wait the issue in silence; and unless ye can produce divine authority, to prove, that the Almighty who hath created and placed this new world, at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of its being independant of the corrupt and abandoned court of Britain, unless I say, ye can shew this, how can ye on the ground of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people “firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings, and measures, as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy connexion we have hitherto enjoyed, with the kingdom of Great-Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him.” What a slap of the face is here! the men, who in the very paragraph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the ordering, altering, and disposal of kings and governments, into the hands of God, are now, recalling their principles, and putting in for a share of the business. Is it possible, that the conclusion, which is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid down? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could only have been made by those, whose understandings were darkened by the narrow and crabby spirit of a despairing political party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of the Quakers but only as a factional and fractional part thereof.

The principles of Quakerism directly encourage a man to become the quiet, harmless subject of any and every government placed over him. And if appointing and removing kings and governments is God’s exclusive right, we certainly will not rob him of it. So your principle leads you to approve of everything that ever happened, or may happen, to kings as God’s work. Oliver Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, did not die at human hands. And suppose his present Proud Imitator should meet the same untimely end. The writers and publishers of the Testimony would be bound by its teaching to applaud that death. Kings are not removed by miracles. Nor do governments change through any means other than ordinary human action, such as we are taking now. Even the scattering of the Jews, though foretold by our Saviour, was carried out by armed force. So, since you refuse to act on one side, you should not interfere on the other. Instead, you should wait silently for the outcome. Unless you can produce divine authority for your position, how can your principles justify your appeal to the people? You must prove that the Almighty disapproves of this new world’s independence from Britain’s corrupt and depraved court. Yet he created and placed this new world as far east and west from every part of the old as possible. Unless you can show divine authority for that disapproval, how can you justify urging the people “to unite firmly in hatred of all such writings and measures that show a desire and plan to break off the happy connection we have enjoyed until now with the kingdom of Great-Britain, and our rightful and necessary subordination to the king and those lawfully placed in authority under him.” What a slap in the face! In the very paragraph before, these men quietly and passively left God to arrange, change, and dispose of kings and governments. Now they take back their principles and demand a share in the business. Can the conclusion quoted here accurately possibly follow from the teaching they laid down? The contradiction is too obvious to miss. The absurdity is too great not to laugh at. Only people whose judgment was clouded by a desperate political party’s narrow, bitter spirit could have produced such an argument. For you must not be regarded as the whole body of the Quakers, but only as one partisan faction within it.

Here ends the examination of your testimony; (which I call upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and judge of fairly;) to which I subjoin the following remark; “That the setting up and putting down of kings,” most certainly mean, the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down, neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with them. Wherefore, your testimony in whatever light it is viewed serves only to dishonor your judgement, and for many other reasons had better have been let alone than published.

Here ends my examination of your testimony. (Unlike you, I ask no one to despise the testimony, but only to read and judge it fairly.) I add the following remark: “Setting up and putting down kings” certainly means making someone king who is not yet king, or removing someone who already is. And what, pray, does any of that have to do with the present case? We intend neither to set up nor to put down kings, neither to make nor to unmake them. We simply want nothing to do with them. So, however your testimony is viewed, it only discredits your judgment. For many other reasons too, your testimony would have been better left unpublished.

First, Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to make it a party in political disputes.

First, because drawing religion into political disputes tends to weaken and discredit all religion. Drawing religion into these disputes also poses an extreme danger to society.

Secondly, Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being concerned therein and approvers thereof.

Secondly, because it portrays a group of men as involved in and approving political statements. Yet a number of those men reject the practice of publishing political statements.

Thirdly, Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental harmony and friendship which yourselves by your late liberal and charitable donations hath lent a hand to establish; and the preservation of which, is of the utmost consequence to us all.

Thirdly, because it tends to undermine harmony and friendship across the continent. You yourselves helped build that harmony and friendship through your recent generous and charitable donations. Preserving that harmony and friendship is extremely important to us all.

And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.

And here, without anger or resentment, I say goodbye. I sincerely hope that, as men and Christians, you may always enjoy every civil and religious right fully and without interruption. I also hope you may, in turn, help secure those rights for others. But you have unwisely set an example by mixing religion with politics. I hope that example may be rejected and condemned by every inhabitant of America.