« PreviousContinue »
brought up to meeting, and the girls to church, or they go to church and meeting alternately. In the latter case, none of the children can have any fixed principles. Nor will they be much better off in the former. There will be frequently an opposition of each other's religious opinions, and a constant hesitation and doubt about the consistency of these. There are many points, which the mother will teach the daughters as right or essential, but which the father will teach the sons as erroneous or unimportant. Thus disputes will be conveyed to the children. In their progress through life other circumstances may arise, which may give birth to feelings of an unpleasant nature. The daughters will be probably instructed in the accomplishments of the world. They will also be introduced to the card-room, and to assemblies, and to the theatre in their turn. The boys will be admitted to neither. The latter will of course feel their pleasures abridged, and consider their case as hard, and their father as morose and cruel. Little jealousies
Little jealousies may arise upon this difference of their treatment, which may be subversive of filial and fra
ternal affection. Nor can religion be called in to correct them; for, while the two opposite examples of father and mother, and of sisters and brothers, are held out to be right, there will be considerable doubts as to what are religious truths.
The Quakers urge again in behalf of their law against mixed marriages, that, if these were not forbidden, it would be impossible to carry on the discipline of the Society. The truth of this may be judged of by the preceding remarks. •For, if the family were divided into two parties, as has been just stated, on account of their religion, it would be but in a kind of mongrel-state. If, for instance, it were thought right that the Quaker part of it should preserve the simplicity of the Quaker-dress, and the plainness of the Quaker-language, how is this to be done, while the other part daily move in the fashions, and are taught, as a righe usage, to persist in the phrases, of the world? If, again, the Quaker part of it are to be kept from the amusements prohibited by the Society, how is this to be effected, while the other part speak of them, from their own experience, with rapture or delight? It
would be impossible therefore, in the opinion of the Quakers, in so mixed a family, to keep up that discipline which they consider as a corner-stone of their constitutional fabric, and which may be said to have been an instrument, in obtaining for them the character of a moral people.
But though persons are thus disowned, they may le
restored to membership-Generally understood, however, that they must previously express their repentance for their marriages--This confession of repentance censured ly the world--but is admissible without the criminality supposed-The word repentance. misunderstood by the world.
But though the Quakers may disown such as marry out of their Society, it does not follow that these may not be reinstated as inembers. If these should conduct themselves, after their disownment, in an orderly manner; and, still retaining their attachment to the Society, should bring up their children in the principles and customs of it;
they they may, if they apply for restoration, obtain it, with all their former privileges and rights.
The children also of such as marry out of the Society, though they are never considered to be members of it, may yet become so in particular cases.
The Society advise that the monthly meetings should extend a tender care towards such children, and that they should be admitted into membership, at the discretion of the said meetings, either in infancy or in maturer age.
But here I must stop to make a few observations on an opinion which prevails on this subject. It is generally understood that the Quakers, in their restoration of disowned persons to membership, require them previously and publicly to acknowledge that they have repented of their marriages. This obligation to make this public confession of repentance, has given to many a handle for heavy charges against them. Indeed, I scarcely know, in any part of the Quakersystem, where people are louder in their censures than upon this point. “ A man, they say, cannot express his penitence for his marriage, without throwing a stigma
upon his wife. To do this is morally wrong, if he has no fault to find with her. To do it, even if she has been in fault, is indeli
And not to do it is to forgo his restoration to membership. This law therefore of the Quakers is considered to be immoral, because it may lead both to hypocrisy and falsehood.” I shall not take up much time in correcting the notions that have gone abroad
this subject. Of those who marry out of the Society, it may be presumed that there are some who were never considered to be sound in the Quaker-principles ; and these are generally they who intermarry with the world. Now those who compose this class generally live after their marriages as happily out of the Society as when they were in it. Of course these do not repent of the change. And if they do not repent, they never sue for restoration to membership. They cannot therefore incur any of the charges in question. Nor can the Society be blamed in this case, who, by never asking them to become members, never entice them to any objectionable repentance. Of those again who marry out of the