a protest "against the traffic in the bodies of men," and against handling "men as cattle." To the monthly meeting this was "so weighty" that it was referred to the quarterly meeting, and further referred to the Yearly Meeting the same year, which records: "A paper was presented by some German Friends concerning the lawfulness and unlawfulness of buying and keeping negroes. It was adjudged not to be proper for this meeting to give a positive judgment in the case, it having so general a relation to many other parts; and therefore at present they forbear it." This document is believed to be the first official protest of any religious body against slavery.1 This action of the sturdy Germans was not without effect, for in 1693 it was advised that no slaves should be bought "except to set free," and in 1696 the Yearly Meeting advised Friends "not to encourage the bringing in of any more negroes," and also that they should be brought to meetings, and in other respects well cared for. After this, at the instance of Penn himself, laws were passed by the Assembly designed to improve their moral condition; and after he had left, laws were enacted to restrict the importation of slaves into the province, and in 1711 their importation was absolutely prohibited. The law was not, however, acceptable to the Council in England, and it was rejected by that body, as was also another law imposing a prohibitive duty of twenty pounds per head on every slave imported. The Pennsylvania Friends continued to agitate the subject among themselves, but though individuals and different monthly meetings felt strongly, the Yearly Meeting would not commit itself to any positive action. Among those who were earnest in the cause were Ralph

"The Friend"

1 Michener, pp. 331 ff.; Bowden, vol. ii., pp. 192 ff. (Philadelphia), vol. xvii., p. 125; Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography," vol. iv., p. 28, where the document is given in full.

EMANCIPATION OF SLAVES.

245

Sandiford, who published a treatise against slavery in 1729, the eccentric Benjamin Lay, and Anthony Benezet, who were untiring in their efforts, by their lives, their mouths, and their pens.

The most noted apostle of freedom to the slave, as well as the most attractive, was John Woolman, whose simple "Journal" has charmed thousands. To his faithful efforts was largely due the action of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting in 1758, which directed a "visitation" of all who held slaves, and decided that all who should "be concerned in importing, selling, or purchasing slaves" should be forbidden to sit in meetings for discipline. It was not, however, until 1776 that slaveholders were to be "disowned" (expelled) if they refused to manumit their slaves. New England Friends in 1758 and 1769 passed strong "minutes" in regard to slavery, and in 1772 Friends were "disowned" for not setting their slaves free; in 1782 no slaves were known to be held by members of that meeting. In New York it was made in 1776 a disciplinary offense to buy, sell, or hold slaves. In Virginia the steps taken were somewhat similar to those in Pennsylvania, but in 1784 meetings were directed to disown those who refused to manumit their slaves.

Baltimore Yearly Meeting took similar action in 1777. "In the year 1787 there was not a slave in the possession of an acknowledged Quaker." The interest in the negroes and in the slaves in the slave States did not diminish, but for the negro, as for the Indian, the Society has retained a deep interest ever since.1

1 Authorities for the foregoing paragraphs: "The Friend" (Philadelphia), vols. xvi., xvii.; Bowden, vol. ii., chap. viii. ; 'Memoirs of Pennsylvania Historical Society," vol. i., pp. 366 ff.; A. C. Applegarth, "Johns Hopkins University Studies," vol. x., pp. 447 ff.; Clarkson, History of the Slave Trade"; John G. Whittier, Introduction to Journal of John Woolman "; Roberts Vaux, "Lives of Sandiford and Lay"; "Journal" of John Woolman; Journal" of John Churchman; Michener, pp. 328 ff. It should

As in England so in America, Friends deprecated any appeal to arms for the settlement of difficulties. Reference has already been made to this in the case of Pennsylvania in 1755. In 1775 they took the same position. Besides their "testimony against war," they had always upheld the doctrine of submission to the powers that be, where conscience did not forbid. It was therefore fully in accord with practice and principle that Philadelphia Yearly Meeting should do all in its power to prevent its members from countenancing the approaching warlike struggle with England. Addresses were issued to its own members, and to the people at large, setting forth their views. In 1776 representatives from New England, Virginia, and North Carolina attended Philadelphia Yearly Meeting to consult on the course to be pursued. With few exceptions, the members of the Society everywhere did their best to remain neutral, the object being to avoid all warlike measures. That they were in sympathy with the desires of their fellow-citizens to obtain redress of grievances is shown' by the fact that in one of the non-importation agreements of 1765 fifty of the signers were Friends. But it was natural that their testimonies and addresses against war and their peaceable habits during times of great excitement should cause suspicion, and that many should misunderstand their position. It is altogether likely also that a considerable number of the Society, particularly in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, really disapproved of severing the bonds uniting the colonies with the mother-country. In consequence of these circumstances the sufferings of the Friends were great, especially so in Pennsylvania, where they might have expected more consideration. Refusing to serve in the army, their property was seized to pay for substitutes; be said that to the self-denying labor of John Woolman, who visited Friends throughout America, the action of Friends toward slavery is greatly indebted.

FRIENDS AND THE REVOLUTION.

247

refusing to pay taxes levied especially for warlike purposes, again their property was seized. In 1779 or thereabouts the Assembly enacted a law requiring a test oath of all who taught school, which virtually shut out Friends from educating their own children, and their remonstrances had little effect. But the most aggravated case was the arrest and banishment to Winchester, Va., of twenty prominent citizens of Philadelphia, seventeen of whom were Friends, without trial, on false charges, as they and their friends insisted at the time, and as was afterward proved.1

To a greater or less extent the experiences of the Friends in Pennsylvania was that of those in the other States. In New England some supported the Revolution. actively, justifying a defensive war, and in Philadelphia there were many disownments, and also a small separation on the same account in 1781, where the separatists were known as the "Free" or "Fighting Quakers."2

At the conclusion of the war relief came, and Friends loyally supported the new government. Soon after the inauguration of Washington the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting sent him an address expressive of good wishes for the success of his administration, to which he replied in a pleasant and cordial manner.3

1 Friends still, in spite of the overwhelming proof to the contrary, suffer from these unjust charges. See Winsor, vol. vi., pp. 393, 417; Hildreth's "United States," vol. iii., p. 195.

2 A meeting-house was built for them at Fifth and Arch streets, by “general subscription,” in 1783, or, as the inscription on the building, which is still standing, says, "Erected A.D. 1783, of the empire 8." The house is now occupied by the Apprentices' Library.

3 See for the foregoing paragraphs, Bowden, vol. ii., chaps. xii., xiii. ; Michener, chap. xxxii.; "Exiles in Virginia"; William Gordon, "American Revolution," vol. iv., p. 377; "The Friend" (Philadelphia), vols. xix., xx.; New York Historical Society, "Collections," 1876-78; "Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography," vols. i., ix., xvi., etc.; Howard M. Jenkins, "Historical Collections of Gwynedd" (Philadelphia, 1884), p. 311, note.

CHAPTER V.

DIVISIONS DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

[It should be remembered that the titles in this chapter are used simply for the purpose of distinction, and are those which are employed in the United States Census of 1890. As all divisions claim the name of Friends, some course like this is necessary.]

The Separation of 1827-28.

THE separation of 1827-28 sharply divides the earlier history of Friends from the later. The Society, which had till now presented an almost unbroken front, was to be rent into two parts, each sufficiently large to maintain a separate existence, and each claiming to be the original body.

During the latter years of the eighteenth and the earlier portion of the nineteenth century the attention of Friends had been more engrossed with the enforcement of the Discipline and the carrying out of certain moral reforms than with questions of doctrine or with evangelization. The elders and overseers gradually exercised more and more authority, till they, with a few of the more weighty members, virtually controlled the Society.

In a general way the reading of the Scriptures was encouraged, but it was before the time of low-priced Bibles, and quite a number of families did not own a copy, while others had but a portion of the book.1 Some Friends only

1 In a circular issued by the Bible Association of Friends, an association founded by the Orthodox body after the separation, it was stated that in 1832 four hundred families were without a complete copy of the Scriptures, while one hundred and thirty-eight had not even a New Testament. If this was the case with the body that laid the greater stress on the importance of the Bible, the condition of affairs in the other branch may be imagined.