A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume 2 | Page 6

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 be also 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 may arise
upon this difference of their treatment, which may be subversive of
filial and fraternal 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 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 right 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 of it 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 the 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.
SECT. III.
_But though persons are thus disowned, they may be restored to
membership--Generally understood, however, that they must
previously express their repentance for their marriages--This confession
of repentance censured by 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 members. 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 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 advises 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 upon 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 Quaker-system, 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 indelicate. And
not to do it, is to forego 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 on 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 they, 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