Social Control and Exeter Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, 1737-1789: a Research Note

Social Control and Exeter Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, 1737-1789: A Research Note

Karen Guenther University of Houston

Pennsylvania's role in the development of American culture and society has received an increasing amount of attention in recent years, as the tercentenary celebrations of the founding of the province provoked a reexamination of the colony and state's contributions to American ethnic and religious diversity.! With increasing pluralism, however, the religious group most prominent in the establishment of the province-the Society of Friends, or Quakers-declined in its impact and importance. This change was evident through an increasing number of "complaints" against members for a variety of offenses contrary to Quaker discipline, especially in backcountry Pennsylvania, where the Quakers were often a minority and had greater opportunity to stray from the norm. This article will examine the activities of the members of Exeter Monthly Meeting of Friends, located in Berks County in southeastern Pennsylvania. It will review the transgressions committed by members and the ways that leaders of the meeting dealt with them.2 Berks County was originally settled in the early 1710's and formally became a county in 1752. The European immigrants who settled in this area represented nearly every part of northern and western Europe and the British Isles and almost every religious faith known to the Europeans. Among these early settlers were German, Danish, and Swedish Lutherans, French, Swiss, and German Reformed, Scots, Welsh, and English Anglicans, English, Welsh, and Irish Quakers, German and Irish Roman Catholics, German Dunkards, Mennonites, Amish, New Born, Schwenkfelders, and Seventh-Day Baptists, and Moravians and Jews. By the end of the colonial period, these settlers had established at least seventy-five distinct congregations, more than in any other county in colonial America.3 It was in this setting as an ethnic and religious minority that Exeter Monthly Meeting operated during the eighteenth century. Exeter Monthly Meeting was established in 1737 out of Gwynedd Monthly Meeting to serve the needs of Friends along the northwestern frontier of Pennsylvania.4 According to Quaker practice, the primary purpose of the monthly meeting was to serve as a business meeting for all of the Quakers in a specific geographical area. Among the duties conducted by the business meeting were receiving new members, issuing certificates of marriage and removal, managing the financial affairs of the local meeting, and ensuring the enforcement of Quaker discipline.5 From 1737 until

t 151 MAP 'it PENN5YLVANlA IN 1r780

NEW 'YoRK

VIRGNIA MARYLMP

.,CAtAWSSA (11'i5) S. ROBESON (l141) 2. MAIDSI CREEK (jq3! C.?o-vsGrovE (7ill?) 3. READING (1756) *. LA4CAK5TR 4, EXETER (±725) R. BETHLEKEM

1789, when Robeson Monthly Meeting was created for the members of Exeter Monthly Meeting who resided south and west of the Schuylkill River, indulged meetings or meetings for worship conducted at Exeter (1725), Maiden Creek (1735), Robeson (1741), Tulpehocken (1749-1758), Reading (by 1756), Pottsgrove (by 1771), Catawissa (1775), and Muncy (1788) were under the supervision of Exeter Monthly Meeting.6 When examining the disciplinary activity of this monthly meeting, it is evident that its leaders were familiar with the rules and regulations of the Society of Friends. The basic tenet of Quakerism is the belief that God inspired all people directly through an "inner light" that led them to their pacifism, simple lives, and refusal to swear oaths. Christian discipline used to control individual behavior served as a way to hold the society together. In the formal summary of Quaker belief, the Rules of Discipline, the Friends included a series of topically- arranged extracts from major doctrinal writings and indicated the year of adoption for the specific policy or consequence.7 Leaders of monthly meetings such as Exeter were expected to be familiar with these regulations and to enforce them as necessary. Whenever the overseers of a preparative meeting complained against the actions of a Friend who had violated one or several of the regulations in the Rules

Volume 57, Number 2 e April 1990 152 of Discipline, there were usually two options available to resolve the situation. If a Friend admitted his or her guilt, it was necessary to write a few lines condemning the misconduct. This letter, if accepted, would then be approved by the meeting and read publicly, usually at the next first-day meeting. However, other locations were possible; for example, in 1757 the meeting ordered S.W. to read his condemnation at the tavern in Reading in which he had become drunk.8 A typical paper of condemnation could read as follows:

Dear Friends, Having of late, by the Goodness of Divine Providence, been brought to a Sense of trouble & Uneasiness for my Outgoings in Marriage, not that I can say that I am Dissatisfied with her who I am joined in Marriage with, but for the trouble which I have thereby brought on my Parents, & for my proceeding in a Way not agreeable to, nor Consistent with, the good Order used amongst Friends, & am in hopes by a more circumspect Walking for the future to be counted Worthy of the Notice of Friends; unto whose Judgment I am freely willing to submit.9 In this confession, then, the accused admitted his or her guilt, apologized for bringing shame to family and Friends, and requested divine assistance in preventing a recurrence of the offense. If the Friend chose not to condemn his misbehavior, the meeting had no recourse but to testify against the offender. In 61% of the cases, the accused were unwilling to condemn their actions, and the meeting produced a testimony against the offender. A typical written testimony could read as follows: Whereas J.H. (by a Certificate sent after him from North Wales) is found to be of our Society, but not adhering to the Witness of God in his own heart has been addicted to several disorderly Practices, such as Drinking to excess, Quarreling, and likewise Marrying one of another Profession, for which he has refused to give Satisfaction. We do Therefore hereby Disown the said J.H. to be of our Society until he, by refraining these disorderly Practices, gives manifest signs of True Repentance, which we heartily Desire he may."

The testimony, then, restated the charges and passed sentence on the offender. Quakers who were disowned for their misconduct were not shunned like the Amish, for they were still welcome to attend the meetings for worship. Once a meeting disowned a person, in most instances the punishment applied to the entire family."' A notable exception occurred in 1747 when Squire Boone, father of the famous pioneer Daniel Boone, was disowned for approving the improper marriage of one of his children, but his wife Sarah remained an active member until the family's removal to Virginia in 1750.12

Pennsylvania History 153 In Exeter Monthly Meeting, 70.6% of the members testified against were disowned, although 16.8% later condemned their misbehavior. Condemnation at a later date, however, was not the only way that a Quaker could reverse the decision of the monthly meeting. Within the structure of the Quaker organization, a procedure existed for appealing cases. For example, in 1749 J.W., an overseer for Maiden Creek Preparative Meeting, charged "that there are many Friends belonging to this Meeting that have opened a Door, and have gone, and are going on in the way to lay waste and Destroy the Order & Discipline of the law and the Gospel." The Monthly Meeting produced a testimony againstJ.W. for these false accusations. J.W. appeared at the next Monthly Meeting and indicated that he intended to appeal the decision to the next Quarterly Meeting at Philadelphia. In May, 1750, the Monthly Meeting received the news that the Quarterly Meeting had overturned their decision and had reinstated J.W. as a member of the Society."3 Few appeals had the same result as did J.W.'s, however, for in 1780 the Quarterly Meeting upheld Exeter's decision to disown members who had complied with the provisions of the Test Act that required allegiance to the Revolutionary government of Pennsylvania.14 As is evident by examining Tables 1 and 2, there were often differences between the number of cases (i.e. the number of people accused) and the number of violations. In fact, 37.5% of the cases involved more than one violation, with the most common combination exogamy or marriage with a non-Quaker along with another offense. In addition, in six cases (five for men, one for women) Quakers were accused of four violations at the same time, and for twenty-six cases (seventeen for men, nine for women) of three violations.15 When examining the "complaints" against Exeter Friends for their wayward behavior, several patterns are evident. Recividism accounted for 16.7% of the total number of cases, with forty-nine cases for men and four for the women involving repeat offenders. In twenty-five of these forty-nine cases, the accused were testified against and/or disowned for their actions. This penalty was not

Table 1. Number of Cases

Year Men Women Total

1737-1739 1 0 1 1740-1744 12 5 17 1745-1749 12 3 15 1750-1754 26 9 35 1755-1759 47 13 60 1760-1764 20 9 29 1765-1769 18 14 32 1770-1774 5 10 15 1775-1779 35 13 48 1780-1784 20 11 31 1785-1789 17 17 34

Volume 57, Number 2 - April 1990 -I C __ _

Table 2. Number of Charges

Year Men Women Total

1737-1739 1 0 1 1740-1744 14 5 19 1745-1749 14 3 17 1750-1754 31 15 46 1755-1759 61 20 81 1760-1764 34 10 44 1765-1769 33 21 54 1770-1774 9 17 26 1775-1779 54 23 77 1780-1784 34 18 52 1785-1789 41 28 69 always sudden, however, as members of Exeter Preparative Meeting accused W.H. of excessive drinking three times and indebtedness once between 1744 and 1754 before they finally disowned him for drunkenness in 1755.16 In another instance, T.H. was disowned in 1765 after Maiden Creek Preparative Meeting accused him of "bearing Arms with an Intent to Defend himself (if attacked) where there was Danger of an Indian Enemy" and later of being 'Joined in Marriage by a Priest." T.H. rejoined the Quaker fold in 1777 after the monthly meeting accepted a written condemnation for his actions, but he did not remain in good standing for long. In 1780, T.H. was disowned again, this time for complying with the Test Act and for excessive drinking. 17 This particular example is an exception, however, as 20 of the 137 Friends disowned for assorted indiscretions were eventually readmitted by condemning their actions, and only T.H. ever erred again. When the monthly meeting appointed a committee of at least two Friends to inquire into the circumstances of a complaint, in 92% of the cases leaders of the meeting investigated the violation and questioned the offender. Within Exeter Monthly Meeting, there were four main types of leadership positions for both men and women. One of the most important people was the clerk, who presided at the business meeting and was responsible for keeping the minutes of the monthly meeting and records for marriages, births, and deaths. The clerk also handled all correspondence with other meetings, including the certificates of removal. Overseers served as leaders for specific preparative meetings and were often responsible for investigating complaints. In addition, elders and ministers provided spiritual advice and counseled their Quaker brethren. Finally, men and women whom Exeter Monthly Meeting sent as representatives to Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting have been considered as leaders because this position often required a certain amount of responsibility.1 Being a leader might have been a prerequisite most of the time for investigating a case, but it did not exempt someone from being prosecuted. Five

Pennsylvania History 155 of the men's twenty-one cases in 1779 involved a leader or former leader of the men's meeting, and three of these men were disowned. Overall, 18.3% of the cases (21% for men, 12.5% for women) involved leaders of the men's and women's meetings. Fourteen of the forty-five leaders of the men's meeting who violated the discipline were even disowned for their improper conduct, although four did later condemn their actions. No category of leadership was immune, either, because those disowned included three of the clerks, in addition to overseers, elders, and representatives. Quaker discipline seldom was speedy. Occasionally the situation could be resolved by the subsequent monthly meeting, but in thirty-six cases over a year passed between the accusation and resolution, and in one instance six years passed between the original complaint and disposition. According to Table 3, Exeter Monthly Meeting usually spent approximately four and one-half months investigating an accusation before reaching a verdict, either by accepting a paper of condemnation or by drafting a testimony. Not surprisingly, the longest duration between complaint and disposition occurred in the 1755-1764 period and the 1775-1779 period, both times in which external events undermined Quaker order. The nature of the offenses committed by Exeter Friends resembled the pattern among Friends in Pennsylvania. Prior to 1737, when Exeter Monthly Meeting was established, only five charges (involving four people) were made against members of Oley Preparative Meeting, which was the original name of the Exeter meeting between its establishment in 1725 and 1742. Three of the cases dealt with a general "ill conduct"; no details about the complaints were provided.' 9 Once Exeter Monthly Meeting was on its own, however, activity began to increase. Between 1737 and 1744, eighteen cases, involving twenty charges, came before the meeting. Of these, five of them were handled by the women's meeting, which considered infractions involving female members of the meeting with the advice of the men's meeting. The total decreased slightly to

Table 3 Average Duration (in months)

Year Men Women Combined Average

1737-1739 1.00 0.00 1.00 1740-1744 2.27 4.25 2.80 1745-1749 5.67 5.00 5.53 1750-1754 2.29 8.75 3.44 1755-1759 5.19 10.46 6.44 1760-1764 7.60 4.22 6.55 1765-1769 4.20 2.25 3.38 1770-1774 3.00 4.20 3.86 1775-1779 7.30 4.25 6.53 1780-1784 3.40 5.20 4.07 1785-1789 3.94 2.35 3.12

Volume 57, Number 2 a April 1990 156 fifteen cases between 1745 and 1749, but during the next decade the total increased dramatically to reach a peak of sixty cases and eighty-one charges between 1755 and 1759.20 Forty-seven of these cases came from the men's meeting. Very likely the French and Indian War had a tremendous impact of discipline during this period.2 ' This pattern fits what was occurring in the Quaker meetings throughout colonial Pennsylvania.2 2 In The Reformation of American Quakerism,Jack D. Marietta suggested four major categories of Quaker violations: Marriage Delinquency, Sectarian Delin- quency, Sexual Delinquency, and Delinquency with Victims, occurring in that order.23 (Table 4). Contrary to these findings, Sectarian Delinquency was the largest category of offenses for Exeter Monthly Meeting, consisting of 201 of 486 (41%) of all violations.24 Sectarian delinquency included behavior that only Quakers considered inappropriate, such an inattendance at worship, attending an irregular marriage, supporting the war effort, or keeping bad company. In addition, such behavior as drunkenness, gambling, and profanity that were prohibited by the laws of Pennsylvania have been included in this category. The two largest offenses within this group related to excessive drinking (34) and military activity (28). The increased percentage of military activity and compliance with the Test Act, which combine for 10.5% of the total percentage for all offenses, are the primary reasons why Sectarian Delinquency surpassed the other categories for Exeter. The Rules of Discipline opposed any support for warlike activity, not only bearing arms but also furnishing wagons or paying a substitute fine.25 In the American Revolution, this opposition to war became extended to encompass complying with the Test Act, which required an oath of allegiance to support the state constitution of 1776.26 Quakers in Pennsylvania were caught in a bind, because compliance with the Test Act would result in disownment, while disobeying the Act of Allegiance could result in imprisonment. In 1779, the first year in which the act was in effect, nineteen Exeter Quakers were charged with complying with its provisions, and all but five of them were disowned for this action.27 Disownment did not occur, however, until after the Quarterly Meeting had been consulted on the matter. Surprisingly, only two of the committee members who investigated the charges were listed as "tory" in the 1779 county tax lists because they refused to pay taxes to support the war effort.28 The frontier location of Berks County also contributed to the increased amount of military activity among Exeter Friends. During the French and Indian War era (1754-1764), fourteen of the seventy-eight cases (18%) dealt with violations of the pacifist principles, while between 1775 and 1784 eleven of the fifty-five cases (20%) related to participation in the war effort. The only conviction for murder occurred in 1763, as the meeting disowned Hezekiah Boone for killing Indians in self-defense.2 9 At least Boone fared better than didJohn Fincher

Pennsylvania History 157 Table 4 Offenses

Type of Offense Number Percentage SECTARIAN DELINQUENCY 201 41.35% Drunkenness 34 Military activity 24 Complying with Test Act 23 Inattendance 19 Profanity 18 Attending/approving irregular marriage 14 Quarreling 11 Loose (disorderly) conduct 9 Fighting 8 Disapproved company 4 Lying 4 Gambling 3 Attending a shooting match 3 Signed Association paper 3 Paying substitute fine 3 Dress 2 Disobeying parents 2 Attending Anglican service I Administering oath I Attending horse race 1 Bringing in a musician 1 Children baptized by priest 1 "dressing a wedding dinner" 1 False affirmation in court 1 Fortune telling 1 Holding office I Keeping house for non-Quaker I Operating tavern 1 Riding horse in race 1 Singing in tavern 1 Use of law I Visiting Indians I MARRIAGE DELINQUENCY 166 34.16% Married out of meeting 82 Married by priest/hireling minister 60 Married by justice/magistrate 17 Married first cousin 7 SEXUAL DELINQUENCY 62 12.76% Fornication 36 Bearing/fathering illegitimate child 24 Adultery 2 DELINQUENCY WITH VICTIMS 57 11.73% Debt 19 Removal without requesting certificate 12 Slander 6 Theft 5 "Difference" 4 Assault 3 Breach of contract 2 Deceit 2 Bribery 1 False accusations against meeting 1 Jumped bail 1 Murder 1

Volume 57, Number 2 * April 1990 158 and his family, Quakers whom the natives brutally murdered in northern Berks County in that year." The second most common deviance from the Quaker discipline by Exeter Friends was in the realm of marriage, as 34.6% of the violations fell into this category. Friends who wished to marry would attend a monthly meeting and publish their intentions, and the men's and women's meetings would separately appoint a committee of two or three members to inquire into the moral character of the couple and to check into prior commitments. Any couple that did not follow this procedure, or any Quaker who chose a non-member as a spouse, was subject to disciplinary action. In addition, any Quaker who attended or assisted in a marriage contrary to the rules suffered the same penalty as those participating in the ceremony. 31 For the Quakers, violations of the marriage regulations were serious, because Friends believed that the faith was transferred most successfully from one generation to the next through the parents, and both parents must be in good standing in order for this to occur. The devotion of the parents was especially suspect if they assisted in a marriage contrary to the discipline, and many others besides Squire Boone were disowned for this offense.32 The third most common category of violations for Exeter Friends was Sexual Delinquency. Sexual Delinquency, which involved fornication, fathering or bearing an illegitimate child, and adultery, accounted for 12.76% of the offenses committed by Exeter Friends. This category was undoubtedly the most difficult to prove, because it often relied upon hearsay or upon a confession by the offender. In some cases, misbehavior was discovered when a couple published their intentions to marry and the investigating committee found evidence of improper conduct.3 Women who were discovered to be with child out of wedlock also seldom let the father go unpunished. For example, in 1756 R.C. accused J.E. of being the father of her bastard child, and the men's meeting investigated the complaint. As the drama developed,J.E.'s father M.E., a former overseer of Exeter Preparative Meeting, confessed that he, and not his son, had committed "the hainous Sin of Adultery" and had been responsible for the young woman's condition. The monthly meeting disowned bothJ.E. and M.E., because it could not be proven thatJ.E. was innocent of "unchast[e] Familiarity" with R.C.34 The least frequent category of Quaker violations was Delinquency with Victims. This group, which accounted for 11.7% of the total number of offenses, included such criminal offenses as indebtedness, assault, deceit, slander, and theft, in addition to offenses peculiar to Quakerism such as removal without requesting a certificate. Within this category, debt and removal without a certificate were by far the most frequent offenses, and occasionally they occurred simultaneously if a Friend left the geographical confines of the meeting without satisfying his creditors. In the case of R.M., however, obtaining the certificate of removal led to the resolution of the indebtedness charge. R.M. moved to North

Pennsylvania History 159 Carolina in September, 1756, but he had not paid off all of his debts prior to his departure. Three men were appointed to write to Cane Creek Monthly Meeting in North Carolina and to inform them of R.M.'s neglect." Part of the concern for notifying this meeting might have been because this was not the first time that R.M. had been accused of indebtedness, and, in fact, Exeter Monthly Meeting had even supported another member's efforts to recover his money through legal action when resolving a previous complaint.36 Other members who attempted to flee the control of the meeting as did R.M. eventually were caught and reprimanded as necessary. Throughout the history of Exeter Monthly Meeting during the colonial and early national period until 1789, it is evident that its location along the Pennsylvania frontier played a significant role in maintaining the Quaker discipline among its members. When Exeter Monthly Meeting was established in 1737, Berks County was the frontier for European settlers. By 1789, the frontier had progressed farther north and west, but Exeter Monthly Meeting continued to meet the needs of Friends in this area by overseeing the establishment of additional meetings for worship. In some ways, the experiences faced by the leaders of Exeter Monthly Meeting as they attempted to enforce the discipline were typical of those of other meetings. Exeter Friends were accused of the same types of offenses, although the frequency occasionally varied. The leaders did their best to maintain stability within the Society by prosecuting known violators of the rules, and they dealt with the accused as speedily as possible under the circumstances. There is another factor that may explain the need to enforce the discipline more strictly. Exeter Monthly Meeting was located in a county in which it hardly was the main religious group; in fact, the Quakers had one of the lowest numbers of adherents within Berks County. In other parts of Pennsylvania during the colonial period, the Quakers were a sizable minority, if not a majority, of the population within a county or geographical region. Furthermore, in most of the other counties of Pennsylvania there was a sizable number of English-speaking people with whom the Quakers could have interacted, even if they were of the Anglican or Presbyterian faith. In Berks County, however, over ninety percent of the settlers in the eighteenth century were German-speaking, and it was not unusual for a Quaker family to have German-speaking neighbors. The fact that Exeter Friends were in a sense attempting to maintain the faith in what could be perceived as a hostile environment certainly explains the need to require total support for the discipline. Interestingly, unlike most other religious groups in colonial America, leaders of the Society of Friends in Pennsylvania preferred to disown rather than to reclaim fallen brethren, believing that it was better to have a few "good" members than to have many whose devotion was suspect.37 While lapsed Quakers were always welcome to attend the meetings for worship, and while they

Volume 57, Number 2 - April 1990 160 could at any time rejoin the Society if they were willing to condemn their actions, the Quakers never sought to proselytize or gain converts like most of the other religious organizations. If they had been inclined to open their membership, Exeter Monthly Meeting was in a prime location for welcoming new members: Within the immediate vicinity of Exeter Preparative Meeting, in fact, there was one attempt to unite all of the German-speaking people into one large "Congre- gation of God in the Spirit," led by Moravian Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf.3 8 At the time of this meeting in early 1742, the Quakers were the only stable religious group in the area, as the German Protestants had very few settled pastors and were ripe for a movement such as Zinzendorf s. Exeter Friends were invited to participate in this meeting, and a member of the women's meeting gained respect of the representatives with her knowledge of the Bible and her faith.39 Unfortunately, nothing significant regarding the Quakers resulted from this conference. Exeter Friends might have changed the course of religious history in Berks County, if not in Pennsylvania, if they had chosen to expand their membership to include these Germans, who welcomed any opportunity to worship on a regular basis. Overall, the disciplinary problems faced by Exeter Monthly Meeting in the eighteenth century were typical yet distinctive from those experienced by other Quaker meetings in Pennsylvania. The frontier location certainly contributed to the unrest, especially when war came to the province. The leaders of the meeting did their best to maintain order, but it must have been difficult to set a good example when more than one-sixth of the leaders were guilty of assorted violations of the Rules of Discipline. Nevertheless, perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the enforcement of the discipline was that it indeed strengthened rather than weakened the Society as a whole. Exeter Monthly Meeting managed to maintain the most stable religious organization in Berks County during many years of turmoil, and they were strong enough that between 1789 and 1796 two additional monthly meetings, at Robeson and at Catawissa, were organized to meet the needs of Quakers along the advancing frontier. Exeter Monthly Meeting had indeed succeeded in perpetuating the ideals of Quakerism along the Pennsylvania frontier.

Notes

1. For additional information on the ethnic Freedom: Key to Diversity," Pennsylvania and religious diversity of colonial Pennsylva- Heritage, Tercentenary Issue (1981): 10-13; and nia, see: Robert Fortenbaugh, "Pennsylvania: Sally Schwartz, "A Mixed Multitude" The A Study in Religious Diversity," Pennsylvania Strugglefor Toleration in Colonial Pennsylvania History, 4 (April 1937): 88-102; John B. Frantz, (New York, 1987). "Religion in the Middle Colonies: A Model for 2. Important studies of the Society of Friends the Nation," Journal of Regional Cultures, 2 in colonial Pennsylvania include Richard Bau- (Fall/Winter 1982): 9-22; Frantz, "Religious man, For the Reputation of Truth. Politics, Reli-

Pennsylvania History 161 gion, and Conflict Among the Pennsylvania etta, Reformation of American Quakerism, pas- Quakers, 1750-1800 (Baltimore, 1971); J. sim; and Frost, Quaker Family, pp. 48-63. William Frost, The Quaker Family in Colonial 8. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," Min- America: A Portrait of the Society of Friends utes of Exeter Monthly Meeting, 1737-1765, (New York, 1973); Sydney V. James, A People 24th day, 2nd month, 1757. (Handwritten). Among Peoples. Quaker Benevolence in Eigh- Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore Col- teenth- Century America (Cambridge, Mass., lege, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. The prepara- 1963); Rufus M. Jones, The Quakers in the tive meeting met the week before the monthly American Colonies (New York, 1962); Jack D. meeting to prepare business that the represen- Marietta, The Reformation of American Quaker- tatives would take to the monthly meeting. ism, 1748-1783 (Philadelphia, 1984); and Fred- During the eighteenth century, three prepara- erick B. Tolles, Meeting House and Counting tive meetings reported to Exeter Monthly Meet- House. The Quaker Merchants of Colonial Phil- ing: Exeter, Maiden Creek, and Robeson. adelphia (Chapel Hill, 1948). 9. Ibid., 27th day, 1oth month, 1750. 3. For more information on the religious diver- 10. Ibid., 26th day, 9th month, 1754. sity of early Berks County, see: Karen Guen- 11. Jack D. Marietta, "Attitudes of 18th- ther, "A 'Garden for the Friends of God': C[entury] American Friends toward Sin and Religious Diversity in the Oley Valley to 1750," Evil," Quaker Religious Thought, 22 (Fall 1987): Pennsylvania Folklife, 33 (Spring 1984): 138-144; 21-22. William W. Hummel, "Religion on a Moving Frontier: The Berks County Area, 1700-1748," 12. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," 26th Pennsylvania Heritage, 4 (March 1978): 22-26; day, 3rd month, 1748; and "Women's Monthly and Susan Somers, "Conditions and Contribu- Meeting Book A," Minutes of Exeter Wom- tions of Berks County Religions to America en's Monthly Meeting, 1737-1789, 26th day, During the Eighteenth Century," HistoricalRe- 2nd month, 1750. (Handwritten). Friends His- view of Berks County, 40 (Winter 1974-75): torical Library, Swarthmore College, Swarth- 12-15, 34-36, 38. more, Pennsylvania. 4. Minutes of Gwynedd Monthly Meeting, 13. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," 30th 31st day, 3rd month, 1737. (Handwritten). day, 7th month, 1749; 26th day, 8th month, Quaker Collection, Haverford College, Haver- 1749; 28th day, 10th month, 1749; 31st day, 3rd ford, Pennsylvania. month, 1750; and Rules of Discipline, p. 10. 5. Bauman, For the Reputation of Truth, pp. 14. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," 4th 231-234. day, 10th month, 1780. 6. Additional studies of Exeter Monthly Meet- 15. Ibid., passim; "Exeter Monthly Meeting ing include Kenneth L. Cook, "Glimpses of Book B," Minutes of Exeter Monthly Meet- Life in a Frontier Friends Meeting," paper ing, 1765-1785, passim. (Handwritten). Friends presented at the 250th anniversary of Exeter Historical Library, Swarthmore College, Monthly Meeting (1987); John E. Eshelman, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania; "Exeter Monthly "The Society of Friends, and Their Meeting Meeting Book C," Minutes of Exeter Monthly Houses, in Berks County," HistoricalReview of Meeting, 1785-1808, passim. (Handwritten). Berks County, 19 (July 1954): 104-109, 117-123; Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore Col- and Phyllis S. Grant, "Exeter Friends Meeting lege, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania; and "Wom- 1737-1787," Historical Review of Berks County, en's Monthly Meeting Book A," passim. 47 (Spring 1982): 62-63, 71, 74-77, 79-80. See 16. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," 29th Map 1 for the location of these meetings. day, 1st month, 1744; 28th day, 9th month, 7. Rules of Discipline and Christian Advices of 1751; 27th day, 12th month, 1753; 28th day, 3rd the Yearly Meeting of Friendsfor Pennsylvania month, 1754; 30th day, 1st month, 1755. and NewJersey (Philadelphia, 1797). For more 17. Ibid., 27th day, 12th month, 1764; 28th day, information of Quaker discipline, see: Mari- 2nd month, 1765; 1st day, 4th month, 1765;

Volume 57, Number 2 0 April 1990 162 28th day, 5th month, 1777; 24th day, 2nd tion on Quakers' Ideas About their Sect," month, 1779; 31st day, 5th month, 1780; 26th William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 19 (1962): day, 7th month, 1780. 360-382; and ArthurJ. Mekeel, The Relation of 18. Bauman, For the Reputation of Truth, pp. the Quakers to the American Revolution (Wash- 232-234. For additional information on the ington, 1979). role of women in Friends' meetings, see: Mary 27. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book B," 24th Maples Dunn, "Saints and Sinners: Congrega- day, 2nd month, 1779; 28th day, 4th month, tional and Quaker Women in the Early Colo- 1779; 26th day, 5th month, 1779; 28th day, 7th nial Period," American Quarterly, 30 (Winter month, 1779; 22nd day, 9th month, 1779; 27th 1978): 582-601; and Jean R. Soderlund, "Wom- day, 10th month, 1779; 24th day, 11th month, en's Authority in Pennsylvania and NewJersey 1779; 29th day, 12th month, 1779; 23rd day, 2nd Quaker Meetings, 1680-1760," William and month, 1780; 28th day, 6th month, 1780; 26th Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 44 (October 1987): day, 7th month, 1780; 27th day, 2nd month, 722-749. 1781. 19. Minutes of Gwynedd Monthly Meeting, 28. "Record of County Tax. Berks County, 29th day, 7th month, 1730; 30th day, 8th month, 1779. Robeson Township." (Handwritten). His- 1733; 31st day, 1st month, 1736. torical Society of Berks County, Reading, Penn- 20. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," 1737- sylvania. 1759, passim. 29. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," 29th 21. For additional information on the impact day, 12th month, 1763; 23rd day, 2nd month, of the French and Indian War, see: Ralph L. 1764. Ketcham, "Conscience, War, and Politics in Pennsylvania, 1755-1757," William and Mary 30. Letter,Jonas Seely toJohn Penn, 10 Septem- Quarterly, 3rd ser., 20 (1963): 416-439; Jack D. ber 1763, in Colonial Records, 9: 43-44. Marietta, "Conscience, the Quaker Commu- 31. Rules of Discipline, pp. 65-68. nity, and the French and Indian War," Pennsyl- 32. Marietta, "Attitudes of 18th-Century vania Magazine of History and Biography, 95 Friends," pp. 23-24. (1971): 3-27; and Marietta, "Wealth, War and Religion: The Perfecting of Quaker Asceti- 33. See especially "Exeter Monthly Meeting cism, 1740-1783," Church History, 43 (June Book A," 28th day, 7th month, 1749; and 1974): 230-241. "Women's Monthly Meeting Book A," 28th day, 7th 22. Marietta, Reformation of American Quaker- month, 1749. ism, p. 55. Marietta contended that violations 34. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book A," 30th increased 64.1% between 1755 to 1756 and day, 12th month, 1756; 25th day, 8th month, more than doubled between 1756 and 1760. 1757; 27th day, 10th month, 1757; 26th day, 1st 23. Ibid., pp. 6-7. month, 1758. For 58.3% of the offenders ac- 24. See Table 4 for the categories for Exeter cused of fornication, they were charged with Monthly Meeting. another violation, usually fathering or bearing an illegitimate child or an improper marriage. 25. Rules of Discipline, pp. 130-132. This was not the case withJ.E. 26. Pennsylvania Archives, Second Series, 3: 162-163; and Robert L. Brunhouse, The 35. Ibid., 30th day, 9th month, 1756; 28th day, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776-1790 10th month, 1756; 25th day, 11th month, 1756; (Harrisburg, 1971), pp. 40-41, 49. For addi- 30th day, 12th month, 1756; 24th day, 2nd tional information on Quakers during the month, 1757; 25th day, 8th month, 1757. American Revolution, see W.E. Claussen, "The 36. Ibid., 31st day, 8th month, 1745 (2 separate Impact of the Revolutionary War Upon the cases); 28th day, 9th month, 1745. The meeting Exeter Friends," Historical Review of Berks reported in November, 1745 (9th month) that if County, 37 (Spring 1972): 52-53; Sydney V. he did not pay Samuel Woolaston "before the James, "The Impact of the American Revolu- next Monthly Meeting we will be at Liberty to

Pennsylvania History - 163 recover it by Law." This certainly was an Spirit: The First American Oecumenical unusual penalty for a Friends' meeting to im- Movement," Church History, 9 (1940): 366-380. pose, because the Rules of Discipline stated that 39. Zuverlissige Beschreibung der dritten Con- beginning in 1701 the meeting should disown ferenz der Evangelischen Religionen Teutscher any Friends who collected debts through law- Nation in Pennsylvania, Welche am 10, 11 und suits. Rules of Discipline, p. 62. 12ten Februarii 1741/2 in Oley am Johan de 37. Marietta, "Attitudes of 18th-Century -hrcks Hausegehalten worden; Samt denen dieses Friends," pp. 17-27; and Frost, Quaker Family, mahl verfassten Gemein-Schlissen (Philadel- p. 58. phia, 1742), p. 44. 38. For more information on this meeting, see 40. "Exeter Monthly Meeting Book C," 29th John Joseph Stoudt, "Count Zinzendorf and day, 7th month, 1789; 23rd day, 4th month, the Pennsylvania Congregation of God in the 1796.