If the family stopped along the way and attended another monthly meeting their certificate would be dated and endorsed by the intermediary meeting. For example, on page 7 of the Salem minutes we see that on 1/12/1806 (the date of the Salem Monthly Meeting) Thomas Stanley was received on certificate at Salem from Ceder Creek Monthly Meeting, Hanover County, Virginia. Named on this certificate were himself, his wife Unity and their children, viz., James, Joseph, Benjamin, Judith, Abigail, and Thomas. Because they had stopped at Middleton and attended the meeting there, the certificate was endorsed by Middleton Monthly Meeting on 1/14/1806. The certificate was dated at Ceder Creek 12/10 "last or 1805". So we know from this that the Stanley family came from Virginia, that they left Virginia sometime after 12/10/1805 and that they took no more than about five weeks to travel to Salem, Ohio.

To this meeting came David Schoolfield and Rebecca Davis and declared their intention of marriage with each other, the consent of the young woman's parents being had at this meeting the young man is informed that his parents consent will be expected at next appearance. Joseph Wright and Zaccheus Test are appointed to inquire into the young man's clearness with respect to marriage with others and report to next meeting.

Once marriage was agreed to, the man and woman had to appear twice before both the men's monthly meeting and the women's monthly meeting. The couple would be questioned to determine their sincerity and their clearness. Clearness related to possible obstructions to marriage. Were either one of them engaged to another? Were there any financial entanglements that might cause a problem? Were both prospective partners solid Friends? Did the parents agree to the marriage? Parental consent was important but not necessary. The parent's objections could be ignored by the meeting if they were not based on good reasons, e.g., concern for wealth. A committee of respected Friends was appointed to investigate these matters. But, as insidious as an investigation of this sort might sound to a late twentieth century or ear-ly twenty-first century defender of individual freedom and privacy, one must remember that these investigations consisted more often than not in a mere visit to one's family and sitting with them in worshipful silence. Members of this committee already knew the character of the engaged couple and the character of their families.

Previous courtships, of either the man or the woman, would be an appropriate matter for discussion. One can imagine the feelings a young man or woman would have in facing these meetings twice if there was any doubt in his/her mind about the outcome of the committee's considerations.

The Quaker view of marriage differed significantly from the Puritan view. Puritans saw women as lesser beings--"weaker vessels"--incapable of becoming fully spiritual. Among the Puritans only men were viewed as capable of striving for spiritual perfec-tion. But such perfection was not necessarily exhibited in one's own home. At home morality allowed for a certain degree of marital lust. In 1633, Thomas Hilder advised his fellow Puritans to

be very careful in thy choice to satisfie thine eye, both in the person and favour of such a one as thou wouldst enjoy as they consort, both in bed, and at board.... He whose wife is not to him as a loving hinde and pleasant roe will be ravisht with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger.³⁶

The initial impulse to marry might have carnal origins. Quakers were to overcome this impulse. After consultation with one's parents, after interviews before the monthly meeting, after instructions to meditate and consult the Lord on the purity of their motives and on the choice of a mate, it was to be expected that the spiritual aspect of marriage would be seen as overidingly important. The Puritans would forgive betrothed couples who engaged in sex before they were married. The Quakers disowned any who did so.

Marriages took place at the regular weekday meeting for worship or on another con-venient appointed day in the morning. A Quaker wedding was a silent meeting, although as in any other meeting, anyone who felt moved to speak would do so. The couple to be married would sit at the front of the meeting and at the appropriate time rise and repeat their vows to one another. The Ohio Yearly Book of Discipline prescribes the procedure:

Towards the conclusion of the said meeting, the parties are to stand up, and taking each other by the hand, are to declare in an audible and solemn manner to the following effect: the man first--viz.--'Friends, in the presence of the Lord, and before this assembly, I take this my friend D.E. to be my wife; promising, with divine assistance, to be unto her a loving and faithful husband, until death shall separate us:' and then the woman in like manner: 'Friends, in the presence of the Lord, and before this assembly, I take this my friend, A.B. to be my husband; promising, with divine assistance, to be unto him a loving and faithful wife, until death shall separate us.'³⁷

the said marriage [is to] be accomplished decently, gravely, and weightily; and the parties themselves, their parents and others concerned, do take care at the houses or place where they go, after the solemnization is over, that no reproach arise, or occasion of offence be given, by any intemperate or immoderate feating or drinking..., but that all behave with such sobriety as becomes a people fearing God.... And if any thing to the contrary be observed, the overseers, or other concerned Friends present, ought, as speedily as they conveniently can, to take such aside who make any breach upon good order, and in an affectionate manner admonish them to a better behaviour; and the said overseers are to make report to the Monthly Meeting, whether good order has been observed....³⁸

And it is desired, that on these occasions, Friends in affluent circumstances, particularly, may be careful to set a becoming and encouraging example of moderation; avoiding unnecessarily expensive entertainments, and large companies. How much better would such superfluous expense be employed in relieving the necessities of the poor....³⁹

The explanation for Mack's error is understandable. Mack and those historians that follow him observe that the Salem Monthly Meeting record shows the Schoofield-Davis marriage to be the earliest marriage conducted under the auspices of Salem Monthly Meeting.⁴⁰ They forgot that Salem Particular Meeting had been under the jurisdiction of Middleton Monthly Meeting prior to the creation of Salem Monthly Meeting. Since the records of marriages are kept by the Monthly Meeting, the records of Salem marriages prior to 9/17/1805 when Salem Monthly Meeting was created would be found in the Middleton Monthly Meeting marriage records. Hinshaw's Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy under the records of the Middleton Monthly Meeting contains the following entry:

1805, 6, 12. Benjamin, s Zaccheus, Columbiana Co., O.; m at Salem, Mary Schooley, dt Elisha & Rachel, Columbiana Co., O. (Vol. 4, p. 659)

As an outgrowth or as a branch of Puritanism the Society of Friends retained the essential features of Puritan piety and members were expected to live according to rigid set of rules. Quakers were to dress speak and act within the guidelines of simplicity and modesty. And they were expected to marry only other Quakers.

On page 3 of the minutes to the October Salem Monthly Meeting we find the following entry:

Jn. Batten offered a paper to this meeting condemning his misconduct, which was read and after a time of deliberation thereon Samuel Davis, Issac Votaw and Thomas Grisel are appointed to pay him a visit and report their sense of the sincerity of his offering to next meeting.

The minutes of the November meeting indicates that the matter required further work and that the committee should pay him another visit to be certain of the sincerity of his change in attitude towards his behaviour:

Part of the committee in John Batten's case report that they attended to their appointment and thought that his offering was attended with a good degree of sincerity, the same friends are continued to pay another visit, and inform that he is at liberty to attend our next Monthly if no obstruction appears.⁴²

Part of the committee in John Batten's case report that they attended to their appointment and nothing appearing to obstruct his acknowledgment is accepted.

A few lines more produced from Middleton Mo. Meeting requesting our care in treating with Mary Walton for her outgoing in marriage. James Galbreath & Edward Whiticar are appointed to unite with women's friends in treating with her and report their sense of her disposition of mind to next meeting.

The committee in Mary Walton's case report that they attended to their appointment, and thought that she was in a tender frame of mind and that her offence might be looked over which after a time of deliberation is united with by the meeting the clerk is directed to write to Westland Monthly Meeting.

On page 4 and on page 17 of the Salem Monthly Meeting Minutes reference is made to queries posed by the Baltimore Yearly Meeting. Queries are questions from the various yearly and quarterly meetings addressed to subordinate meetings to insure that the meetings are living according to the standards of Christian testimony. The nine queries of the Ohio Yearly Meeting were to be "read, deliberately considered, and answered in each Preparative and Monthly Meeting, once in the year." (Discipline of Ohio Yearly Meeting, p. 97) So far, I have been unable to find the queries of the Baltimore Yearly Meeting. However I believe the Ohio Yearly Meeting based their queries on the Baltimore queries and are substantially, if not exactly, identical. Indeed, Barbour and Frost point out that the Disciplines of the various Yearly Meetings were similar in order to preserve unity. The Queries of the Ohio Yearly Meeting were:

First Query.--Are all meetings for worship and discipline attended? Do Friends avoid unbecoming behavior therein? And is the hour of meeting observed?

Second.--Do Friends maintain love towards each other, as becomes our christian profession? Are tale-bearing and detraction discouraged? And when differences arise, are endeavors used speedily to end them? [no question mark in original]

Third.--Do Friends endeavor, by example and precept, to educate their children, and those under their care, in plainness of speech, deportment and apparel? Do they guard them against reading pernicious books; and from the corrupt conversation of the world? And are they encouraged frequently to read the holy scriptures?

Fourth.--Are Friends clear of importing, vending, distilling, or the unnecessary use of spirituous liquors; of frequenting taverns, or attending places of diversion? And do they observe moderation and temperance on all occasions?

Fifth.--Are the neccessities[sic] of the poor, and the circumstances of those who may appear likely to require aid, inspected and relieved? Are they advised, and assisted, in such employments as they are capable of; and is due care taken to promote the school-education of their children?

Sixth.--Do Friends maintain a faithful testimony against a hireling ministry, oaths, military services, clandestine trade, prize-goods and lotteries?

Seventh.--Are Friends careful to live within the bounds of their circumstances, and to avoid involving themselves in business beyond their ability to manage? Are they just in their dealings, and punctual in complying with their engagements?--And where any give reasonable grounds for fear in these respects, is due care extended to them?

Eighth.--Are Friends careful to bear a testimony against slavery? Do they provide, in a suitable manner, for those under their direction, who have had their freedom secured; and are they instructed in useful learning? [no question mark]

Ninth.--Is care taken to deal with offenders reasonably and impartially, and to endeavor to evince to those who will no be reclaimed, the spirit of meekness and love, before judgment is placed upon them?⁴³

In addition to elementary schools, the Quakers founded a number of high school level academies or boarding schools to train teachers. The first one, Moses Brown School was founded in 1784 in Portsmourth, Rhode Island, followed by Nine-Partners in New York, in 1796, Westtown Boarding School in 1799, Haverford in 1833, both of the latter outside Philadelphia, and New Garden Boarding School in North Carolina (now Guilford College) in 1837.

At these academies boys and girls, although receiving the same education, were kept apart at all times. Although they had separate classrooms and their own playgrounds, Girls received the same education as boys. In addition to reading and writing, and English grammar they also studied geography, accounts and memorized didactic poetry. No attention was given to fictional literature. Although tuition was the same for the boys and girls, male teachers were paid more than twice the wages of older more experienced female teachers.⁴⁴

Opposed to this interest in elementary and secondary education, Friends showed little interest in higher education until the middle of the nineteenth century. Perhaps it was their prejudice against Oxford and Cambridge educated "hireling" ministers that they felt there was no need to follow the lead of the Bostonians who in 1636 established Harvard University to train ministers. Quakers would wait more than 200 years before they established a college--Haverford--which granted its first degree in 1856. It was for men only. Ignoring recommendations of its faculty that it become coeducational it remained a male only school until 1979.

To accommodate the young women who were refused admission to Haverford, a group of Quakers established Bryn Mawr College within a few miles of the all-male school. The faculty at Bryn Mawr soon came to regard their own school as superior to Haverford and, as a result, the relationship between the two schools remained strained until the mid-twentieth century. Other Quaker colleges were soon established: Earlham College (Indiana, 1859), the first Quaker college to accept both men and women, Swarthmore (Pennsylvania, 1869), Wilminton College (Ohio, 1870), William Penn College (Iowa, 1873), George Fox College (Oregon, 1885), Whittier College (Californian, 1891) Friends University (Kansas, 1898)

The central tenet of the Quakers is the belief that the Inner Light is present in every person. It is important to understand just how revolutionary this belief was. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" he did not mean that all persons are created equal. Rather he meant that all white male property owners are created equal. Even Jefferson's qualified statement, however, was considered dangerously revolutionary because it meant that the ordinary American farmer was equal to the king of England. A corollary to the Quaker belief that the Inner Light is present in every person is that all people are equal--male or female, black or white, native American indian or European white settler. The status of women is discussed in some of George Fox's earliest letters:

The Lamb of God, the Son of God, is but one in all His males and females, sons and daughters, and they all are one in Christ, and Christ one in them all.

There can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither bond nor free; there can be no male and female; for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus.⁴⁵

Perhaps it was the Quaker rejection of the centrality of dogma, creeds, and doctrines that led them to abandon, as well, the traditional anti-woman ideology embedded in the culture--in our own culture and in some of our own churches even today. Critics of women in the ministry point to Paul's injunction against women speaking in church:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (I Timothy 2:11-14)

In the face of continuing criticism Fox wrote another paper: Concerning Sons and Daughters, and Prophetesses speaking and Prophesying in the Law and the Gospel, in which he argued that Paul's injunction against women speaking only applied to particular women--who had not yet been reborn in Christ--in a particular church.

Although Fox had been preaching an active role for women before 1647, well before he met Margaret Fell in 1652, the role of Fell in promoting women's participation within the Quaker movement cannot be overly emphasized. At first, business meetings consisted of men only but as early as 1656 two weekly women's meetings, to aid the poor, had been instituted in London. Margaret Fell and her daughters were instrumen-tal in establishing a solid role for women by setting up the structures of the women's business meetings. Between 1675 and 1680 Margaret Fell sent out letters to all the Quaker communities instructing them on the establishment of women's meetings and justifying an active role for women in the Society of Friends:

And though wee be looked upon as the weaker vessels, yet strong and powerful is God, whose strength is made perfect in weakness, he can make us good and bold, and valiant Souldiers of Jesus Christ.⁴⁷

...the women of every of every [sic] monthly meeting, where the mens monthly meetings is [sic] established, let the women likewise of every monthly meeting, meet together to wait upon the lord, and to hearken what the lord will say unto them, and to know his mind, and will, and be ready to obey, and answer him in every motion of his eternal spirit and power.⁴⁸

To further these ends women's meetings were in constant contact with one another through the exchange letters and ministerial visits. A woman minister from Rhode Island visiting Philadelphia would likely inspire a woman minister from Philadelphia to visit Rhode Island. Nor were these visits limited to the Mid-Atlantic colonies. Women ministers, like their male counterparts, traveled back and forth to the Caribbean, where there was a sizeable Quaker community, to the American frontier, to England and to the American towns up and down the coast, knitting all of them together into a unified Quaker community.

Note the references to women in these minutes, e.g., on page 14 where it is recorded that Unity Stanley and Rachel Warrington are "proposed to the station of an Elder". The minutes do not read Mrs. Thomas Stanley and Mrs. Abraham Warrington are proposed to the station of Elder. Women are referred to by their own names not through the names of their husband. Women stand on their own as equals among other Quakers.⁴⁹

It is frequently noted that modern feminism has its roots in Quakerism. Women such as Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony are just two of many early nineteenth century Quaker women who were instrumental in forming the radical anti-slavery movement and the women's rights movement. Of the five women who planned the first women's rights convention in America held at Seneca Falls, New York in the summer of 1848, four were Quakers

Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote:

Thus came Lucretia Mott to me, at a period in my young days when all life's problems seemed inextricably tangled; ...I often longed to meet some woman who had sufficient confidence in herself to have and hold an opinion in the face of opposition, a woman who understood the deep significance of life to whom I could talk freely; my longings were answered at last.⁵⁰

Quakers were expected to live plain, quiet, and simple lives. The rules governing how Friends should live were codified in the book of discipline which set the standards for a variety of Quaker concerns: the height of tombstones, the width of the brims on hats, the width of one's collars, the color and material of one's coats. It was the role of overseers to watch for any violations, report them, and visit the offenders and, in a tenderly manner, bring them to see their errors.

The Ohio Book of Discipline calls for the overseers to be "faithful and judicious men and women Friends," but not everyone looked kindly upon them. James Baldwin described them in 1910 as "saintly, self-conceited, bigoted creatures who, in other times and at other places would have been holy inquisitors or perhaps second-rate modern detectives."⁵¹ If a member complained about another member, it was the custom to take the matter to an overseer rather than reporting directly to the meeting. Only if the overseer felt the offending member was not responsive would the issue be referred to the Preparative Meeting for consideration.

It became the custom for Overseers to visit each family at least once a year. . Their interest extended from proper moral behavior to the style of furnishings in the house. When the first sewing machines came out the prudent family would have placed it out of view of visiting overseers. Offenses were gently, tenderly and lovingly dwelt with. Patience was practiced. Only after much labor would a member who refused to change or repent be dropped or disowned from membership in the meeting.

Ministers, elders, and overseers were chosen by Monthly Meetings upon the recommendation of the Preparative Meetings. Among the most weighty men and women leaders of the meeting were the ministers and elders who would sit at the front of the meeting in the gallery for ministers and elders. The chief difference between an elder and a minister is that the ministers would have demonstrated an ability to speak or preach well at meetings for worship. Elders were appointed by the monthly meeting, ministers were simply recognized by the monthly meeting.

Quakers worshiped in silence waiting upon the Lord--waiting for the Lord to speak to them. Quaker ministry rests on a simple premise: if the Lord moves a member to deliver a message to the meeting then it is the duty of that member to rise, deliver the message, and then sit down in silence when it has been delivered. The message might be on any topic as long as it was viewed within a religious frame of reference. Messages were frequently vague--more suggestive than logically precise and full of symbolic references capable of multiple interpretations.

No matter the content of the message, care was to be exercised by the member to recognize when the urge to speak was coming from God and not from one's own self, i.e., from one's own knowledge, from one's own concerns, and from one's own lack of inhibition to speak. To break the silence was a very serious matter and during the second half of the 18th century and the early part of the 19th century very few Friends spoke in meeting, although those who did apparently spoke often. The era is known as Quietism and Meetings were known to go for months in silence with no one standing up to speak. Nor was it unusual for a traveling minister to visit a meeting and then utter not a word during the meetings he or she attended. One was not to speak until the Holy Spirit inspired one to speak.

Journals of the era are filled with references to the burden and uneasiness of those members who were moved and felt the duty to speak. Those who were moved to speak recorded that they resisted the urge as well as long as they could until finally they were forced by the will of God to resist no more.

The primary purpose of Quaker sermons was neither to preach in the sense of expounding on the Bible--Quaker minister's would not even bring a Bible with them to meeting since that implied advance preparation of a sermon which is contrary to the main premise of the ministry--nor teach in the sense of instructing the meeting on the history or theology of their faith. The point of a typical message delivered by a Quaker minister would be a simple call to live in the Light of the Lord--to follow the teachings of Christ. Since sermons were not to be prepared ahead of time, they were never noted for their eloquence.

Among the Friends, ministers are recorded and not ordained. The distinction is important. Human beings do not chose who is worthy of being a minister--we can only recognize and record that God has bestowed a gift on a person, a gift that inspires that person to speak the Lord's message. Inspiration, not education, makes the minister. As a result, Quaker ministers were to be found among the uneducated as well as the educated, men as well as women, young as well as old.

Given this view of the nature of the ministry, it was often the case that the meeting listened to less than inspiring messages from speakers who, while sincere in their efforts, never-the-less struggled to discover and deliver God's message. In the orthodox churches, a prepared sermon, intellectually sound and eloquently delivered is spiritually dead unless it springs from the well of God. The problem for Friends was to ensure that the messages delivered by appointed ministers were springing from God and did not have their source in the mind of the minister delivering it.

A minute of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting held in 1714 marks the beginning of the special role that elders were to play:

This meeting agrees that each Monthly Meeting where meetings of ministers are or may be held, shall appoint two or more Friends to sit with the ministers in their meetings: taking care that the Friends chosen be prudent, solid Friends.⁵²

Ministers were free to say virtually anything they pleased to say during a meeting. To make so much freedom workable--to limit it--was the point of "eldering" The elders offered not only criticism to those who needed it but encouragement to those who were timid and tended to hold back. A minute of the 1723 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting instructed the elders to cultivate the ministry. Being older and more ex-perienced, the elders were to guide the young by encouraging them to study the Scriptures and reminding them to "keep to true patience, and submission to the will of God" and not to "strive to extend their declarations further than they find the life and power of God to bear them up."⁵³

Quakers were known as a peculiar people whose dress and language set them apart from the rest of the world. The men wore their wide-brimmed beaver hats, the women wore their plain bonnets and they spoke of 'thee' and of 'thine'. Keeping their minds on things of God, they avoided light and useless talk, profanity and vain diversions such as music, dancing and fictional literature. This was the way of the Quakers until the late 1820's when the world and life of the Quakers began to change.

The Quakers never developed a systematic theology and no authoritative text of Quaker beliefs was ever produced. Ultimately this led to controversy and to schism. As the 19th century developed, Christian orthodoxies concerning the nature of the Bible, original sin, atonement and the nature of Christ began to creep into various quarters of Quakerism threatening some of the traditional Quaker views. In the 1820's Elias Hicks a Long Island, New York farmer-minister traveled throughout America preaching against change and defending what he thought were the traditional Quaker principles. But many of these traditional Quaker principles were now seen as heresies by those who had already accepted orthodox evangelical doctrine.⁵⁴

Hicks preached that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that all people are the Sons of God and that the Bible, while it is a valuable source of Divine revelation, was inferior to the revelation which is given to every person in the form of the Inner Light. Such thoughts, to those beginning to accept orthodox Christianity, were alarming. Hick's ministry forced the issue and the result was that Quaker unity was shattered when in 1827 the followers of Hicks realizing that they would be in the minority at the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting set up what they claimed to be the true Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. The New York Yearly Meeting recognized the Hicksite Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia as the true meeting and tried to force out those who opposed them.

Around the nation the controversy sparked division. In Ohio a near riot ensued at the Yearly Meeting at Mount Pleasant. The commotion was so great that it was thought that the building was collapsing and in the panic to escape the clerk of meeting suffered a broken rib. The separation, as it was called, fractured families as it fractured Quakerism into a smaller group of Hicksites and the larger body of Orthodox. Each group moved to disown the members of the other with each claiming they were the true Quakers.

In the following decades the Orthodox majority itself split into two factions: the Gurneyites, after Joseph John Gurney a wealthy English banker-minister who traveled and preached throughout America from 1837-1840, and the Wilburites, after John Wilbur a New England school teacher-small farmer-minister. The Gurneyites put more emphasis on letter of the scripture while the more traditional Wilburites continued to regard the writings of the early Quakers as authoritative and binding. The result was another nationwide bout of wrangling and quarreling which was especially virulent in Indiana and Ohio where each side viewed the other as heretics who were to be disowned and whose meetings were to be dissolved.

The inevitability of change is a principle that seems to govern the world. So it was that the Quaker world of our ancestors began to disappear in the middle of the 19th century. What caused the Quakers to lose their peculiar and unique way of life and faith was a mixture of internal strife, theological reform as well as outside sociological and economic influences. By 1900 most Friends had lost those traits that set them apart from the larger world. They gave up their traditional mode of dress and their plain language and began to wear brighter colors and to enjoy music both as a form of worship and as entertainment. In short, most Quakers evolved from being a part of a unique and peculiar religious sect to being a part of just another denomination among others that together constitute orthodox Christianity.