Very early in the history of the Society, the distinguishing views of Friends on the Sacraments were clearly enunciated. In 1656, Fox sent out a manifesto clearly stating his views, especially on the Lord's Supper. He thought the outward rites were simply adaptations of Jewish customs, temporary condescensions to the weakness of the converts from Judaism until the destruction of Jerusalem, and even during that period, optional, not obligatory. If the early Christians kept up the old custom of sipping the wine and breaking the bread, then they must do it in remembrance of Christ's death, and not of the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. But he believed the outward rite Jewish in its style, and foreign to the pure spirituality of Christianity. So also with regard to Baptism.[4]
[4] The other leading "testimonies" of Friends were against all war, and against oaths, even in a court of justice.
There were two kinds of service which the devoted leader rendered to Christian truth--he preached it with zeal and unction, and he suffered for its sake. His sufferings were unquestionably often the result of his own unwisdom. Many Friends themselves now lament his want of a conciliatory spirit. He could not put himself in the place of others, so as to see how they viewed himself, his conduct and his claims. Thus he was constantly led to impute dishonest and impure motives to others if they did not agree with him. All but his own unpaid ministers were "priests" and "hirelings" and so on. But nothing can justify the treatment he received, often through the connivance, sometimes from the instigation, of clergymen and magistrates. Whitefield's hootings and peltings were nothing, in comparison with Fox's stonings, and brutal beatings, and horrible imprisonments. As Marsden says, "He rebuked sin with the authority of a prophet, and he met with a prophet's reward."
We must remember in extenuation of his admitted faults that he aimed to be a reformer, appealing afresh to first principles in conduct, and seeking to arouse others to feel their force. He purposely set himself against mere conventionalism, especially when it fostered pride or cloaked some rottenness in society. When persecuted, he never resorted to flattery or depended on wheedling, but appealed to conscience and to the humane or Christian feelings which ought to have been in the breast of the persecutor.