Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

truths, to maintain which Friends are bound together, he found reason to believe that another work was equally if not more necessary, namely, to recover among Friends themselves the purity of their original testimony. His object was to unite such Friends as thought and felt with him in a closer bond of sympathy, and to furnish a common expression for their convictions.

In April, 1860, he addressed a circular letter from Cockermouth to several likeminded Friends, inviting them to meet in conference. There was no immediate result, but on October 17, 1862, the first conference took place in London, and was attended by seventeen persons. For seven years similar conferences were held about every four months in different places up and down the country, the attendance averaging some twenty-five persons. In 1868 Sargent with two others went to America, to visit the little groups of Friends, known as the Smaller Bodies, which had already made a decisive stand for primitive Quakerism as they understood it. On the voyage home, these three Friends were strongly impressed with the duty of separating themselves in like manner from the tendencies of the London Yearly Meeting. The last conference was held on October 10, 1869; and in January, 1870, its place was taken by a general meeting for Friends in England, initiated at Fritchley in Derbyshire, where Sargent and some of his associates resided and kept up regular meetings for worship. This General Meeting has since been held twice a year, usually at Fritch. ley or Belper, and has maintained an official correspondence with kindred bodies in America. Sargent was the clerk of the meeting, and remained its leading spirit until his death on December 27, 1883.

The British Friend for July, 1884, contains a report of the last May Meeting at Fritchley, communicated by a member of the Larger Body. He describes the small meeting-house as well filled, and bear testimony to the excellence of the spirit which prevailed. "Neither in meeting nor out of it, did I hear one word ap proaching a want of Christian love towards those from whose views they differ." The membership of this independent organization is not exclusively composed of seceders from the Larger Body; it comprises also some who have joined themselves to it on becoming Friends from "convincement," a proof of the vitality of this little flock.

But now comes the consideration of the

grounds of the secession, and the ques tion how far the seceders are justified in their contention that modern Quakerism, as exemplified in the spirit and practices of the London Yearly Meeting and bodies in correspondence with it, has forfeited the true character of the original Society of Friends. Some of those who are in sympathy with the seceders hold very strong views on this last point. On 20th May, 1871, Thomas Drewry, of Fleetwood, a member of Preston Monthly Meeting, addressed a written protest to the London Yearly Meeting and to the Charity Commission, in which he maintains that "what is called the Society of Friends" has undergone fundamental changes in faith and doctrine, and is now properly speaking “a body of Separatists," and has consequently no right to retain "Trust Property, which belongs not to it, but belongs to those who adhere to the original faith of the Society of Friends, for whose sole use and benefit the several Trusts were created, by their predecessors in religious profession." * The London Yearly Meeting took no notice of this protest; and the charity commissioners probably regarded it as brutum fulmen, for, though strongly worded, it specifies none of the innovations of which in general terms it complains. Yet to those acquainted with Quaker usages it is a very significant document. The Friends when they express dissent from a position advanced in their meetings, as not being in accordance with Friends' principles, do not argue, do not give their reasons. They simply state how it affects their own feeling. They say: "I do not feel comfortable about this; I do not feel easy in my mind under it." A condition of things which produces so decided a discomfort and uneasiness in the mind of any recog nized member as is indicated by Thomas Drewry's protest, is a serious matter among Friends. Their constitution knows nothing of the rule of majorities; they never take a vote; the harmony of sentiment is everything with them; if a mem ber feels and says “You are out of accord with your true principles," and if he is not at once lopped off as a false accuser, the rise of the feeling which he expresses is of itself, from the Quaker standpoint, sufficiently condemnatory of the existing position of the body.

We cite Drewry's protest because it is an English document, but it will be ob

See this protest in W. Hodgson's The Society of Friends in the Nineteenth Century, 1876, vol. ii., pp. 394-7.

66

served that we quote it from an American | meekly dwelt in the cold shade of popular source, and to America we must look for neglect are gratified to accept. Yet one the most numerous and the clearest ex- would think it must be apparent to all but pressions of revolt from the modern drift the blind, that not as Quakers is their of the Quaker body.t John Wilbur's co-operation welcomed by the outside "Journal" (1859) is a storehouse of valu- sects; but they are acknowledged as brethable testimony on the subject; and the ren on the precise ground that what is two remarkable volumes of recent denom- essentially distinctive of Quakerism they inational history published in 1875 and have practically abandoned. Their incon1876 by William Hodgson, of Philadel- sistency is praiseworthy in the eyes of phia, lay the whole case very fairly before the successors of their ancient opponents; the impartial reader. These publications and just because they are inconstant to have been ignored by the official repre- the teachings of their founders, they are sentatives of the Society of Friends in admitted to fellowship. In the height of this country; yet they constitute a start- the Beacon controversy, that shrewd and ling indictment of the modes of thought strong Evangelical thinker, Dr. Wardlaw, which now find shelter beneath the re- addressed to Friends some remarkable trimmed mantle of Quakerism. In En- congratulations on an evident revolution gland we have Daniel Pickard's "Expos- in their sentiments. "I have given," he tulation" (1864), and a not inconsiderable says, "in copious extracts, the views of number of tracts and pamphlets, uttering J. J. Gurney on the doctrine of justificawarning notes in a similar spirit; but the tion. They are clear, simple, and Scripmain body goes on its way unheeding tural. But are they Quakerism?" He them. details, with the skill of a practised theologian, the discrepancies on this head between Gurney and Barclay; and he adds, "And, indeed, on this and on vari ous other points, it cannot fail to strike. the most superficial reader, what a perfect contrast there is between the writings of Mr. Gurney and those of the early Friends."*

This apathy under remonstrance, this quiet determination neither to cope with the damaging criticisms directed against them nor to retrace their course, which is characteristic of the existing leaders of Quaker opinion, is one of the great difficulties in the way of those who are anxious to fulfil their part in reasserting the ancient principles of the body. They may say what they like; it excites no controversy, and produces no movement. Quakerism has hung up its broad brim and turned down its collar, the writings of its founders lie dusty on its shelves, it speaks a new language and adopts unwonted ways, and to the call of the old prophetic voices, which charmed its younger ears and roused its fresher heart, it is mute.

Another serious difficulty experienced by Friends of the old stamp is that the very things which they feel it their duty to oppose and denounce, as fatal to the real spirit of Quakerism, are contributing to a certain accession of outside interest and favor extended to the denomination by other bodies of Christians. No doubt the people called Evangelicals hail with increasing satisfaction the new departures of the people called Quakers. They regard them as moving in the right direction, and gladly hold out a fraternizing band, which those who have so long

It was published as an advertisement in the British Friend (a Glasgow monthly) for September, 1871.

↑ See Modern Quakerism Examined, and Contrasted with that of the Ancient Type, 1876, by Walter Edgerton, of Indianapolis.

A third and perhaps the most formida ble difficulty with which those jealous for the ancient principles of Friends have to contend is the unquestionable fact that the introduction of the new régime has been followed by symptoms of denominational prosperity and success. The chronic leakage from Friends' families to the membership of other bodies has been appreciably checked. While not increasing, or even holding its ground relatively to the population, the Society of Friends has been able to stem the process of further decline. Much new activity prevails within its borders. Though not activity of a kind which approves itself to those who prize the spirit of the ancient testimony, it is evidence which cannot be gain. said of reviving zeal, stirring life, and earnest religious occupation. Lovers of the Society's foundation truths shake their heads, and think and say that it is all wrong, that it is going on a false tack, that it is encouraging the tacit substitution of the world's religion for the Spirit's teaching. Nevertheless, the experiment produces what to the experimenters are sat

Friendly Letters to the Society of Friends, on some of their distinguishing principles. By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D., 1836, p. 367, etc.

[blocks in formation]

isfying results, and so the change goes | ble source of doctrines of faith and rules

on.

of practice. Take away that, directly or Of this change, by his industrious writ- indirectly, and you dig up Quakerism by ings and his great personal influence, the roots. In the "Theses "of his famous Joseph John Gurney (1788-1847) was the "Apologia," the Scottish laird, Robert prime mover. With the exhibition of Barclay, as is well known, formulated the Gurneyism, in its principles and results, teaching of Fox in such a way as expressly Wilbur's "Journal" and Hodgson's his to confront the positions of the authoritatory are largely occupied. The names of tive document of Scottish religion, the J. J. Gurney and Elias Hicks are the dan- Westminster Confession of Faith. The ger signals on either hand of the true Confession states (i. 10) that "the suFriends' course. Both are rationalists, in preme Judge by which all controversies of the sense in which Robert Barclay speaks religion are to be determined, and all of the "pretended rational" Socinians of decrees of councils, opinions of ancient his day; and their followers divide be- writers, doctrines of men, and private spir. tween them the characteristics which he its, are to be examined, and in whose sencondemns. One set, the Gurney party, are tence we are to rest, can be no other than "all for literal Scriptures;" the other, the the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." Hicksian schismatists, are for "natural" Nay," says Barclay - echoing in his light." Describing them equally as "fun- scholastic style the study of uncouth utterdamental departures from Quakerism,' ances of the midland seer "other there Hodgson is, if anything, somewhat more can be, other there is." The Voice that lenient in his handling of Hicksism than speaks mediately in Scripture speaks imof Gurneyisin, though he has not an atom mediately in the soul of man. The Scrip of sympathy with the doctrinal point of tures of truth "are only a declaration of view of either. Nor is this unnatural. the fountain, and not the fountain itself, An outsider, especially one who had not therefore they are not to be esteemed the reached a clear apprehension of the dif- principal ground of all truth and knowlference between the light of Christ with edge, nor yet the adequate primary rule in, and the innate light of nature and of faith and manners.' "They are and conscience, would be inclined to say that may be esteemed a secondary rule, subor. Gurneyism is false to the Quaker method, dinate to the Spirit." "By the inward while Hicksism employs it to the produc- testimony of the Spirit we do alone truly tion of results foreign to Quaker habits know them." "The Spirit is the first and of thought; Gurneyism is wrong root and principal leader."* branch, Hicksism grafts wild olives on the original stem.

"

It is customary with modern Quakers to decry Barclay, partly on the ground of We have nothing to do here with Hicks- the scholastic form in which he cast his ism. It has never been a power in this propositions and his elaborate logical decountry. The Barnard schism, which ductions from them. True it is that he weakened the Society in Ireland at the captivates the mind rather than entrances beginning of this century, is chiefly re- the heart; we do not always experience markable for having been the occasion in his pages the same rare sense of spir which gave the Rathbones of Liverpool itual refreshment, as from the gushing to the Unitarian body. It left no indepen- streams of a living fountain, which condent witness, and when Hannah Barnard died, in 1828, she had already survived the memory of the intended separation. Other movements of similar character in more recent years have possessed no inherent vitality, and have rapidly withered away. But Gurneyism is in full swing; modern Quakerism is Gurneyism.

*

The fundamental postulate of pure original Quakerism is the supremacy of the Spirit, speaking within, as the only infalli

*The best account and defence of Hicksism (and cognate movements up to 1828), from the pen of one of its more Evangelical representatives, is to be found in Samuel M. Janney's History of the Religious Society of Friends, from its Rise to the year 1828, 4 vols., 1859-67.

stitutes the abiding charm of Fox's "Letters" or the tracts of Nayler and Deusbery. But in the statement of the fundamental thing in Quakerism he does but put into transparent and solid sen. tences, crystal clear, the unalloyed substance of the daily teaching of his great predecessors and coadjutors. Rejecting Barclay, Friends must necessarily reject along with him those in whose spirit he speaks; and this they do. With the exception of Fox, whose name is surrounded with a sentimental reverence which few Quakers are hardy enough to disturb,t

Barclay's Apology; Theses Theol. prop. 3.

t Yet see "George Fox, his Character, Doctrine, and Work;" an Essay by a member of the Society of

there is not one of the founders of the | obtain a saving knowledge of God, is a Society whose most express statements being taught in the school of Christ, are not repudiated by the present mem- through obedience to the 'inspeaking bers.

It is not a case of development, but of laying a new foundation; perhaps it would be better to say it is a desertion of the Quaker foundation for that of the so-called Evangelical sects. The doctrine of the Spirit, in vogue with the majority of Friends at the present day, reaches no higher than the level attained, as we have seen, in the Westminster Confession. The independent testimony of the Spirit, as supreme Judge of the meaning of Scripture and first-hand Expositor of the mind of God, is becoming, or has become, an extinct factor in Quaker theology. Those who were once pre-eminent for their allegiance to the direct word of the Spirit have succumbed to a bibliolatry, all the more helpless as it is tempered by no internal school of biblical criticism. It is the ancient Quaker doctrine of inspiration, that the spiritual writings of their own founders proceed from the same fountain as the teachings of Holy Writ, and are inspired in the same way; but that for the true understanding and profitable reading of either, the Spirit, the only lawful judge and interpreter, is necessary. The modern doctrine has lost the width of the one position, and missed the depth of the other, and is indistinguishable from crude servility to the letter that killeth. When the London Yearly Meeting put forward in its general epistle of 1836 the statements that the sacred Scripture is "the only divinely authorized record of the doctrines of true religion," "the ap pointed means of making known to us the blessed truths of Christianity," "the only divinely authorized record of the doctrines which we are bound as Christians to believe, and of the moral principles which are to regulate our actions," the raison d'être of the Society was gone. William Southall, of Leominster, was warranted in declaring that this language "went to the subversion of the very foundation of Quakerism."* For, as Hodgson truly says, the principle always promulgated in the writings of early Friends is "that the appointed means' for the soul of man to

Friends [Edward Ash, M D.], 1873. In this able pamphlet George Fox's doctrine of the Inward Light in all men is explicitly denied; and it is maintained that there has been no such thing as immediate revelation since the days of the Apostles. The reply by George Pitt, "Immediate Revelation True, and George Fox not Mistaken," 1873, is a fine piece of genuine Quaker theology.

Hodgson, i. 305–7.

Word,' and faith in the revelations of his Holy Spirit immediately in the heart."

From this shifting of the base, every other doctrinal change has proceeded. Wardlaw, with a true instinct, seizes upon the altered aspect of the doctrine of justification, as affording the most conspicuous proof that what is now held and taught among Quakers is not Quakerism; and Wilbur, in three brief sentences which put Gurneyism into a nutshell, concentrates his opposition upon this particular point.* The true friend is saved by the work of Christ within, with which he must co-operate in the persistent self-abnega. tion of faith and obedience. But the modern Quaker, like the ordinary Evangelical, throws himself upon the work of Christ without, to which he attaches himself by the act of credence, and which justifies him simpliciter, without respect to obedience.

Here we have the atonement by a work done for us, in place of the atonement of a work wrought in us. "Instead of submitting, therefore, to die with Christ, and to abide the painful struggle of yielding up the will and wisdom of the flesh, these," says John Wilbur, "have moulded and fashioned to themselves a substitute, by professedly extolling and claiming the faith of Christ's incarnate sufferings and propitiatory sacrifice upon the cross without the gates of Jerusalem, as the whole covenant of salvation, and by him thus accomplished without them." t

Hence, on the one hand, there is little trace in modern Quakerism of the broad doctrine of the Light of the World, of Christ as the spiritual illuminator who visits every soul in every age, in every clime, in every religion and non-religion, and abides with those who will receive him and obey him, quite independently of the intervention of historical knowledge, or of a written word of truth. To the spiritual grandeur and the redeeming effi cacy of this old conception the modern Quaker is strangely dull. He cannot trust himself to teach his ancient principles in the full sweep of their original power.

And, on the other hand, the high doctrine of Christian perfection, on which Barclay is so nobly strong, is faintly heard if at all, scarce believed in, never preached with the unction and vigor of vital experi

Wilbur's Journal, p. 286. ↑ Wilbur's Journal, p. 273.

ence, among present-day Friends. Mr. This, at any rate, is the opinion of some

Stopford Brooke's powerful plea for the possibility of sinlessness as a practical aim of living men,* which recently startled the decorous believers in "one God and twenty shillings to the pound," takes a position which would flutter if not horrify the elect of modern Quakerism. They betray no sign of yielding an inward response to the doctrine, at once humble and bold, of Barclay's eighth proposition, in the exposition of which he maintains that "there may be a state attainable in this life, in which to do righteousness may become so natural to regenerate souls, that in the stability of it they cannot sin.

Or is Christ unwilling to have his servants thoroughly pure?" To have reached this stage, Barclay makes no personal pretension, but the presence of its ideal is a perpetual inspiration to him. And when even the hope of it has vanished, the glory of the Christian consummation is undreamed of. Among the successors of Fox and Barclay, salvation is reduced to a minimum, and not only the Quaker breadth but the Quaker height is shrunk away.

Altered views lead to altered methods. And the adoption of the new methods has produced what is called a revival. But it is not a resurrection of the original Quakerism, either in form or in spirit. The revival is the astonishing spectacle of the introduction of nearly everything which the first leaders of Quakerism distrusted, rejected, denounced, and abhorred. Set sermons, constructed prayers, religious services prearranged as to time, mode, and circumstance, hymns sung to order, Scriptures read by measure, a limping congregationalism intruding on the trustful rest which waited patiently for the Spirit, a deliberate effort of missionary endeavor doing duty for the rush of the old freedom when the power of the truth came upon all-this is the new picture, this is what Quaker periodicals put on record, sometimes with misgiving, often with satisfaction. Let it be granted that these are all very excellent things in their own way. This, however, is not the way in which we expect to see the people called Friends walking. It is not the way of their birth, their strength, or their testimony. It may be thought a better way; but the plain English of this is, that the quondam Quakers have hit upon something which they conceive to be better than Quakerism.

among their own members. The innovations do not go on without wavering voices. Among the most remarkable for their outspokenness, and their thorough saturation with the old, uncompromising spirit of the Quaker protest, are the incandescent tracts of W. B. S. [Sissison] of Plumstead. He does not directly attack the Society or its members, but there is no mistaking who are intended to come in for a share of the denunciations heaped upon so-called revivalists in general, on those who "preach on heavenly things from a natural ground only," on "blind guides and lying, chattering prophets, with your horn-blowers of the press," on “the fleshly arts of continual singing, mumbling, and 'praying,' to make up for this absence of the manifest presence of the blessed and glorious God." We have quoted only some of his mildest words; the direction in which they point is evident. What is to be said on the other side?

The inheritor of a great name, himself a man of rare conscientiousness and selfdevotion, who consecrated his studies to a radical investigation of the sources of the Quaker movement,* and gave his soul to Gospel labors, Robert Barclay, of Reigate (1833-1876), has left behind him a volume of sermons, written for delivery in the mission meetings of Friends. His biographer explains his position as that of one holding with Friends, "that God does enable his ministers effectually to preach His Gospel without any previous meditation or preparation," and also as holding "with the majority of Christians, that God does equally bless the word preached when this blessing has been asked on the diligent study of the Scriptures" (p. viii).‡ This is, in effect, to place the ministry of the Spirit on precisely the same level as the ministry of the letter; and, whatever else may be said about it, the position is incompatible with the first principles of early Friends. Barclay's sermons were doubtless very effective in delivery, and they are markedly superior to many utter

The historical acumen, combined with elaborate research, displayed in Barclay's “Inner Life," etc., But how little it is accepted by Friends of the primitive must excite the admiration of every competent reader. type as justly appreciating the significance of the Quaker movement, may be seen in an able examen of the Philadelphia. work, published, in 1878, by Charles Evans, M.D., of

↑ "Sermons" by Robert Barclay, author of the "Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth," with a brief memoir. Edited by his widow,

* What Think ye of Christ? Unitarian Association 1878. Sermon, 1884.

The italics are ours.

« VorigeDoorgaan »