When the early Quakers, dissatisfied with the formal worship of the
existing protestant church, separated themselves and formed a society of
their own, they were reproached by some with denying the authenticity of
the sacred writings, and by others with setting up their own
inspirations in opposition to them; and they seem at an early period to
have discovered the necessity of recording their belief on this subject,
not only to refute the calumnies circulated by their opponents, but as a
guide to the inexperienced of their own sect. For, such was the ferment
of men's minds at that moment, and the violence of the change from the
dull uniformity of formal belief, to all the extravagancies of
unrestrained enthusiasm, that it appeared like an epidemic affecting all
descriptions of people; and their imaginations became so exalted, that
every fancy was mistaken for a revelation, and every preacher, however
wild his doctrines, had his followers. Nor did their own members wholly
escape the infection; for with all their care, there were those among
them who indulged in extravagancies, to the great grief of their more
sober friends.
It fell to the lot of Robert Barclay to record the doctrines of the
early Quakers, and none of them was better fitted for the task; for he
was learned and pious, clear in his perceptions and logical in his
arrangement, and well able to give his reasons for his faith. He knew
that superstition and fanaticism were the Scylla and Charybdis of
religion, and how much care was necessary to prevent us, while avoiding
the one, from being swept into the whirlpool of the other. He was
surrounded by instances of the unhappy effects of that exaltation of
mind, which induced individuals to believe they had arrived at such an
unerring state of spiritual knowledge, that the recorded opinions and
advice of their pious predecessors, and even the scriptures, (being only
in the letter,) were to them neither authority nor a guide; and that
they had derived the fulness of knowledge from the fountain itself. That
to them reason itself had ceased to be of use, since they were under the
constant influence of a clear and distinct revelation, as stable and
certain as any of the instincts of our nature: and such was the fever of
the brain, that when their prophecies were contradicted by the event, it
did not impair their confidence in their own inspirations, _because it
was the Lord who chose to deceive them, and they were deceived_.
He had not adopted the fantastical idea that every passage of scripture
has a mystical meaning; but declares them to be the revelations of the
spirit of God to the saints, and that they contain a faithful historical
account of the actings of God's people in various ages; a prophetical
account of several things, whereof some have passed, and some to come;
and a full and ample account of all the chief principles of the doctrine
of Christ. That they are profitable for correction and instruction in
righteousness, and that _divine inward revelations can never contradict
the outward testimony of the scriptures, or sound reason_.
Here all is plain and consistent. No man of sound mind can believe that
the revelations of infinite wisdom are ever contradictory; and as the
evidence of the divine origin of the scriptures is such as no individual
can produce, he was warranted in his conclusion, that all pretensions to
the spirit in contradiction to them, are delusions of the devil. And
indeed no man of observation can cast his eyes round him, and
contemplate the various illusions into which the human mind is seduced
on religious subjects, without perceiving the absolute necessity of a
standard or rule by which its wanderings may be checked and its
aberrations corrected, and we find Locke concurring with Barclay, in
stating the scripture revelations and right reason, as the true
standards by which our faith is to be tried.
You also seem to perceive the necessity of some check, but in the very
spirit which induces that necessity, your own standard is as visionary,
and as fruitful a source of evil, as the propensity it is intended to
correct; for yours is not that reason which proceeds from premises to
consequences, but an actual illusion, which has persuaded you that there
is a reason which can see all things immediately and by intuition;[43]
and your bible, a book written in cypher,[44] the key of which is one of
the most vigorous plants of the wilderness of fanaticism. Hence it
follows, that your standard, so far from being a true test or corrector
of your opinions, must always, when used, confirm you in error; for it
is a magnifying mirror, reflecting the exaggerated image of the delusion
it is intended to control.
Footnote 43:
Sermons, page 207.
Footnote 44:
Sermons, page 313.
There is not a more prolific source of error, than assuming principles
without a careful examination of their correctness, and drawing
conclusions from them; and even when the principle is correct, and the
inference fairly deducible, men in the ardour of their zeal, often push
it to an extreme far beyond its just limits.
It is not difficult to conceive, that a man whose mind is convinced by
internal evidence of the truth of the christian religion, and who, under
an awful impression of its incalculable importance, opens the sacred
volume, finds more instruction and comfort in it, than he who only reads
it as history, or from an indistinct sense of duty; because he has a
greater degree of inward acquaintance with the same spirit and work in
the heart. But this simple exposition is too plain to satisfy the lofty
imaginations of the high professors of the present day: because the
lukewarm and indifferent do not receive the same instruction and profit
from the scriptures as the more serious and pious, the perusal can
afford them no benefit; and even to the sincere inquirer it is a sealed
book, until its contents are previously communicated by an especial
revelation.[45]
Footnote 45:
Sermons, page 313.
This is the doctrine you have preached, and yet your own practice proves
that you have no reliance on it; and that it was only one of those
inconsiderate excursions, in which the orator, when not under the strict
control of duty or reason, too often indulges; for when, in your cooler
moments, you wished to instruct your mind on the subject of our
Saviour's birth, you sought it, not only by reading the scriptures, but
also by consulting the traditions of the christian church, as recorded
by one of its historians.[46]
Footnote 46:
Letter to Thomas Willis.
These are the inconsistencies to which extravagance always leads; for
when the mind, tired of its aerial flight, revisits the earth, and is
again employed in its proper duties, it finds that practical objects can
only be attained by practicable means.
Exaggeration in public speaking is always blameable, and in the preacher
particularly objectionable: it is generally resorted to for the purpose
of increasing the impression, but seldom produces that effect; and it is
upon religious subjects, above all others, that amplification should be
avoided, and that pure and simple style adopted which admits of no
adventitious ornaments.
You, however, pursue a different course, and by the extravagance of your
epithets, not only defeat your own views, but sometimes occasion the
subject itself to be considered, if not with ridicule, at least with but
little seriousness. Thus in speaking of the propriety of plainness in
apparel, instead of giving the simple and obvious reason why the Society
of Friends adopted it, you consider it as a vital principle of religion;
and you mistake, (to use your own favourite expression,) the effect for
the cause, when you exclaim that there is religion in clothing, and
exaggerate beyond all bounds, when you declare, that all the sin in the
world is created by men's following foolish fashions: and when you
seriously assure us that high-crowned hats were never devised in the
wisdom of God, the obvious inference that low-crowned hats were, is so
ludicrous, that we should be tempted to laugh, were not all merriment on
a subject in which that sacred name is introduced, (however improperly,)
incongruous, if not profane.[47]
Footnote 47:
Sermons, page 133.
Again, in speaking of the necessity of a living faith in God, you
exclaim that, faith in creeds and the traditions of your fathers, is
worse than nothing; that we had better have no faith at all, for it is
no better than the faith of devils; and in confirmation of this rash
assertion, you quote a passage of scripture which has not the most
remote application to the subject.[48]
Footnote 48:
Sermons, page 293.
To this, no rational christian can ever assent: he believes in the
necessity of spiritual worship, and that all ought to feel the power of
religion in their own souls: but that the faith which is derived from
the lessons of a pious parent, although it may not be accompanied with
that degree of spiritual knowledge which it ought to be our endeavour to
attain, is no better than the faith of devils, no man in his sober
senses can believe.
You would no doubt think me very daring were I to say that your own
faith is as bad as the faith of devils; and yet, admitting the truth of
your own assertion, I can prove it by testimony, which, to you at least,
ought to be conclusive. For in your letter to Thomas Willis, before
alluded to, you declare your belief in the Scripture account of our
Saviour's birth from your _reliance_ on _tradition_, although it is
contrary to your judgment. If then that faith which a child admits and
believes to be true from a firm reliance on the wisdom and experience of
a pious father, is as bad as the faith of devils; how are we to describe
the faith of that man who gives to tradition such supreme control, as to
make a reliance on it a point of duty, although a belief in it, is
contrary to his deliberate judgment.
This is one of the instances of the wanderings of your imagination, and
the strange inconsistencies into which your metaphysical divinity leads
you: and I cite it as a proof of the pernicious consequences of
substituting mystical reveries in the place of the simple religion
taught by Jesus Christ; and not to censure your reliance on the faith of
your predecessors: for I truly believe that did you, like many of them,
endeavour to preserve your mind in that meek and lowly state recommended
by His example and precepts, all propensity to curious speculation on
hidden things would be suppressed, and when called to testify to your
faith, you would be ready "always to give an answer to every man that
asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with _meekness and
fear_."
In alluding to the reasons which prevent many Friends from taking a part
in the governments of the earth, instead of ascribing them to that
peaceable principle which does not permit them to be agents in any
measures connected with war, you denounce the governments of this world
as standing _eternally_ in opposition to the government of the God of
heaven; and this because all laws made in the wisdom of man are
foolishness with God: yet you acknowledge them to be necessary, although
you say it is no reason why the law of the Almighty should not prevail,
which would take away the necessity of all other laws.[49]
Footnote 49:
Sermons, p. 198.
This reasoning is as confused, as the conclusion to which it leads is
extraordinary. How laws in opposition to the will of the Almighty can be
necessary, when there is no reason why his law should not prevail, you
have not explained; and if human governments are in eternal opposition
to the government of God, and yet are necessary, then is there not only
a necessity for man's being in eternal opposition to God's will; but the
necessity is a justification of it, and your argument, if sound, affords
a complete vindication of the persons engaged in the administration of
those governments.
We need not be told that if all men were under the strict influence of
virtue and religion, most of the existing laws would be unnecessary,
because they are enacted in consequence of the vices and frailties of
man; but that such a state of things will ever exist on earth, in which
all regulations and covenants of society may with safety and convenience
be abolished, is an idea too extravagant to require refutation. Nor can
it be believed that all laws made by the wisdom of man, are foolishness
with God, in the sense in which you understand it. The Creator in his
wisdom seems to have ordained that the improvement of man in this state
of being should be progressive. The first step is associating in
societies, and they necessarily require rules for their government; and
as they multiply, new circumstances are continually arising, which
require additional regulations. And herein that reason with which man
alone, of all created beings, has been favoured, is properly applied:
for this it was given to him, and its application to the purposes for
which it was originally intended, can never be foolishness in the sight
of the Almighty. The scriptures indeed tell us that the wisdom of this
world is foolishness with God; but it is used in reference to our
religious duties; to teach us the vanity of building up systems for
ourselves, and pretending to explain the hidden things of Omnipotence;
and to warn us that "as it is the gospel that has brought life and
immortality to light," so "other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ."[50]
Footnote 50:
Corinthians, Chap. 3d.