The Time of Unsettlement.
Between the trouble related in the last chapter and the culmination
of the disturbance in the Society of Friends, in 1827-1828, there was
an interval of four or five years. This period was by no means one of
quiet. On the other hand it was one of confusion, in the midst of which
the forces were at work, and the plans perfected which led up logically
to the end.
It will be remembered that the last communication of the Philadelphia
elders sent to Elias Hicks was dated First month 4, 1823. They had
manifestly failed to silence the preacher from Jericho, or to greatly
alarm him with their charges of heresy. Just eleven days after the
epistle in question was written, the Meeting for Sufferings of
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting assembled. This meeting issued a singular
document,[125] said by the friends of Elias Hicks to have been intended
as a sort of "Quaker Creed," but this was vigorously denied by those
responsible for its existence. The statement of doctrine, which was as
follows, was duly signed by Jonathan Evans, clerk, "on behalf of the
meeting:"
[125] The title of the production was as follows: Extracts from the
Writings of Primitive Friends, concerning the Divinity of Our Lord and
Saviour, Jesus Christ. Published by the direction of the Meeting for
Sufferings, held in Philadelphia. Solomon W. Conrad, printer.
"At a Meeting for Sufferings held in Philadelphia the 17th of the
First month, 1823, an essay containing a few brief extracts from the
writings of our primitive Friends on several of the doctrines of the
Christian religion, which have been always held, and are most surely
believed by us, being produced and read; on solid consideration they
appeared so likely to be productive of benefit, if a publication
thereof was made and spread among our members generally, that the
committee appointed on the printing and distribution of religious
books are directed to have a sufficient number of them struck off and
distributed accordingly, being as follows:
"We have always believed that the Holy Scriptures were written by
divine inspiration, that they are able to make wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus, for, as holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, they are therefore
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
furnished unto all good works. But they are not or cannot be
subjected to the fallen, corrupt reason of man. We have always
asserted our willingness that all our doctrines be tried by them,
and admit it as a positive maxim that whatsoever any do (pretending
to the Spirit) which is contrary to the Scriptures be accounted and
judged a delusion of the devil.
"We receive and believe in the testimony of the Scriptures simply as
it stands in the text. 'There are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.'
"We believe in the only wise, omnipotent and everlasting God, the
creator of all things in heaven and earth, and the preserver of all
that he hath made, who is God over all blessed forever.
"The infinite and most wise God, who is the foundation, root and
spring of all operation, hath wrought all things by his eternal Word
and Son. This is that Word that was in the beginning with God and was
God, by whom all things were made, and without whom was not anything
made that was made. Jesus Christ is the beloved and only begotten
Son of God, who, in the fulness of time, through the Holy Ghost, was
conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; in him we have redemption
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. We believe that he
was made a sacrifice for sin, who knew no sin; that he was crucified
for us in the flesh, was buried and rose again the third day by the
power of his Father for our justification, ascended up into heaven
and now sitteth at the right hand of God.
"As then that infinite and incomprehensible Fountain of life and
motion operateth in the creatures by his own eternal word and power,
so no creature has access again unto him but in and by the Son
according to his own blessed declaration, 'No man knoweth the Father
but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.' Again, 'I am
the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but
by me.' Hence he is the only Mediator between God and man for having
been with God from all eternity, being himself God, and also in time
partaking of the nature of man; through him is the goodness and
love of God conveyed to mankind, and by him again man receiveth and
partaketh of these mercies.
"We acknowledge that of ourselves we are not able to do anything that
is good, neither can we procure remission of sins or justification
by any act of our own, but acknowledge all to be of and from his
love, which is the original and fundamental cause of our acceptance.
'For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.'
"We firmly believe it was necessary that Christ should come, that by
his death and sufferings he might offer up himself a sacrifice to
God for our sins, who his own self bear our sins in his own body on
the tree; so we believe that the remission of sins which any partake
of is only in and by virtue of that most satisfactory sacrifice and
not otherwise. For it is by the obedience of that one that the free
gift is come upon all to justification. Thus Christ by his death and
sufferings hath reconciled us to God even while we are enemies; that
is, he offers reconciliation to us, and we are thereby put into a
capacity of being reconciled. God is willing to be reconciled unto us
and ready to remit the sins that are past if we repent.
"Jesus Christ is the intercessor and advocate with the Father in
heaven, appearing in the presence of God for us, being touched with
a feeling of our infirmities, sufferings, and sorrows; and also by
his spirit in our hearts he maketh intercession according to the will
of God, crying abba, Father. He tasted death for every man, shed his
blood for all men, and is the propitiation for our sins; and not for
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. He alone is our
Redeemer and Saviour, the captain of our salvation, the promised
seed, who bruises the serpent's head; the alpha and omega, the first
and the last. He is our wisdom, righteousness, justification and
redemption; neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no
other name under heaven given among men whereby we may be saved.
"As he ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things,
his fulness cannot be comprehended or contained in any finite
creature, but in some measure known and experienced in us, as we are
prepared to receive the same, as of his fulness we have received
grace for grace. He is both the word of faith and a quickening spirit
in us, whereby he is the immediate cause, author, object and strength
of our living faith in his name and power, and of the work of our
salvation from sin and bondage of corruption.
"The Son of God cannot be divided from the least or lowest appearance
of his own divine light or life in us, no more than the sun from
its own light; nor is the sufficiency of his light within set up
or mentioned in opposition to him, or to his fulness considered as
in himself or without us; nor can any measure or degree of light
received from Christ be properly called the fulness of Christ;
or Christ as in fulness, nor exclude him from being our complete
Saviour. And where the least degree or measure of this light and life
of Christ within is sincerely waited in, followed and obeyed there is
a blessed increase of light and grace known and felt; as the path of
the just it shines more and more until the perfect day, and thereby
a growing in grace and in the knowledge of God and of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ hath been and is truly experienced.
"Wherefore we say that whatever Christ then did, both living and
dying, was of great benefit to the salvation of all that have
believed and now do and that hereafter shall believe in him unto
justification and acceptance with God; but the way to come to that
faith is to receive and obey the manifestation of his divine light
and grace in the conscience, which leads men to believe and value
and not to disown or undervalue Christ as the common sacrifice and
mediator. For we do affirm that to follow this holy light in the
conscience and to turn our minds and bring all our deeds and thoughts
to it is the readiest, nay, the only right way, to have true, living
and sanctifying faith in Christ as he appeared in the flesh; and
to discern the Lord's body, coming and sufferings aright, and to
receive any real benefit by him as our only sacrifice and mediator,
according to the beloved disciple's emphatical testimony, 'If we walk
in the light as he (God) is in the light we have fellowship one with
another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all
sin.'
"By the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ without us we, truly
repenting and believing, as through the mercy of God, justified from
the imputation of sins and transgressions that are past, as though
they had never been committed; and by the mighty work of Christ
within us the power, nature and habits of sin are destroyed; that
as sin once reigned unto death even so now grace reigneth through
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."[126]
[126] "The Friend, or Advocate of Truth," Vol. I, pp. 152-154.
This deliverance is almost as theological and dogmatic as the
Westminster Confession. It scarcely contains a reference to the
fundamental doctrine of George Fox. It is not too much to say that if
it was the belief of the "primitive" Friends, there was little reason,
touching points of doctrine, for the preaching of Fox, or the first
gathering of the Society. All the ground covered by this doctrinal
statement was amply treated in the Articles of Religion of the Church
of England, and the Confession of the Presbyterians.
The above document was issued without quotation marks, or any
indication as to what "primitive" Friends were responsible for the
sentiments contained in its various parts. By careful examination it
will be seen that one sentence, at least, is from Barclay's Apology,
"but it proves to be a garbled quotation." We refer to the following
sentence in the second paragraph in the above article, relating to the
Scriptures: "But they are not or cannot be subjected to the fallen,
corrupt reason of man." Barclay's complete statement is here given:
"Yet, as the proposition itself concludeth, to the last part of
which I now come, it will not from thence follow that these divine
revelations are to be subjected to the examination either of the
outward testimony of Scripture or of the human or natural reason of
man, as to a more noble and certain rule or touchstone; for the
divine revelation and inward illumination is that which is evident
by itself, forcing the well-disposed understanding and irresistibly
moving it to assent by its own evidence and clearness, even as the
common principles of natural truths to bend the mind to a natural
assent."[127]
[127] "Barclay's Apology." Edition of Friends' Book Store, 304 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, 1877, p. 68.
It will be seen clearly that the reference in the document issued by
the Meeting for Sufferings was not only a misquotation from Barclay,
but also misrepresented his meaning. The latter is particularly true if
we refer to the top of the same page that contains the above extract,
where he says: "So would I not have any reject or doubt the certainty
of that unerring Spirit which God hath given his children as that
which can alone guide them into all truth, because some have falsely
pretended to it."[128] It will thus appear clear that Elias Hicks, and
not the Meeting for Sufferings, was supported by Barclay.
[128] "Barclay's Apology." Edition of 1877, p. 68.
The reference in the third paragraph in the foregoing "declaration" to
the "three that bear record in heaven" is a quotation from 1 John 5:7.
It is entirely omitted from the Revised Version, and thorough scholars
in the early years of the nineteenth century were convinced that the
passage was an interpolation.
The statement of belief prepared by the Meeting for Sufferings was not
approved by the Yearly Meeting, so nothing was really accomplished by
the compilation, if such it was.
Considering the order of the events recorded, it is hard not to
conceive that the attempt to promulgate a "declaration of faith" by the
Yearly Meeting was really intended for personal application to Elias
Hicks. Had the plan succeeded, the elders could easily have attempted
to silence the Jericho preacher in Philadelphia, on the ground
that he was "unsound" touching the doctrine promulgated by the Yearly
Meeting.
The task of detailing all of the doings of this period would be too
difficult and distasteful to be fully recorded in this book. That the
unfriendly conduct was by no means all on one side is painfully true.
Still, as the determination of the Philadelphia elders to deal with
Elias Hicks, and stop his ministry if possible, was continued, the
effort cannot be ignored.
In First month, 1825, the elders presented a charge of unsoundness
against Elias Hicks in the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders,
the intent being to have the charge forwarded to the monthly meeting,
but this action was not taken. With phenomenal persistence one of the
elders introduced the subject in the monthly meeting, and secured the
appointment of a committee to investigate the merits of the case. This
committee made a report unfavorable to Elias Hicks, which report, his
friends claimed was improperly entered on the minutes. A vigorous,
but by no means a united effort was made to get this report forwarded
to Jericho Monthly Meeting, but this failed. One of the incidents of
this attempt against Elias Hicks was the disownment of a member of the
Northern District Monthly Meeting, for remarks made in Western District
Monthly Meeting. The report of the committee against Elias was under
consideration, when the visitor arose and said: "If it be understood
by the report--if it set forth and declare, that Elias Hicks, the
last time he was in this house, preached doctrines contrary to the
Holy Scriptures, or contrary to our first or primitive Friends, being
present at that time, I stand here as a witness that it is utterly
false."[129] Although this Friend was disowned by his monthly meeting
he was reinstated by the Quarterly Meeting. It should be said that the
report of unsoundness referred to, contained this specific charge: "We
apprehend that Elias Hicks expressed sentiments inconsistent with the
Holy Scriptures, and the religious principles our Society has held from
its first rise."
[129] "Cockburn's Review," p. 95.
The trouble in Philadelphia was renewed in an aggravated form in First
month, 1827, when Elias Hicks appeared in the city on another religious
visit. Of course the atmosphere had been charged with all sorts of
attacks regarding the venerable preacher. Under such conditions no
special advertising was necessary to get a crowd. The populace was
curious, not a few wanted to hear and see, for themselves, this man
about whom so many charges had been made. As a matter of course the
meeting-houses were crowded beyond their capacity. It was alleged by
Orthodox Friends that the meetings were disorderly, which may have
been literally true. But the tumult was increased by injecting an
element of controversy, into the First-day afternoon meeting in Western
meeting-house, on the part of an Orthodox elder. All the evidence goes
to show that Elias attempted to quiet the tumult. He seems to have
been willing to accord liberty of expression to his opponents. The
matter was taken into Western Monthly Meeting, a committee entering the
following charge: "That a large and disorderly concourse of people were
brought together, at an unseasonable hour, and under circumstances that
strongly indicated a design to preoccupy the house to the exclusion
of most of the members of our meeting, and to suppress in a riotous
manner any attempt that might be made to maintain the doctrine and
principles of our religious society, in opposition to the views of
Elias Hicks."[130]
[130] "Cockburn's Review," p. 100.
The literal truthfulness of this charge in every particular may be at
least mildly questioned. It must be remembered that of the Friends in
Philadelphia at that time, the Orthodox were a minority of about one
to three. The majority of Friends felt that much of the trouble was
personal, and they undoubtedly flocked to hear the traduced preacher.
The outside crowd that came could not rightfully or wisely have been
kept from attending public meetings. Both parties had been sowing
to the wind, and neither could validly object to the whirlwind that
inevitably came. Still Western Monthly Meeting proposed to deal with a
visiting minister from another yearly meeting, on points of doctrine,
and there can be little doubt that arbitrary proceedings of this sort
had quite as much, if not more, to do with kindling the fires of
"separation," as the preaching of Elias Hicks.
Rapidly the trouble ran back to the opposition raised by the elders
in 1822. Eventually Green Street Monthly Meeting became the center of
Society difficulty. It will be remembered that in the year last written
that monthly meeting had enjoyed a family visitation from Elias Hicks,
and had subsequently given him a minute of approval. After this one of
the elders, who acquiesced in this action, joined the other nine in
written disapproval of Elias Hicks. The major portion of the monthly
meeting proposed to take the inconsistent conduct of this elder under
care, and the matter was handed over to the overseers. In thus hastily
invoking the discipline, Green Street Monthly Meeting made an apparent
error of judgment, even admitting that the spirit of the transaction
was not censurable. This brought the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers
and Elders precipitously into the case. Finally Green Street Monthly
Meeting released the Friend in question from his station as elder. A
question arose on which there was a sharp discussion as to whether
elders were independent of the overseers in the exercise of their
official duties. A long line of conduct followed, finally resulting
in the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders sending a report to
the general quarterly meeting, amounting to a remonstrance against
Green Street Monthly Meeting. This appeared to be a violation of
Discipline, which said: "None of the said meetings of ministers and
elders are in anywise to interfere with the business of any meeting for
discipline."[131] These matters, with the remonstrance of the released
Green Street elder, would therefore seem to have been irregularly
brought before the quarterly meeting. It was claimed by the friends of
Elias Hicks that he had broken no rule of discipline; that the charge,
that he held "sentiments inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the
principles of Friends," was vague as to its matter, and purely personal
as to the manner of its circulation. Up to this point it should be
remembered, the controversy was almost entirely centered on Elias Hicks.
[131] Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in
Philadelphia, 1806, p. 67.
This matter dragged along, a source of constant disturbance, appearing
in perhaps a new form in the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders
in Eighth month, 1826. The immediate action involved appointing a
committee to assist the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders
of Green Street Monthly Meeting, the assumed necessity in the case
being the reported unsoundness of a Green Street minister, a charge to
this effect having been preferred by one member only. The situation,
however, caused an abatement in answering the query relating to love
and unity. While these transactions were going on among the ministers
and elders, Green Street Monthly Meeting took action which removed
two of its elders from that station in the Society. The two deposed
elders took their grievances to the general quarterly meeting. While
the quarterly meeting would not listen to a statement of grievances,
yet a committee to go over the whole case was appointed. The committee
thus appointed, without waiting any action by the quarterly meeting,
transformed the removal of the aggrieved elders into an appeal, and
then demanded that Green Street Monthly Meeting turn over to that
committee all the minutes relating to the case of the two elders.
This the Green Street Meeting refused to do. Although the case had
never been before the quarterly meeting, the committee of inquiry
reported to the full meeting, that all of the action of Green Street
Monthly Meeting relating to the two elders should be annulled. It was
claimed that, by virtue of the leadership which the Orthodox had in
the quarterly meeting, a precedent had been established which gave
committees the right to exceed the power conferred upon them by the
meeting which appointed them. The committee had not been appointed to
decide a case, but to investigate a complaint.
Following this experience, after much wrangling, and in the midst of
manifest disunity, and against what it was claimed was the manifest
opposition of the major portion of the meeting, the quarterly meeting
in Eleventh month, 1826, appointed a committee to visit the monthly
meetings. This committee was manifestly one-sided, but could have
no possible disciplinary service from extending brotherly care.
Nevertheless at the quarterly meeting in Fifth month, 1827, this
committee, for presumed gospel labor, reported that the large Green
Street Monthly Meeting should be laid down, and its members attached
to the Northern District Monthly Meeting. It is not necessary to enter
into any argument as to the right of a quarterly meeting, under our
system, to lay down an active monthly meeting, without that meeting's
consent. The laying down of Green Street Monthly Meeting followed, the
"separation" in the yearly meeting. It should be said that in Second
month, 1827, Green Street Monthly Meeting, attempted to secure consent
from the quarterly meeting to transfer itself to Abington Quarterly
Meeting, and subsequently this was done.
The claim was made, and with some show of reason, that the various
lines of conduct taken against Green Street Monthly Meeting, were
incited by a desire to punish this meeting for its friendly interest in
Elias Hicks.
We are rapidly approaching the point where the Society troubles in
Philadelphia ceased to directly relate to Elias Hicks. It will be
remembered that there was trouble touching the preaching of Elias
coming by way of Southern Quarterly Meeting in 1822. The facts indicate
that a majority of that meeting was quite content to let matters rest.
It seems, however, that two members of the Meeting for Sufferings
from that quarter had misrepresented their constituency in the Hicks
controversy. Therefore in 1826 that quarterly meeting discontinued the
service of the two members of the Meeting for Sufferings, supplying
their places with new appointments. This action was objected to by the
full meeting, the majority holding that members could not have their
service discontinued by the constituent bodies which appointed them.
An attempt was made to convince Southern Quarterly Meeting that it
was improper and illegal to appoint new representatives, if the old
ones were willing to serve. It was also claimed that it was "never
intended to release the representatives from a quarterly meeting to the
Meeting for Sufferings, except at their own request."[132] Surely the
Discipline then operative gave no warrant for such an inference.[133]
Assuming that the above contention was valid, the Meeting for
Sufferings would simply have become a small hierarchy in the Society,
never to be dissolved, except at its own request.
[132] "Cockburn's Review," p. 170.
[133] Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in
Philadelphia, 1806, p. 54-55.
It would seem, however, that the rules governing the Meeting for
Sufferings were especially made to guard against just such an exercise
of power as has been mentioned. The Discipline under the heading,
"Meeting for Sufferings," contained this provision: "The said meeting
is not to meddle with any matter of faith or discipline, which has not
been determined by the yearly meeting."[134] This will make it plain
why there was such an anxiety that the statement of doctrine issued
in 1823,[135] should be endorsed by the yearly meeting, and when that
failed, how utterly the statement was without authority or binding
force on the Society in general or its members in particular.
[134] The same, p. 55.
[135] See page 139 of this book.