The Braithwaite Controversy.
One of the marked incidents during the "separation" period was the
controversy between Elias Hicks and Anna Braithwaite,[144] and the
still more pointed discussion indulged in by the friends and partisans
of these two Friends. From our viewpoint there seems to have been a
certain amount of unnecessary sensitiveness, which led both these
Friends to exalt to the dignity of an insult, and positive impeachment
of integrity, matters which probably belonged in the domain of
misunderstanding. It was apparently impossible for either to think in
the terms of the other, and so the contest went on and ended.
[144] Anna Braithwaite, daughter of Charles and Mary Lloyd, of
Birmingham, England, was born Twelfth month, 1788. She was married
to Isaac Braithwaite, Third month 26, 1809, and removed to Kendal
immediately after. She sailed for America on her first visit, Seventh
month 7th, 1823. She attended three meetings in New York, and then the
Quarterly Meeting at Burlington, at which place she seems to have been
the guest of Stephen Grellet. She made two other visits to America, one
in 1825 and the other in 1827. She returned to England after her first
visit to America in the autumn of 1824. The last two visits she made
to America she was accompanied by her husband. Anna Braithwaite was a
woman of commanding presence, and was unusually cultured for one of her
sex at that time. She was something of a linguist, speaking several
languages. Her visits in America were quite extensive, taking her as
far south as North Carolina. She died Twelfth month 18th, 1859.
We shall let her friends state the beginning and progress of Anna
Braithwaite's religious labor in America, and quote as follows: "She
arrived in New York in Eighth month, 1823. For seven months she met
with no opposition. True, she always preached orthodox doctrines, but
she had made no pointed allusions to the reputed sentiments of Elias
Hicks."[145]
[145] "Calumny Refuted; or, Plain Facts _versus_ Misrepresentations."
Being reply to Pamphlet entitled, "The Misrepresentations of Anna
Braithwaite in Relation to the Doctrines Preached by Elias Hicks,"
etc., p. 2.
It is interesting to note that the positive preaching of "orthodox
doctrine," on its merits, caused no opposition, even from the friends
of Elias Hicks, the trouble only coming when a personal application was
made, amounting to personal criticism. This is a fine testimony to the
ministerial liberty in the Society, and really a confirmation of the
claim that spiritual unity, and not doctrinal uniformity, was the true
basis of fellowship among Friends. We quote again:
"She visited Long Island in the spring, and had some opportunities
of conversing with Elias Hicks on religious subjects, and also of
hearing him preach. They differed widely in sentiment, upon important
doctrines, and she soon had to conclude that his were at variance
with the hitherto well-established principles of the Society. With
these views, she returned to New York, and, subsequently, about the
time of the Yearly Meeting, in May, she considered it an act of duty
to warn her hearers against certain specious doctrines, which were
gradually spreading, and undermining what she believed to be the
'true faith.'"[146]
[146] The same, p. 6.
It seems that Anna Braithwaite was twice the guest of Elias Hicks in
Jericho, dining at his house both times. The first visit was in First
month, 1824, and the other in Third month of the same year. They were
both good talkers, and apparently expressed themselves with commendable
frankness. The subject-matter of these two conversations, however,
became material around which a prolonged controversy was waged. Before
Anna Braithwaite sailed for England, she wrote a letter to an unnamed
Friend in Flushing relative to the interviews with Elias Hicks. The
letter was dated Seventh month 16, 1824.
After Anna Braithwaite's departure from this country, the letter
referred to, with "Remarks in Reply to Assertions of Elias Hicks," was
published and extensively circulated. It bore the following imprint:
"Philadelphia: Printed for the Reader, 1824."[147] In this collection
was a letter from Ann Shipley, of New York, dated Tenth month 15,
1824, in which she declares she was present "during the conversation
between her [Anna Braithwaite] and Elias Hicks. The statement she
left was correct." While Ann Shipley's letter was published without
her consent, it seemed to fortify the Braithwaite statement, and both
were extensively used in an attempt to cast theological odium on
the venerable preacher. The possibility that both women might have
misunderstood or misinterpreted Elias Hicks does not seem to have
entered the minds of the Anti-Hicks partisans.
[147] Most of the controversial pamphlets and articles of the
"separation" period were anonymous. Except when the articles were
printed in regular periodicals, their publishers were as unknown as
their authors.
This particular epistle of Anna Braithwaite does not contain much
material not to be found in a subsequent letter with "notes," which
will receive later treatment. In her letter she habitually speaks of
herself in the third person, and makes this observation: "When at
Jericho in the Third month A. B. took tea with E. H. in a social way.
She had not been long in the house, when he began to speak on the
subject of the trinity, which A. B. considers a word so grossly abused
as to render it undesirable even to make use of it."[148] One cannot
well suppress the remark that if a like tenacity of purpose regarding
other theological terms had been held and followed by all parties to
the controversy, the history of the Society of Friends would have been
entirely different from the way it now has to be written.
[148] "Remarks in Reply to Assertions of Elias Hicks," p. 7.
Touching the two visits to Elias Hicks, we have direct testimony from
the visitor. We quote:
"I thought on first entering the house, my heart and flesh would
fail, but after a time of inexpressible conflict, I felt a consoling
belief that best help would be near, and I think that every opposing
thing was in a great measure kept down.... He listened to my views,
which I was enabled to give with calmness. He was many times brought
into close quarters; but when he could not answer me directly, he
turned to something else. My mind is sorrowfully affected on this
subject, and the widespread mischief arising from the propagation of
such sentiments."[149]
[149] "Memoirs of Anna Braithwaite," by her son, J. Bevan Braithwaite,
p. 129-130.
In another letter, written to her family, she thus referred to her
interview with Elias Hicks:
"I have reason to think that, notwithstanding the firm and honest
manner in which my sentiments were expressed, an open door is left
for further communication. We met in love and we parted in love. He
wept like a child for some time before we separated; so that it was
altogether a most affecting opportunity."[150]
[150] The same, p. 140.
While these two Friends undoubtedly were present in the same meeting
during the subsequent visits of Anna Braithwaite to this country, their
relations became so strained that they never met on common Friendly
ground after the two occasions mentioned.
After the publication of the communication and comments referred to,
Elias Hicks wrote a long letter to his friend, Dr. Edwin A. Atlee, of
Philadelphia.[151] This letter became the subject of a good deal of
controversy, and may have been the exciting cause of a letter which
Anna Braithwaite wrote Elias Hicks on the 13th of Eleventh month,
1824, from Lodge Lane, near Liverpool. This letter, with elaborate
"notes," was published and widely circulated on this side of the
ocean. The letter itself would have caused very little excitement, but
the "notes" were vigorous causes of irritation and antagonism. The
authorship of the "notes" was a matter of dispute. It was claimed that
they were not written by Anna Braithwaite, and the internal evidence
gave color to that conclusion. They were not, in whole or in part,
entirely in her spirit, and the temper of them was rather masculine.
There were persons who believed, but, of course, without positive
evidence, that Joseph John Gurney was their author.
[151] The text of this letter will be found listed as Appendix B in
this book.
The letter of Anna Braithwaite contains few points not covered by the
"notes." She charges that Elias had denied that the Scriptures were a
rule of faith and practice, and it was also claimed that he repudiated
"the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
This, she affirmed, was infidelity of a most pronounced type.
The "notes" attached to this letter constitute a stinging arraignment
of the supposed sentiments of Elias Hicks. They were considered by his
friends such an unwarranted attack as to call for vigorous treatment,
and in numerous ways they became points of controversy. They were mild
at first, but personal and almost bitter at the last. The first "note"
in the collection briefly, but fully, lays the foundation for arbitrary
authority in religion. It says:
"It is a regulation indispensably necessary to the peace of society,
and to the preservation of order, consistency and harmony among
Christians, that the members of every religious body, and especially
those who assume the office of teachers or ministers, should be
responsible to the authorities established in the church, for the
doctrines which they hold and promulgate."[152]
[152] A letter from Anna Braithwaite to Elias Hicks, on the Nature of
His Doctrines, etc., p. 9.
There is critical reference to a statement which Anna Braithwaite said
Elias Hicks made in the Meeting of Ministers and Elders in Jericho,
touching spiritual guidance in appointing people to service in the
Society. She says that Elias declared that "if each Friend attended to
his or her proper gift, as this spirit is endued with prescience, that
no Friend would be named for any appointment, but such as would attend,
and during my long course of experience, I have never appointed any one
who was prevented from attending either by illness or otherwise."[153]
[153] The same, p. 4.
In his letter to Dr. Atlee, Elias states his expression at the meeting
as differing from Anna Braithwaite's in a material way. This is what
he declares he said: "That I thought there was something wrong in
the present instance, for, as we profess to believe in the guidance
of the Spirit of Truth as an unerring Spirit, was it not reasonable
to expect, especially in a meeting of ministers and elders, that
if each Friend attended to their proper gifts, as this Spirit is
endued with prescience, that it would be much more likely, under its
divine influence, we should be led to appoint such as would attend on
particular and necessary occasions, than to appoint those who would not
attend?"
We make these quotations not only to show the difference in the two
statements, but to also make it plain what small faggots were used to
build the fires of controversy regarding the opinions of Elias Hicks.
It looks in this particular citation like a case of criticism gone mad.
The following extracts are from the "notes":
"We shall now notice the comparatively modern work of that
arch-infidel, Thomas Paine, called "The Age of Reason," many of the
sentiments of which are so exactly similar to those of Elias Hicks,
as almost to induce us to suspect plagiarism."[154]
[154] The same, p. 23-24.
"We could adduce large quotations from authors of the same school
with Paine, showing in the most conclusive manner that the dogmas
of Elias Hicks, so far from being further revelations of Christian
doctrines, are merely the stale objections to the religion of the
Bible, which have been so frequently routed and driven from the
field, to the utter shame and confusion of their promulgators."[155]
[155] The same, p. 26.
Those who defended Elias Hicks saw in these criticisms an act of
persecution, and a veiled attempt to undermine his reputation as a
man and a minister. The latter effort was read into the following
paragraph, which was presented as an effort at justifying the criticism
of the Jericho preacher. We quote:
"It was both Friendly and Christian to warn them of the danger of
listening with credulity to one whose high profession, reputed
morality, and popular eloquence, had given him considerable
influence; and if his opinions had been correct, the promulgation of
them would not have proved prejudicial to him."[156]
[156] The same, p. 21-22.
The references to Thomas Paine will sound singularly overdrawn if
read in connection with the reference of Elias Hicks to the same
person.[157] It may be asserted with some degree of safety that it is
doubtful if either Elias Hicks or his critics ever read enough of the
writings of Thomas Paine to be really qualified to judicially criticise
them.
[157] See page 117 of this book.
When Anna Braithwaite visited this country the second time, in 1825,
she found matters much more unsettled than on her first visit. Her
own part in the controversy had been fully, if not fairly, discussed.
As showing her own feeling touching the second visit, we quote the
following from a sermon preached by her:
"I have thought many times, while surrounded by my family and my
friends, and when I have bowed before the throne of grace, how very
near and how very dear were my fellow-believers, on this side of
the Atlantic, made unto my soul. It seemed to me, as if in a very
remarkable manner, their everlasting welfare was brought before me,
as if my fellow-professors of the same religious principles with
myself were in a very peculiar manner the objects of much solicitude.
How have I had to pour out my soul in secret unto the Lord, that he
would turn them more and more, and so let their light shine before
men, that all being believers in a crucified Saviour, they may be
brought to know for themselves that though 'Christ Crucified was to
the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto
them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God
and the wisdom of God.' I say my soul hath been poured out before
the Lord, that their light might shine in a still more conspicuous
manner, through their hearts being brought into deep prostration of
soul, that so their works might glorify their Father which is in
heaven. My heart was enlarged toward every religious denomination;
for surely, the world over, those who are believers in Christ have
one common bond of union--they are the salt of the earth--the little
flock to whom the Father in his good pleasure will give the Kingdom.
I have often greatly desired to be with you, while I am well aware
that to many it must appear a strange thing, that a female should
leave her home, her family, and her friends, and should thus expose
herself to the public, to preach the glad tidings of salvation
through Jesus Christ; yet I have thought, my beloved friends, that
though all may not see into these things, yet surely there is no
other way for any of us, but to yield up our thoughts unto the
Lord."[158]
[158] Sermon and prayer by Anna Braithwaite, delivered in Friends'
Meeting, Arch Street, Philadelphia, October 26, 1825. Taken in
short-hand by M. T. C. Gould, stenographer, p. 4-5.
There seem to have been some Friends desirous of producing a meeting
between Anna Braithwaite and Elias Hicks during this visit. In Tenth
month, 1825, she wrote him from Kipp's Bay, Long Island. She informed
him of her arrival, and then stated "that if he wishes to have any
communication with her, she is willing to meet him in the presence of
their mutual friends, or to answer any letter he may write to her;"
then she adds these remarkable words: "Having written to thee sometime
ago, what I thought was right, I do not ask an interview."[159]
[159] "Christian Inquirer," new series, Vol. I, 1826, p. 57.
To this communication Elias Hicks made a somewhat full reply. He says
that her notes of the conversation, "divers of which were without
foundation," led him to wonder why she should even think of having any
future communication with him. He then says:
"That I have no desire for any further communication with thee,
either directly or indirectly, until thou makest a suitable
acknowledgment for thy breach of friendship, as is required by the
salutary discipline of our Society; but as it respects myself, I
freely forgive thee, and leave thee to pursue thy own way as long as
thou canst find true peace and quiet therein."[160]
[160] The same, p. 57.
It has to be said regretfully that during Anna Braithwaite's second
visit to this country, she met with both personal and Society rebuffs.
In some meetings her minute was read, but with no expression of
approbation in the case. The Meeting of Ministers and Elders at Jericho
appointed a committee,[161] to advise her not to appoint any more
meetings in that neighborhood during her stay. A good many Friends
objected to her family visits, and, taken altogether, her stay must
have been one of trial.
[161] The same, p. 59.
She came again in the early part of the year 1827, and was here when
the climax came in that year and the year following.
The English Friends, who were so much in evidence in our troubles, went
home to face the Beacon controversy,[162] then gathering in England.
The Beaconite movement caused several hundred Friends to sever their
connection with the Society. But it did not reach the dignity of a
division or a separation. Whether the English Friends profited by the
experiences suffered by the Society in America is not certain. At any
rate, they seem to have been able to endure their differences without a
rupture.
[162] This controversy took its name from a periodical called the
"Beacon," edited by Isaac Crewdson. In this evangelical doctrines
and methods were advocated. The Beaconites were strong in advocating
the doctrine of justification by faith, and practically rejected
the fundamental Quaker theory of the Inner Light. From the American
standpoint, the Beaconite position seems to have been the logical
development of the doctrines preached by the English and American
opponents of Elias Hicks.
After the English trouble had practically subsided, in 1841, Anna
Braithwaite made the following suggestive admission, which may well
close this chapter:
"Calm reflection and observation of passing events, and of persons,
have convinced me that I took an exaggerated view of the state of
society with reference to Hicksism.... We have as great a horror of
Hicksism as ever, but we think Friends generally are becoming more
alive to its dangers, and that the trials of the last few years have
been blessed to the instruction of many."[163]
[163] "J. Bevan Braithwaite; a Friend of the Nineteenth Century," by
his children, p. 59-60.