FOOTNOTES
[1]“Book of Christian Discipline of the Religious Society of Friends in Great Britain; consisting of Extracts on Doctrine, Practice, and Church Government, from the Epistles and other Documents issued under the sanction of the Yearly Meeting held in London from its first institution in 1672 to 1883.” London: Samuel Harris and Co., 5, Bishopsgate Street Without. 1883.
[2]The queries now in use are given at length in the Appendix, [Note A].
[3]It is estimated that in 1680 (or thirty-two years from the beginning of George Fox’s ministry) the number of Friends was about 40,000. “In 1656 Fox computed that there were seldom less than 1000 in prison; and it has been asserted that, between 1661 and 1697, 13,562 Quakers were imprisoned, 152 were transported, and 338 died in prison or of their wounds” (“Encycl. Brit.,” 9th edit., art. “Quakers”).
[4]I may, perhaps, here be allowed to point out the ambiguity of the expression “immediate inspiration.” The word “immediate” may be understood to mean direct, and in this sense it is, I think, superfluous; for it is surely impossible to conceive of inspiration as indirect, although revelation may easily be so. But it may also, in reference to any particular thought communicated, be understood as meaning “instantaneous;” and in this sense a special importance has been attached to it by some Friends, which is, I believe, deprecated by others, as restricting “ministry” to the utterance of words believed to be at the moment given for utterance, under what is called a “fresh anointing” from above. I would, therefore, rather avoid at present the use of the expression “immediate inspiration,” when speaking of our belief that there is in every heart a witness for the truth, which is, so to speak, radiated from the central truth. The “light” seems, on the whole, to be the figure least open to any possible misinterpretation.
[5]Let me not be understood to mean that the process of “keeping the mind” (in Quaker phrase) “retired to the Lord” is an easy one. On the contrary, it may need strenuous effort. But the effort can be made at will and even the mere effort thus to retire from the surface to the depths of life is sure to bring help and strengthening—is in itself a strengthening, steadying process.
[6]“If ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own?” (Luke XVI. 12).
[7]I do not, of course, forget that, going to the imperfection of human laws and human faculties, cases may and do occur in which Divine guidance must lead us in ways which run counter to them. The figure used above is intended only to illustrate the general correspondence between the map, as it were, which can be laid down by the reason of man, and that individual and immediate guidance which alone can show us a higher and a narrower, but yet freer, pathway—the pathway of that highest service which is perfect freedom. When, in exceptional cases, any contrariety really emerges between the human and the Divine guiding lines, we may surely still, without too much straining of our figure, say that it is a living power only which can free any human spirit from the too narrow fencing in of a morbid or unenlightened conscience, and guide it by paths running counter to the beaten track of conventional morality, or even in some rare instances authorize and enable and require it to overleap even the cliffs of actual law, trusting that in such cases, as experience has already taught us, the blood of the martyrs will still be the seed of the Church.
[8]Sermon XIV., “On the Love of God,” Butler’s “Sermons,” p. 278 (London, 1726). And in his charge to the clergy of Durham, published with the “Analogy” (London, 1802), he repeats the words which I have printed above in italics, and speaks of public worship as “a time of devotion, when we are assembled to yield ourselves up to the full influence of the Divine presence.”
[9]See [Introduction].
[10]It is, I think, in this connection important to distinguish between the question, How do you in practice distinguish between a true and a false message? and the quite separate inquiry, How do you in theory distinguish between the human faculty of imagination and the Divine action signified by the word “inspiration”? It is with the first question only that I have been concerned in the text, as it is, I believe, the only question with which honesty requires us to grapple. Any attempt to give a full answer to the second question would require a degree of psychological skill to which I have no claim; and I doubt whether the very terms of the question do not lead us beyond the province even of psychology. But, speaking in a popular and trustful way, I should reply that we are not concerned to discern the precise limits of the Divine and the human; only to throw open the deepest human powers to the purest Divine influences; that the result we look for is the fruit of a devout intelligence, first purified, and then swayed, by the immediate action of Divine power. It surely involves something like a contradiction in terms to inquire at what precise line a distinction is obliterated?
[11]People have said to me again and again, If you want to be silent, why cannot you be silent at home? Such an objection seems hardly intended to be seriously answered, yet I have heard it so often that I cannot but notice it. Surely it need hardly be pointed out that it applies at least equally strongly to the practice of meeting together to join in prayers, which, being already in print and chosen according to the calendar, each of us might read at home. But the worthier answer is that, whether our utterance be prearranged or spontaneous, we meet in order to kindle in each other the flame of true worship, and also to show forth our allegiance to the Master, to whom we are so united as to feel our need of each other’s sympathy in drawing near to Him.
[12]In what follows there is, indeed, no “doctrine” of any kind; no attempt, I mean, to offer formulated or authorized teaching. I have endeavoured to show how in my own experience the intellectual difficulties with which the subject is surrounded did, when honestly and patiently faced, prove in due time the means of purifying, not of quenching, that true spirit of prayer which is indeed the very breath of our inner life. I trust that none will misunderstand my outspokenness in stating those difficulties. They are, and in these days must be, freely recognized. Unless we who have a witness to bear for the Author of spiritual worship are willing to face them, our witness will fail to reach those who most sorely need it. I am driven once more to appeal to “something more than candour” in my readers for a right interpretation of my struggle to unfold thoughts which tax my powers of utterance to the uttermost, and which I yet dare not withhold.
[13]“Apology,” Prop. xiii.
[14]See Appendix, [Note B], for a short account of the “Home Mission Committee.”
[15]I believe, as I have already said, that few people outside the Society are aware of the extent to which the practice is still continued of Friends who feel themselves called to the ministry travelling, as we say, “in the service of truth,” or “under a sense of religious concern,” not only from place to place in England, but also all over the world. A remarkable variety of “services” are in this way spontaneously undertaken, and carried out, sometimes quite alone, sometimes with the help of one or more Friends “liberated” to accompany the minister. And those small meetings where there is but little vocal ministry are objects of special care and concern to the larger meetings, of which they form a part; and many Friends make a practice of visiting them from time to time.
There was also a special service to which ministering Friends formerly often felt themselves called, and which, though much disused of late years, is not altogether extinct—that of paying “religious visits to families” in particular districts or, in other words, of holding meetings for worship and mutual edification from house to house—generally, but not invariably, amongst our own members only. These visits were occasions specially adapted and felt suitable for the exercise of that peculiar gift of “speaking to the condition of” individuals which some Friends (especially in former times) seem to have possessed in a remarkable degree. I believe them to have been of deep value when rightly conducted by the few possessing a real qualification for such delicate and at times searching services, but perhaps peculiarly liable to degenerate into what was neither edifying nor acceptable.
[16]For a short account of the manner in which, before the end of the eighteenth century, the Society in America freed itself from all complicity with slavery, as illustrating the working both of our principles and of our organization, see Appendix, [Note C].
[17]The expression “put under dealing” describes the prescribed preliminary to disownment. When an overseer, having found private remonstrance unavailing, is obliged to bring a case of wrong-doing before the Monthly Meeting, that Meeting appoints one or two Friends to visit and “deal with” the offender, in the way of exhortation and counsel, with a view to induce him to acknowledge and condemn or “disown” his own fault, and thus to avert the penalty of the Society’s disownment of himself.
[18]I hope it will be remembered that my object throughout is to unfold the meaning of our ideal, not at all to estimate the degree in which we actually live according to it. I am not in a position to form any opinion worth having as to the actual state of the Society, nor if I had any such opinion should I wish to publish it. My desire is to explain the secret of our strength, not of our weakness.
[19]I believe that scarcely any Friend would be found to consider the office of the policeman as an unlawful one, or to entertain scruples about the use of physical force in maintaining order. I am told that Friends have often, and without censure, acted as special constables.
With regard to the subject of capital punishment, the Yearly Meeting has, indeed, during the last fifty years, expressed very serious doubts of its being justifiable; but the matter is treated as one “needing prayerful consideration” by those whom it may concern, not as beyond all question clear.
[20]It is, I believe, notorious that many of the panics which often actually lead to war, and which tend to keep up the enormous and demoralizing burdens of an “armed peace,” are largely brought about by those who have a pecuniary interest in them, either for stock-jobbing or for newspaper-selling interests.
[21]I mean by “asceticism” the practice of any humanly devised religious or spiritual discipline, whether self-chosen or prescribed by authority.
[22]“But I say unto you, Swear not at all.... But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil” (Matt. v. 34-37).
[23]The victory thus won by Friends has paved the way for greater liberty for all; and at the present time any one (whether “professing with us” or not) who objects on the ground of religion to the taking of an oath is equally at liberty to affirm.
[24]“Book of Discipline,” p. 141.
[25]The number of members was reported in 1862 as 13,844; in 1889 as 15,574. Before 1862 no returns were made.
[26]Many other causes have, no doubt, been at work in bringing about the changes referred to in the text. I am, indeed, not qualified to attempt anything like an adequate account, on however slight a scale, of the recent history of the Society, and have desired in this passage only to indicate the general direction of the principal division of parties amongst us.
[27]Robert Barclay, who was for generation after generation regarded as the main pillar of theoretic Quakerism, plainly declares the Scriptures to be “a secondary rule”—subordinate, that is, to the teaching of the Spirit by which they were given forth. He anticipates many now familiar reflections about the inherent uncertainties of interpretation and application which preclude the possibility of our finding in any written words a sufficient guide in the infinite variety of individual circumstances; and also recognizes fully the many sources of error appertaining to writings so ancient, and derived through so many differing versions and translations. He declares, however, that “because they are commonly acknowledged by all to have been written by the dictates of the Holy Spirit, and that the errors which may be supposed by the injury of Times to have slipt in are not such but that there is a sufficient clear Testimony left to all the essentials of the Christian faith, we do look upon them as the only fit outward judge of controversies amongst Christians,” and adds that “we are very willing that all our doctrines and practices shall be tried by them;” and that “we shall also be very willing to admit, as a positive certain maxim, That whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a Delusion of the Devil. For as we never lay claim to the Spirit’s leadings that we may cover ourselves in anything that is evil; so we know, that as every evil contradicts the Scriptures, so it doth also the Spirit in the first place, from which the Scriptures came” (Barclay’s “Apology,” p. 86: London, 1736).
[28]“The Inner Light,” pp. 23-26.
[29]It may be worth while to mention in this connection that there is not, so far as I have observed, any habitual preponderance of women in Friends’ meetings. This impression is confirmed by the fact that the number of habitual “attenders” (non-members) at our meetings is given (in the tabular statement prepared for the Yearly Meeting of 1889) as follows:—
| Males | 2,962 |
| Females | 3,086 |
| 6,048 | |
The rapid growth of Friends’ First Day Adult Schools is another significant fact, as showing the openness to the teaching and influence of Friends amongst working men, and at the same time the energetic way in which that influence is being used. This movement began, at the suggestion of the late Joseph Sturge, in Birmingham in 1845; and it appears, from the annual report of the Friends’ First Day School Association, that the number of adult scholars was in March, 1889, as follows:—
| Men | 17,591 |
| Women | 5,535 |
| 23,126 | |
The Society of Friends, it should be remembered, numbers (including children) only 15,574 members, yet the teaching in these schools is entirely undertaken by Friends personally, and is, I believe, done altogether without paid help, though valuable assistance is in many cases given by former scholars.
[30]The history of James Naylor is the best-known case in point.
[31]When any person applies for membership, the Monthly Meeting appoints one or more Friends to visit the applicant, and to report to the meeting the result of the interview, before a reply is given. The precise conditions to be fulfilled in such cases are nowhere laid down, but the object is understood, in a general way, to be to ascertain that the applicant is fully “convinced of Friends’ principles.” The test is thus a purely personal and individual one, and partakes of the elasticity which characterizes all our arrangements, and which is felt to favour the fullest dependence upon Divine guidance.
[32]“Book of Discipline,” p. 229.
[33]Published by Robert Smeal, Glasgow, 1883.
[34]It must be remembered that the Society of Friends in America consists of many Yearly Meetings, each of which is supreme and independent within its own compass. Their number has considerably increased since John Woolman’s time; and in the Western States there is also a rapid increase in the number of members.
[35]The italics are throughout Whittier’s.