[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.