"J. Foster."
[D] Mrs. Foster.
A Beacon to the Society of Friends. By Isaac Crewdson.—Hamilton, Adams, and Co. pp. 155. 12mo.
A Defence of the Doctrines of Immediate Revelation, and Universal and Saving Light: in Reply to some Remarks contained in a work, entitled "A Beacon to the Society of Friends." By Thomas Hancock, M. D. pp. 92. 12mo.
The Beacon ought to be read with serious attention, and with an honest desire to know "what is truth," by every member of the society, to whom it is addressed. Members of that society cannot need to be informed by us of the absurd and impious vagaries, advocated with an air of solemnity, as shocking as it is ridiculous, by certain members of their body in America, the leader of whom was Elias Hicks, a man of considerable acuteness and energy, but who evinced a degree of mental perversity truly appalling. Members of other societies cannot be expected to feel any great interest in the sentiments,—if sentiments they can be called,—avowed with so much complacency by that fanatic, or even in the rapid progress which they made in America. It were wholly unnecessary, therefore, even if our limits allowed it, to furnish our readers with any account of the ultra-mystic theology of Hicks. It will suffice to say, that there is scarcely a doctrine of revelation which it does not discard or explain away. The peculiar tenets of this sect were publicly denounced by the English Quakers at their yearly meeting, held in London, May, 1832; but we hesitate not to affirm—what we can easily prove—that the tracts of Elias Hicks are clearly deduced from the fundamental principles of Quakerism; that many of his statements bear a very close resemblance to those of the early Friends; and that, however they may be opposed to those writings which possess divine authority, they are fully borne out by others, which are of almost equal authority in the estimation of some members of the Society of Friends, and which, although that sect acknowledges no creed, are generally regarded amongst them as standards of religious doctrine.
Let us illustrate this: Elias Hicks speaks with great apparent devoutness, as well as energy, of a way of salvation, which Christians in general would imagine peculiarly his own, of which the most assiduous and prayerful student of the Scriptures would have no conception, and which, as far as we can learn, never entered the minds of Paul, and Peter, and John. He says, "It is only by gathering to this light (the light within) that we can gain a place in his favour; and by endeavouring that all our actions should proceed from the movings of this life in the immortal soul; and as this comes to be our case, we gain reconciliation with the Father." This short sentence will appear to our readers to contain a sufficient quantity of mysticism for any purpose, and what is worse, a capital error on a point of vital importance. The Scriptures represent, not the light within, but Christ, "who was delivered for our offences, and rose again for our justification;" as "our peace, who hath made both (Jews and Gentiles) one," and hath "reconciled both unto God in one body by the cross." When the apostles were asked, by an awakened sinner, "What shall I do to be saved?" they, without any hesitation, replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." They always directed men to Jesus Christ for salvation, for pardon, and for purity, for light and for life; they believed that Christians are complete in him; but that, separated from him, they can do nothing. They affirmed that "there is salvation in none other; neither is there any other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." But, if Elias Hicks were asked by a poor sinner, conscious of his pollution and guilt, but ignorant of the hope set before us in the gospel, "What shall I do to be saved?" he would reply, "It is only by gathering to the light—this saving light that is within us all, that we gain a place in his favour." He never thought of directing sinners to Jesus Christ for salvation; his directions uniformly pointed another way: "Oh, then, let us be individually endeavouring to gather to the light, and wait on the Lord, that we may see his counsel." But this anti-christian statement, this opposition to the word of the truth of the gospel, is in perfect accordance with the avowed and acknowledged principles of Quakerism.
One of the fundamental principles of the system is, "that there is an evangelical and saving light and grace in all," and that "this light enlighteneth the hearts of all in a day, in order to salvation, if not resisted; nor is it less universal than the seed of sin, being the purchase of his death, who tasted death for every man; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." This is the language of Robert Barclay, the able apologist of Quakerism; and, perhaps, some of the Friends may tell us, how many degrees below the authority of Paul and Jesus they hold the Apologist. It must be evident to every one, at all conversant with the past history and the present state of the society, that the Friends have ever been, and are still, in many instances (by far too many), accustomed to direct men, not to Jesus Christ, who is able to save unto the uttermost all that come to God by him: but to the principle of light and life within, which "enlighteneth the hearts of all in a day, in order to salvation, if not resisted."
Closely connected with the doctrine of inward light, is that of immediate revelation. But the veneration of men for the authority of Scripture decreases in exact proportion to their zeal for immediate revelation. Elias Hicks received revelations quite as important in their nature, as abundant in their measure, and as immediate in their mode of communication, as any with which the apostle Paul was favoured. He is therefore entitled to disregard the authority of Scripture! He has in himself a higher authority! and he is commissioned to direct men to a better, in every respect a better, guide, than that sure word of prophecy to which the first Christians were exhorted to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place! This is his language: "It is through this comforter that all our knowledge of God must come; and all that ever was among rational beings under heaven, came through this medium, and none other. But, by our believing that we can help ourselves to heaven by the aid of the Scriptures, a mere written book, at the same time that we understand it so diversely, sets us to warring and quarrelling. Has not this been long enough the case, for every rational being to be instructed and to see, that instead of its being a sufficient rule of faith, and practice, it is the reverse, for while it is depended on as such, it hinders from coming to the truth. The Scriptures never told us that they were a sufficient rule, but they recommend us to that from which they themselves bad their origin—the Spirit of truth." If this be not infidelity, we really know not what is. Hicks does not even speak of the sacred Scriptures with that decent respect which one would consider due to the writings of a brother prophet: "The Scriptures a mere written word, which, instead of being a sufficient rule of faith and practice, is the reverse, and hinders from coming to the truth!" Such language must draw a sigh from every Christian breast. But is such language utterly strange in the annals of Quakerism? Is it unusual in that society to speak of the Scriptures in terms of disparagement, compared with the teaching of the Spirit, and immediate revelation? Barclay affirms, that "the Scriptures, 'being outwardly written,' are the law which brings condemnation, and kills; but that the gospel is the inward spiritual law which gives life." He affirms, that "inward, immediate, objective revelation is the only sure, certain, and immovable foundation of all Christian faith;" and that "the principal rule of Christians under the gospel is not an outward letter, but an inward spiritual law; therefore the letter of Scripture is not, nor can be, the chief or principal rule of Christians:" and our good friend, Dr. Hancock, represents those in the society, who "are turning the eye of the mind outward instead of inward;" that is to say, who are looking to the Scriptures, instead of to the light within; as "after beginning in the Spirit going back to the letter," and thus "leaving the fountain of life itself, and 'hewing out to themselves broken cisterns, that can hold no water?'" Are these the words which are able to save our souls, to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus? or are these the terms which a Christian feels himself authorized to apply to those words?
Much might be said, and most justly, of the evil tendencies, and the pernicious fruits, of this capital error, respecting immediate revelation, and the consequent disparagement of the living oracles of God; but we can now simply advert to that grand axiom, which is in the mouth of all orthodox Friends, and which, they fancy, renders their notion of the Scriptures as stable as the pillars of the creation, and as clear as the light of heaven. The axiom, in simple terms, is this: "The author is greater than his work; the Spirit which gave the Scriptures is greater than the Scriptures which he gave; therefore the Spirit, and not the Scriptures, is the first and chief foundation of truth, ground of faith, and rule of conduct." This would seem all very plain; but it is very fallacious. The author is greater than his work: very true; but when you (if we may for a moment address ourselves to Friends), when you plead for "immediate revelation," as the surest foundation of all Christian faith, and "the principal rule" of Christian conduct, you are not placing the author above his work, but one work of the author above another of the works of the same author; you are not placing the Spirit above the Scriptures, but you are placing the private and personal revelations of the Spirit to you, above those revelations of the same Spirit which he gave to apostles and prophets, for the instruction and salvation of the human race. It is generally admitted by you, that the "Scriptures were given by inspiration of God;" that they are a revelation from God to man; that they are words which "holy men of God spake and penned as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Though we were to admit, therefore, that you have in reality—we believe no such thing—revelations from the Spirit of truth, it would be absurd to say, that because the author is greater than his work, these private revelations are a firmer foundation of faith, and a more certain rule of conduct, than the revelations contained in the inspired volume: it is not the Spirit which you have, but, at best, a revelation from the Spirit; and this revelation you place above the Scriptures, which you acknowledge to be divine—which you admit to be a revelation from God to man.