QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Random Thoughts on the Wilkinson/Story separation

This moment in Quaker history has completely captured my attention. I am only beginning my research, however, I am completely compelled.

It is regrettable that the early Quakers who did not agree with Wilkinson seemingly destroyed much of the of the separatists writings. Because of that it seems I’m relegated to the characterizations of separatists by those who worked against them. I have little faith in such characterizations.

I have only recently come across Charles Leslie’s “The Snake in the Grass or Satan Transformed to an Angle of Light.” Leslie is no supporter of the Quakers and wrote against them and George Fox specifically. However, as a contemporary of Fox and the early Quakers, he writes about the Wilkinson/Story separation. He relates and comments on various events surrounding the separation. I find some of his commentary compelling. Here is an example:

“And in Westmoreland there were 44 articles exhibited against John Story and John Wilkinson (two Quakers) by sundry of their chief Preachers and Rulers. One of which Articles was, That he (John Story) said he knew a Man that was an honest Man, that could have given up his Body to be burnt for the Truth, who said he never saw evil in paying of Tithes, and that he could pay them, and would pay them. Another Article was, That John Story said he believ'd every Man had not a testimony from God laid upon them to bear against Tithes : But them which had, he would have them be faithful. And these two, John Story and John Wilkinson, were proceeded against by a general Meeting of the Quakers in London, who the 12th day of the 4th Month, 1677. gave Judgment against them, and those that joined with them, in a formal Instrument, subscrib'd by 66 of them.

But this was soon re-buffeted back again upon them by the Quakers in the West of England, who adher'd to Story and Wilkinson, in as solemn and judicial Condemnation of them and their Sentence ; and this was subcrib'd by 67 of the other Party, and styl'd, A Testimony against the 66 Judges called Quakers (I have found print versions of this in the University of Michigan Library), &c. and printed under that Title, together with the Paper of the said Judges, and all their Names subscrib'd.

It is astonishing to see them play their Infallibilities against one another! For each of these Parties pretend to the immediate Spirit of God ; and in the name of God pronounce the other to be led by a false, ravening Spirit. Our Souls (say the Defendants) do in the highest degree abominate it, and do surge against it, p. 15-. that is, the Authority which the Plantiffs assumed over Conscience, in judging of others, and not leaving them to their primitive Liberty of following their own Light within. On the other hand, the London Quakers, who assum'd a superiority over the Country Quakers, condemns that Spirit which possess'd them as a wrong murmuring, and dividing Spirit, p. 5". And our 'Day (say they) hath lamentably shewn us the effects of that Spirit, that under a pretence of crying down Impositions, and pleading for Liberty, and doing nothing but what it is free to, endeavoureth to lay waste the blessed unity of the Brethren with a loose and un-subjected Conversation, which would bring confusion to the Church and is a slain Independency from the 'Practice of the Church of Christ throughout the World, p. 6.

It is comical (but provoking) to see these Men so gravely vouch the Practice of the Church throughout the World, who own no Church in the World but themselves: And for them now to speak against the pretence of Liberty in others, as a breach of their Unity, when they themselves let up the very same pretence to break the Unity of that Church, whereof they once were Members. But it is come justly home to them, (I wish they may reflect upon it) that they who let up the pretence of a Light within to undermine the Authority of our Church, are now oblig'd to condemn that same pretence among themselves, in order to keep up their own Authority and Government. This shews them, as in a Glass, the utter Inconsistency of that principle (to use their own word) of an un-subjected Light within to all Rule, Order, or good Government, whether in Church or State ; for it makes every Man absolute and supreme, that is, unsubjected: Any lesser Light within had not made them un- subjected to the Church. And this un-subjected Light within they now declare to be inconsistent even with their Church. Thus have they justly reap'd what they had wickedly sown ; and in the same Net which they hid privily, is their own foot taken."

Source: The Theological Works of Charles Leslie Vol. 2 page 121,122

It seems the parties (the separatist and establishment forces) were brutal against one another. Of particular interest is Leslie’s criticism that in his “pretence” of an inward Light that rules and guides each person, Fox undermined outward rules and principles within the protestant Church (which he separated from) and then goes about establishing outward forms of governance to rule over the Quaker gathering. Like a laser beam, Leslie illuminates an inconsistency. Fox used the inward Light as the true guide against the Church only to later turn around and establish outward principles and authorities to rule over the whole of the Quaker gathering.

Certainly I do not agree with Leslie’s ultimate denunciation of the directly and immediately experienced inward Light as the only true guide. However, it is telling that there came a point early in Quakers history wherein some sought to establish outward forms (over against the inward Light itself) to govern the whole of the Quaker body and there were others unwilling to conform to centralized outwardly established forms and institutions.

This schism shows some people placed their faith completely in the illumination of the inward light itself anchoring their conscious and informing their conscience while others found it needful to establish and overlay outward forms and institutions over against the immediacy of Presence itself.

Below is one of Leslie’s renderings of just how brutal the forces could act toward one another. If this account is true, it seems the establishment forces were willing to engage deceptive means to gain their desired rule and authority over the gathering of Quakers and undermine separatists. Leslie begins his recounting by suggesting he could have given other examples, however, he chose this one because it is a “pleasant one.” On reading it, I didn’t find it very pleasant. Notice how Leslies calls the the Establishment force’s rules and principles a “Popedom.” He also calls George Fox the “Cardinal Primate.” I wonder if these words mimicked those of the separatists forces. Certainly they would have been particularly biting to Fox and those of the establishment forces; as these are the very words they used against the Protestant and Catholic churches. Leslie writes:

“I will here give the Reader one instance, because it is a pleasant one, and discovers some other of their Principles. There is a Gentleman who was long of their Communion, now one of their Separatists, and a Member of Turners-Hall, Mr. Thorn Crisp ; who, tho a Quaker and zealous, even to suffering with them, yet run not to all their mad extravagance : he avow'd himself to pay Tithes as a just debt, being enacted by the Laws of the Land, for which he (with others such moderate Quakers) were severely, censor'd by them. He committed another great offence against their Orders and Constitutions ; he was marry'd in a Church, and by a Minister of the Church of England, which rais'd their indignation exceedingly. Therefore they press'd him very hard to make a public confession of this grievous crimes and sign an instrument Of condemnation against himself for it, pursuant to their Discipline. But not being able to prevail, they underhand, and without his knowledge, dealt with his Wife, who being terrify 'd with their threatnings, all in the name of the Lord God Almighty! did sign such a Paper of condemnation as they requir'd. But Mr. Crisp knew nothing of it for several years after, till they themselves, upon his farther Contests with them, publilsh'd it in print, without the consent, and against the mind of Mrs. Crisp, who was not Willing her Husband would know it, lest he might be displeas'd with her. But neither the sacredness of the seal of Confessions nor the hazard of making difference betwixt Husband and Wife was strong enough for their resentment, when they thought they could reach a blow at one who had oppos'd them, or rather, who would not be entirely and implicitly subject to their Popedoms ; for no other opposition had Mr. Crisp then given them, but only as to their Discipline in the jurisdictions of their Women's Meetings, and other institutions set up by George Fox as Cardinal Primate, contrary to their original Principle, of leaving every one to the measure of the Light within himself. Under which pretence they drew many away from their obedience to the Church ; but would not endure that loose Plea, (as W. Penn calls * it) when urg'd by some among themselves against that high authority which their Leaders assuim'd over all under their dominion. This was all the contest at that time betwixt the separate and other Quakers, as appears in what was then Wrote by John Story, Wilkinson, Rogers, Crisp, Bugg, and others of the Separatists, wherein there is nothing of those Errors in Doctrine and damnable Heresies which they have since discover'd , but were then involv'd in as deep as the rest: Yet for 'their refusing to be subject to this plenitude of the Quaker Church Authority, they call'd them Judases, Apostates, 'Devils incarnate, &c. tho' agreeing- With them in Doctrine, and all the other Articles of the Quaker Creed. It was this made them discover Mrs. Crisp's Paper of Condemnation against her self for being marry'd by a Priest of the Church of England, in revenge upon Mr. Crisp, who join'd with their Separatists.”

Source: The Theological Works of Charles Leslie Vol. 2 page 121,122

0 members like this

Comment by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 9:22am: From the beginning, there has been a tension between community and individualism. Either can become excessive.

There still is.

"See to it then that the light you have is not darkness." Lk 11:35

Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 12:13pm: I see things a little differently. I am not familiar with the specific separation Keith refers to. But I feel that the sense of the thread is that all imposition, or construction, of form, or outward form, is to be regretted. I am wondering if that might be too extreme a view.

Christianity is a religion of incarnation; Jesus took form as a specific human being. I think there is a meaning here that is applicable to these discussions. Taking form in an incarnational sense is not necessarily a hindrance; it may be exactly what is needed.

Form can function as a vessel to hold a spiritual understanding and meaning that is subtle and difficult to grasp. The form allows this subtle understanding to be passed on to others, rather than remaining the private experience of a single individual. In this way, outward form and presentation can have a positive relationship to the spiritual and formless.

There is a short Buddhist work called 'The Heart Sutra'. I used to chant it every day for decades; I know it by heart. It is chanted in many Mahayana Buddhist countries. Its most famous passage is 'Form does not differ from emptiness. Emptiness does not differ from form. That which has form has emptiness. That which has emptiness has form." Applying this passage to the discussion (and, admittedly, changing to a non-Buddhist context), in order to communicate that which is beyond name and form, that which has name and form are valuable because, paradoxically, that which has name and form is necessary in order to communicate that which is before name and form.

On a more concrete level, there are many examples in history of spiritual communities that are committed to strict forms. Many of these are monastic, but one can also think of Orthodox Judaism, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. These highly formalized religious traditions have been able to manifest a high degree of holiness down through the centuries. I would suggest that in these instances the formal nature of the traditions was not an obstacle to holiness; in fact I would suggest that the formal nature of the traditions was of great assistance.

It is my observation that the Quaker community at this time is steeped in what I refer to as 'hyper-individualism' wherein the likes and dislikes of every individual are considered to be of utmost importance. This contrasts with the period of quietism when communal commitments where considered superior to individual likes and dislikes. As Stephanie noted, there is always a tension between the two; but perhaps at this time the Quaker community is overly committed to individual expression. Just a thought.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 1:11pm: In that I was basically paraphrasing something William Stringfellow wrote about how organizations 'in-the-name-of' Christ still failed to embody Jesus' faith that whatever happened -- to him, to any people or organization -- if it were done in accord with God's will, would bear fruit in achieving God's ultimate good purpose.

People try to read God's manifestation through whatever situation and thoughts they're given; and we're still learning to 'read' what God intends us to conclude in particular cases. Even our sense -- at least mine -- of what God is telling us can be wrongly influenced, whether by our desires or by our efforts to avoid being led by them. ["One isn't called to hang on every cross."]

Ultimately, we can rely on God's guidance, not because we're skilled at reading it, but because God is skilled at communicating -- And then we're still working on a basis of 'best insight we have so far.' Finding that I've been wrong can be painful, but since I can't be a jellyfish, I sometimes just need to risk that.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 2:01pm: Revised for corrections.

Yes, it is the case that their is always a tension between extravagant egoism (the pursuit of individual interests rather than that of the commons) and the subjugation of individual interests in place of the collective. I concede there were those during this period who sought egotistical freedom under the pretext of freedom of conscience through the immediacy of Christ. Actually, the establishment forces used the pretext of egoism to justify the subjugation of the inward Guide to outward rules and institutions.

I intend to misbehave a bit here and suggest that the tension you highlight is not the whole of the paradigm played out in the historic event. The essence of the tension here is not one of the individual and the commons. The Quaker testimony, at the start, was such that they experienced the shattering of the individual/commons paradigm in their adherence to the inward Guide itself. Many people mistakenly characterize the experience of and holding to the inward Guide rather than outwardly expired institutions and rules as individualism. This is a misplaced characterization. A conscious anchored in and informed by Presence itself is not individualistic (egotistical) in nature. In essence, the ego is re-placed by and through the power of the inward light itself, shattering the ego nature, and by extension, shattering the individualism/commons paradigm.

This is the unique nature of the early Quaker experience … it the good news to human being. The conscious and conscience of people are no longer bound to the push and pull of the ego nature and outward forms and institutions - the commons. The inward Christ re-places the paradigm. The gathering is no longer around individual and/or collective forms. It is anchored in and informed by the inwardly experience Presence itself in all circumstances and events. This is not individualism or egoism. This is a different and unique experience that is not of the egotistical nature, in fact, it undermines and replaces the individualism/collectivism paradigm.

The telling and fundamental tension in this episode of Quaker history is the decision by one group of Quaker founders to not hold faithfully to the experience itself but to re-turn to the paradigm they had left behind and compromise adherence to the inward Spirit and Guide itself to adherence to outward forms under the pretext that some people, in their egoism, bear false witness to the inward Light and use it as pretext for egotistical behavior.

While that was and is true, I am so grateful there were and are those who are unwilling to compromise the inward light. Who held and hold to it even in the midst of embarassing and compromising behaviors by themselves and others in the gathering. This long-suffering is anchored in absolute faith in and adherence to the inspired Presence within; which is the Principle and Rule itself.

Imagine, there were those founders who willfully and with intention sought to enforce and impose their outward forms on another group of founders who merely wished to worship according to their conscience and had no wish to force their conscience on others; in fact, they had no wish to do so for conscience sake.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 2:11pm: Keith:

I read your post and found it beautiful and very articulate. I was particularly struck by your analysis of how the experience of the inward Presence takes us altogether away from the individualism/communal dichotomy. That's a fruitful insight.

I went and read the link you posted about the Wilkinson/Story controversy. And my feelings about it differ somewhat from yours; I think it is more a matter of emphasis. I would be interested in your comments on my take. The way the controversy is laid out has one side aligning with the inner light of the first Quakers, while the other side has turned away from that view and is now seeking to impose a structure on the Quaker community. I am not convinced that this reading of this episode is accurate.

I don't see a conflict between the experience of Presence and the setting up of Monthly Meetings, Quarterly Meetings, and Yearly Meetings. I'm not even convinced that the setting up of the Monday (or Second Day) London Meeting, which seems to have taken on the role of overseeing Quaker publications, is contrary to the experience of Presence. If I grant that Fox comprehended the inner light 'experimentally', then does it not follow that Fox's organizational innovations were an expression of that experimental experience of Presence?

I think we tend to see the controversy through our own contemporary cultural lens. My suspicion is that this may distort how Fox and his critics understood what was going on. Fox was creating a vessel to hold the understanding of the inner light. Such an understanding is easily lost or distorted; an example of the kind of distortion that can creep in is the way Progressive Friends redefined the inner light as the individual conscience. By creating a communal structure, the shift away from Presence and to the Individual is made more difficult because communal commitments create a context where individual ego considerations take a back seat. This is why, for example, Benedictine Monasticism has been so successful.

I am not saying that those who disagreed with Fox's creation of a Quaker structure were necessarily being egotistical. I suspect that they were completely sincere in their views. What I am suggesting is that Fox and those who agreed with him were, in fact, inspired by the light of the Lord to set up the organizational structure at that time. In other words, I am not reading this conflict (and, admittedly, my reading is recent and very limited) as a conflict between those inspired by the light vs. those who had fallen away from the Presence. I think it is entirely possible to see these structural developments as directly built upon the foundation of Presence itself.

Thanks again for thy beautiful post.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 2:55pm: Jim, I may have a further response later today or tomorrow. For now, I will just say that the dynamic that has captured me at this point in my research, is that Fox, and those founders who were with him, forced their conscience over against the conscience of those others founders who did not share their conscience. My issue, for the time being, is not outward forms themselves, but the imposition of outward forms by one group of people in the Gathering of the Light against the conscience of another group equally gathered in the Light.

I'm trying to say this clearly as I can right now. It is disappointing to me, to say the least, the Fox was willing to go so far as to disown people gathered in the Light because they did not submit to outward forms and institutions he sought to impose on the whole of the gathering. For the sake of this response, I will restrain myself my characterize such behavior.

Jim, it is becoming clear, and painfully so, that George Fox and other founders were so bent on imposing themselves on all of those gathered in the Light, that he was willing to disown any who did not turn from their own conscience in the Light itself and submit to his.

I should stop here. Time to walk further into the mountains and rest in the depths of the inward Quiet.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 4:55pm: Yes, it isn't a matter of individual vs collective ego.

It isn't necessarily even a matter of ego in the service of self-interest or collective purposes being necessarily bad -- or that such ego processes aren't themselves a manifestation of God at work, in much the same way that a motion of your finger is normally a manifestation of your conscious purpose.

Neither party to that early dispute was necessarily uninspired, misled or selling out. They don't seem to have had the word "mistaken" in their vocabularies... They assumed that God would deliver Absolute Truth to them but didn't consider whether this was something they were equipped to receive and digest.

-------

Recognition of that Presence isn't in question; where mistakes happen seems to be in the translation between what a person is given and how they understand what God is communicating... People get filled to their current capacity; they fit things into the framework they have available. Both factors are subject to further development.

Jesus uses the image of God letting His intended results grow -- developing rather than simply delivering or installing them. The Spirit, what we're aware of as Presence, "will lead you into all truth" but that process seems to have needed some paradigm shifts so far; and for me at least that 'leading' is still ongoing.

Comment by Diane Benton on 3rd mo. 20, 2015 at 2:07pm: Jim said, "Fox was creating a vessel to hold the understanding of the inner light. "

As I know it, each of us is a vessel God created and as one body we are the vessel God is creating.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 20, 2015 at 5:27pm: Hello Jim,

The blessing of the immediacy of Presence within is we need do essentially no-thing to center down into it when outward forms such as feelings of disappointment and frustration, bordering on anger, manifest on the horizon of our soul. We need only take a posture of adoration and that glorious flood of Light illuminates our conscious and conscience so that those forms can be acknowledged yet they do not overlay and subsequently overshadow Presence itself as our anchor and guide.

To begin my further response to your comments, I stand before you in a posture of adoration through the power of the inward Christ and affirm that, in the glory and embracement of Presence, there is no need for outward forms, practices, ways, theologies, religious and secular institutions, philosophies, ideologies, politics etc. to anchor the conscious and inform the conscience. Presence itself is sufficient in itself. This is the mystery and outcome of the Golgotha and Pentecost events. With that said, I acknowledge there are many who have and will continue to seek spiritual support from outward forms. I recommend against such support and admonish rather directly experienced Presence itself as the inward Form best followed. While I am willing to engage in discussion and argumentation over this recommendation, ultimately, I defer to the consciences of the individuals and gatherings that seek outward forms of support to supplement and anchor their measure of the directly experienced Spirit within. I have faith in the power of the inward Light. It is not mine to take the place of Presence. The inward Guide is ever my standard and rule.

You asked:

“If I grant that Fox comprehended the inner light 'experimentally', then does it not follow that Fox's organizational innovations were an expression of that experimental experience of Presence?”

I am going to speak freely here with the caveat that I may revise and extend my remarks at the later date as my research progresses. George Fox, in his writings, repeatedly admonished the sufficiency of the Law of the Spirit. He equally admonished for the freedom of conscience and the mystery of a conscience anchored in the Spirit itself (it is important to keep in mind that the word conscience, in the 16th century, also carried the meaning of consciousness or conscious or self-conscious. So that when he spoke of the conscience he was also speaking of the freedom of conscious or consciousness. The freedom to anchor conscious and conscience somewhere other than outward forms and institutions and even the institution of the worldly King.). A look at Fox’s behavior, during this period, suggests Fox was not just interested in merely advocating for and admonishing those gathered in the Light to follow these outward forms, he went a step further, manifesting a dominating and tyrannical spirit that would not tolerate an expression of Presence that was different than the expression of Presence in him. This was a spirit that imposed on the spirit of others. This was a hardened or seared spirit. Rather than opening his experience of Presence to others and patiently acknowledging the somewhat different expression of Presence in the consciences of others, George Fox, and those who shared his expression of Presence (expired forms), placed their expired forms over against Presence itself in the conscience of others. These founders sought to place their rules and institutions over against other founders in the gathering of the Light. As far as I am able to glean, those founders who did not share Fox’s conscience in some matters; were not of the same dominating and tyrannical spirit. They merely sought to worship in Meeting according their conscience and were open to other Meetings following Fox’s expression of Presence. It is regrettable that, as a result of Fox’s and other’s imposition upon them through institutional and personal coercion, a spirit of defensiveness morphed into outright animosity against the establishment forces. This morphed spirit overlayed, and subsequently overshadowed, the inward Presence itself. This overshadowing lead to any number of unfortunate accusations and counter-accusations.

“I think we tend to see the controversy through our own contemporary cultural lens. My suspicion is that this may distort how Fox and his critics understood what was going on.”

There is no distortion here. It is clear one group of founders sought to impose a set of outward forms over against the conscience of another group of founders. When that one group of founders imposed their conscience (outward forms and institutions), even if originally fashioned on the anvil of Presence itself, they perverted the leading and turned it into an idol hammered out on the anvil of outward intellect by persecuting those who would not subject themselves to their outward fashionings. Even though I may not value the forms one finds helpful to support their measure of Presence, for conscience sake, I could not wield a different set of outward forms to war against their conscience; for that is of the nature of “envious men, who are lovers of them-selves more than lovers of God (who) lust, kill, and desire to have men's lives or estates.”** The establishment forces, in this event, desired to have, rule over, and dictate the conscience of men and women who did not share their forms. In doing so, they allowed no space for the inward workings of Presence itself and instead placed their own outward weapons of ideological and institutional warfare over against Presence itself.

“I am not reading this conflict (and, admittedly, my reading is recent and very limited) as a conflict between those inspired by the light vs. those who had fallen away from the Presence. I think it is entirely possible to see these structural developments as directly built upon the foundation of Presence itself.”

I will concede, though with the reservation I have already expressed, those structural developments may have been fashioned on the anvil of Presence itself, however, when those leadings were perverted by tranny and coercion, the inward Spirit became overshadowed and was drowned out by the cacophonous hammerings on the anvil of the outward intellect.

With gratitude for your contribution. I’m not sure whether I’ve addressed all you’ve asked, so please feel free to push further. I welcome your input even as we do not agree.

** From: “A DECLARATION FROM THE HARMLESS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE OF GOD, CALLED QUAKERS, AGAINST ALL SEDITION, PLOTTERS, AND FIGHTERS IN THE WORLD … by George Fox and others”

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 20, 2015 at 9:01pm: It's that Presence of God in us that makes us living beings, not the food we eat. Someone who thoroughly realized that, like Jesus in some of the gospel stories, could probably do without eating -- but God is manifested in the food, as well; and most of us find it far easier if we nourish ourselves that way. Similarly, I'm inclined to believe, with religious practices.

Different people might realize God's presence in differing ways, designate it by different words (as early Friends did quite often, I'm told), find that realization enhanced or hampered by different outward conditions -- including their own expectations and intentions. People seem commonly to differ in how they interpret that experience.

So Fox correctly recognized that the experience of God alive and at work in him was all he needed to sort matters out -- but you may notice, when you read the Journal, that he claimed a lifelong streak of [what moderns would call] a "Puritanical" orientation toward life and God. (Probably far more 'Puritanical' than God actually intends.) Fox may well [as many people do] have overestimated how thoroughly he'd grasped what God was still in the process of teaching him. That is, he was sure that anybody _really_ experiencing Christ's presence would be immediately led to the same conclusions... Not so much that he _wanted_ to impose his outward ways on people, but that he was sure this was what God wished and demanded.

(?)

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.