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 Diane Benton on 3rd mo. 22, 2015 at 11:20am: The creation is self-correcting. The consequences of our actions provide the energy needed, over time, to conform us to original intent. Our loving Creator, Presence, is always with us through the process whispering in our inward ear, “this is the way, walk in it.” No other imposition is to be applied.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 22, 2015 at 11:41am: Good Morning Keith:

It is First Day morning and I will be going to Meeting soon. It is a Meeting which would not be here if it were not for George Fox's efforts to create a form, a vessel, for the embodiment of the understanding the early Quakers had embodied in their lives. I feel very grateful, and I am full of admiration, for those efforts on my behalf.

We see things very differently. That's a good thing. Probably the truth lies somewhere inbetween our two views, or perhaps some kind of mixture that neither of us can see clearly.

From my perspective, your use of the word 'tyranny' simply doesn't make sense. It is not a tyranny when all the members of an orchestra follow a conductor's beat. It is not a tyranny when four friends agree on the rules for playing bridge, or some other cardgame. It is not a tyranny when I follow English grammar when I write and speak so that others will understand me. It is not a tyranny, or an imposition, when I follow the recipe in an old cookbook.

Form and structure are not our enemies; after all, the Lord looked on His creation and said that it was 'good'.

Best wishes,

Jim

P.S. This will be my last comment on this thread because I have already started to repeat points I previously made.

Comment by Diane Benton on 3rd mo. 22, 2015 at 12:35pm: Jim, the tyranny was exercised over those who chose not to follow the leading of the conductor, George Fox, not over those who did.

May you have a bountiful meeting with those who have chosen to follow the same conductor.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 1:48am: Good Evening Jim,

I intend to misbehave and expand a bit on what Diane wrote and add my own further comments.

Please, I do not have an issue with you repeating yourself. I find repetition helpful in working through to clarity in articulation. I welcome further discussion with you should you choose, even if you repeat yourself. As you know, I can be very repetitive.

I too admire George Fox and the early Quakers. As I have stated in many previous posts, I have considered Fox and Pennington, specifically as spiritual colleagues, for a good portion of my life. Their writings, specifically, have challenged and pushed me in inspired Presence anchoring my conscious and informing my conscience.

Intuitive Presence happened to me outside the Quaker context. This intuitive experience was not informed by or manifested in any specific religious or secular institutional or ideological framework. Those frameworks overshadowed this direct intuitive experience; they were a hindrance to me as a young man. The experience itself was one of breaking down all outward religious, secular, philosophical, institutional, ways and practices so that I stepped onto a path wherein identity slowly began to rest more and more in intuited Presence itself rather than any specific outward forms. The ego slowly faded (over years and years and years of regression and moving forward) in the bright light of inspired Presence. The original experience, however, showed the path in crystal clarity. I came to Quakerism through the suggestion of a friend who gleaned some similarities in the experience I was struggling to express and it has been a part of my life. I regularly share that one quote from Penington (I won’t repeat it) because I am in empathy with the words.

I suggest to you that there is an experience wherein human being or consciousness exists and sustains without reference to any outwardly expired forms. In this experience, personal identity no longer rests in what a person does, their occupation, their friends, their church, their meeting house, the man or woman they marry, their politics, their religious affiliation, there philosophy, their theology, and on and on. The ego nature, their personal identity, is replaced by the ever intuitive Presence itself. This is not a view or opinion, it is an experience. Again, I am not debating reasoned or intellectualized viewpoints or opinions with you. This is an experience.

I use the word tyranny because those who were of a different conscience than Fox, and the founders who supported him, called or characterized the actions of Fox to subject them to forms and institutional structures against their consciences … tyranny. That is one of the words they used. Contemporaries of Fox, those also gathered the in Light, were calling his actions, in part, tyrannical. I agree with you, if everyone in an orchestra agrees to follow the conductors beat, there is no tyranny. However, your analogue does not fit in this moment in history. Here we have a conductor and his orchestra breaking in on another conductor and orchestra and telling them that they must stop and conform to the music he and dictate. At this moment in history, we have the creator of a recipe breaking in on a person not using his or her recipe and attempting to force them to use their recipe even though the person wishes to use another. This is tyranny, in the words of the separatists. Certainly, the word tyranny doesn't make sense in a context where all are in agreement, but it does if there is disagreement and one side set out to subject another to their conscience through and with outward weapons of institutional, ideological, and personal coercion.

Finally, when identity is largely anchored in and informed outward forms rather than the inward Form of intuited Presence, human being is compromised. The good news is we all have a measure of directly intuited Presence, and, in power of Presence, we can know an identity, a life, a being/Being, anchored completely, and in all things, in inspired Presence itself rather than outwardly expired forms. Each of us can know an inspired Life rather than one expired.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 11:48am: Where we are in agreement [if I'm right] is in the experience of the experiencing, which you call 'Presence' without quite specifying any particular 'Presenter' to be 'Presencing' (which I hope will make some sort of sense here.) It's like the 'Yin' of the universe, a screen on which any picture could be projected but nothing in particular need be... What we don't experience so directly (at least I don't) in that way would be the 'Yang', the creative outpouring that continues to put out coherently developing form to our experiencing....

(?)

Comment by William F Rushby on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 1:12pm: Hello, Friends! I have been greatly distracted by several relatives staying at my place, and by discussing on another list the low retention rate of children raised among unprogrammed Friends, and the history of shunning among Anabaptists and FRIENDS, I haven't really kept up with this thread.

I could never find much information about the Wilkinson/Story controversy. But there were others (James Nayler and John Perrot) where the issue of the free exercise of prophecy vs. the need for structure in the church was at the center of controversy. In both of these cases, George Fox and the "Quaker establishment" prevailed, imposing order on the fellowship and constraining the centrifugal forces that threatened to destroy the integrity of the Quaker movement. Had they declined to impose discipline, the Quaker movement would probably have "blown apart" over time, with its followers going in innumerable directions.

The Ranters and the Perrotonians did just that. The Society of Friends today descended from the ordered Quaker community, not from the undisciplined free spirits.

Comment by Diane Benton on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 1:48pm: I see nothing undisciplined about ones who are yielded to the movement of God in them. Because Christ is the only mediator, any one else imposing order is a usurper. If I were to impose what I know as right order on others, I would be a usurper. I have no desire to be part of a life that is not ordered by the Creator. I intend to be faithful to God and no other.

There still exists a line of Quakers who are not of the majority rule of the Quaker establishment. And there is a line of people still in existence who descend for the first disciples of Christ who have no other mediator.

Comment by William F Rushby on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 2:10pm: Jesus said (Mt. 16:19): "And I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The Lord empowered His followers to bind and to loose in His name!

What is this "line of Quakers" who are not of the majority rule of the Quaker establishment? Are you simply describing the rampant individualism which now afflicts the Society of Friends?

Comment by Diane Benton on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 2:55pm: Those who are submitted to the movement of God in them are the line of Quakers who are not of the majority rule. There's no room for individualism in ones being moved by God. As God's love woes us into that surrender, individualism is overcome.

Comment by Diane Benton on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 3:27pm: What are the keys? Bind and loose to and from what?

The keys I have are my knowing of the nature and character of the Creator, which are seen in Jesus. As people watch me demonstrate or fail to demonstrate that nature and character, there is the potential of loosing them from or binding them to false perceptions of God.

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.