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 Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 3:34pm: Hello Forest,

Yours words appeal to my imagination and light up a sensing a recognition. However, there is an abiding concern that my understanding of you words may not match what you are expressing. Here is a free write version what your words manifest within me. Please let me know whether they reflect, anyway near, what you are expressing or is a meaningful response.

During the activities of daily life, there are moments that grow more and more pronounced and frequent when one is in a supple posture of “experiencing” (I will use your word) in itself and, during the activities of life, where the experiencing is Form itself. In this inspired posture, creative outpouring brings specific form and coherence in specific circumstances so that one holds to the experiencing itself and acts through or in it. However, the specific acts have no continuing outward coherence relative to actions that may be taken in a different moment. In the experiencing itself, and resulting actions of the moment, there is no necessity or obligation to adhere to the same “picture” manifested in a particular past or future moment. Likewise, there is also no necessity or obligation that one will not manifest the same picture in a different moment. When the experiencing itself is the Form, the form of actions we take, in our daily lives, are not bond to the forms of actions we or others took at a different time, even though we may seemingly repeat the same form of action over and over again. For some, this repetition may suggest an adherence to an outward form when, in actuality, the action, when experiencing is the Form, is a completely new action every time and not at all connected to the same actions that previously manifested in the experiencing.

In a supple posture toward Presence itself, wherein inward Presence itself is the Form, rather than past forms that are outwardly expired or codified or institutionalized, specific past actions are not referenced to inform actions of the moment. The experiencing itself informs and animates the specific action. This supple posture, gained through holding to the experiencing as the Form itself, checks individual and group identity with specific actions taken at a particular past moment in time and opens to the “creative outpourings” and a coherence not bound by conformity to expired or past outward forms.

This coherence works within a context of diverse responses by individuals and groups even in the same the same context and at the same moment. In the experiencing itself, it may be that one individual or group manifests a different action than another. This difference in action, in the context of experiencing itself, does not suggest incoherence; holding to the experiencing itself embraces and manifesting a curious and tolerant coherence that sees past the constraints of expired or past outward forms. This is the essential nature of freedom of conscience.

I look forward to working through to a better understanding of what it is you are expressing.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 4:21pm: Good Afternoon:

I know I said my last post would be the last one for this thread; but I find this thread to be instructive, insightful, thoughtful, and worth pursuing. I also found William Rushby's brief post about 'rampant individualism' to speak my mind. The following are a few comments and observations; but I want to preface that I am speaking from how I see things rather than making a statement that judges others or negates their understanding. I find it necessary to state this because statements of view are easily misunderstood on the web.

I think of Fox's formulation of a structure of monthly, quarterly, and yearly Meetings to be on a par with St. Benedict's creation of a monastic rule. Benedict's rule has proven remarkably durable over the centuries. In addition, the rule of Benedict has functioned as a context wherein many dedicated men and women have spiritually blossomed. Similarly, Fox's creation of a formal structure has proven efficacious for a long time and has provided many people with a context in which their spiritual lives have flourished. Speaking as one of those, I feel nothing but gratitude for his efforts and the results that they have engendered.

The critique of form, as it appears on this thread, divides existence into two mutually exclusive, and hostile, parts: the formless light and the world of structure and appearances. To me this is a Gnostic vision. At the heart of Gnosticism is a devaluation of creation and a rigid dualism. Creation, and incarnation, are viewed as in some manner deficient; only the light, or the timeless transcendental has full value. This is why the creation of a form is considered to be a hindrance and an imposition. In contrast, in Genesis, God sees His creation, that is to say the form (meaning the earth, stars, sun, moon, creatures, and human beings) as 'good'. This is replicated by the incarnation of Jesus, wherein Jesus as God takes on human form.

I agree with William that the kind of thinking that sees any structure as 'tyranny' is a signal that the hyper-individualism of our age is afoot here. Form and structure are not an obstacle to the inner light; in fact they are the means for accessing it. To illustrate with an analogy; tea is a formless beverage. If I took a teapot and served you tea by pouring it over the table you would not be able to drink it. If I put the tea into a cup (a form) then you can also partake of it. The cup is an incarnation of form and makes drinking the tea possible. The formal structure that Fox instituted is a cup from which we can all drink, to our heart's content, the inner light of the Lord.

Best wishes,

Jim

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 4:23pm: Hi William,

You Wrote:

"Had they declined to impose discipline, the Quaker movement would probably have "blown apart" over time, with its followers going in innumerable directions."

Is this not that the case now and has it not been the case throughout Quaker history? The establishment forces at the time did use something of this argument to justify their imposition on others who only wished to be free to worship according to their conscience. As my study of this period progresses, I can't help wondering whether this pretense for persecution actually helped accelerate the Quaker breakup into "innumerable directions" evidenced by actual Quaker history.

I can't help imagine what may have happened if, instead of becoming hardened by hierarchy the establishment forces would have faithfully held to directly inspired Presence itself instead of trusting in the establishment of outward forms to rule the Gathering. What if the presence of and inspiration of Christ remained the only Rule? We cannot know, however, we do know the many breakups and schisms that manifested under the establishment rule.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 4:36pm: "Individualism" would be going against the group discipline because of some personal feeling, opinion, inclination. If it's God that's leading a particular individual to take a stand against the group's view of the situation -- that may look 'individualistic' and 'subjective' to human observers; but it's quite objective to God.

Micaiah (1 Kings 22) is told: "Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king; let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably." That's not what he does. Is he an 'individualist'? He simply sees farther into God's intention than the consensus of the others at that time; while God's purposes, for whatever reason, require that they get this one wrong...

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 23, 2015 at 7:16pm: Keith, we seem to have overlapped... I've got to agree, certainly from the standpoint that 'what would have happened if they hadn't clamped down the discipline' can't be a certainty to unaided human evaluation [and people do seem to misread God, who in any event doesn't seem concerned with whether or not humans get their historical specualtions right.]

Everybody seeking direct experience of God -- and taking the risk of being mistaken, in the interest of holding to their true course regardless of human contradiction -- would have had this advantage: Where relying on external human input would distract them from their true Teacher; continuing to rely on God's direct leading would work to focus their attention where it belongs. They would not 'blow apart' so long as God could freely correct their mistakes and lead them back together.

It's the external impositions that scatter people ('anyone who does not gather with Me') because unless led in the same direction by God, everyone will disagree on which of these should apply.

Comment by Diane Benton on 3rd mo. 24, 2015 at 9:42am: This controversy actually started back at Sinai when God spoke to the whole gathering and they responded saying that it was too scary to talk to God, that God should talk to Moses and they would do what ever Moses said. We know how well that turned out!

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 24, 2015 at 3:11pm: Hello Jim, Thank you for staying engaged in this conversation and for sharing your views. Even though, I do not share your views, I embrace and welcome your thoughts in and by the light of Presence itself within me and each of us.

I own that the inspiring and eternally renewing immediacy of Presence itself anchors my conscious and informs my conscience in all activities of daily life. Inward Presence itself is my identity and is replacing my ego nature. When I talk with people at the grocery store, Presence is my identity and meaning. As I observe and study the nesting behavior of the Northern Saw-whet Owl, presence is my identity and meaning. When I read and write on this website the immediacy of inward Presence is my identity and meaning. Presence is my worship when gathered in church or meeting house. Presence is my meaning and identity in the various circumstances and activities of Life. Presence is eternally renewing Life.

I do not shun the natural world or the world of man. I spend hours and hours of my life in the natural world observing the habits and habitat of various living creatures. I have spent hours of my live helping to manage natural areas against invasive plant species to keep open and vital those fragile micro-habitats that support and sustain rare and native species. I welcome and gain from interaction with people and the earth in various contexts and under various circumstances.

Jim, I wouldn’t last one week in a Gnostic setting. They would rid themselves of me as soon as possible because it would become clear to them that I do not value their dualism. Those of us who share the message of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the enduring and immediate experience of inward Presence itself, in all circumstances and all events, do not evade outward forms, we have come to know meaning and consciousness free from identity with outward forms because our being and consciousness is established in the direct experience of eternal being itself. This experience of freedom from outwardly expired forms enhances our experience or life with the living things on this earth because we know experientially the essential being we share with each of them. We are free from identity with outwardly expired secular and religious rules, institutions, ideologies, theologies, and powers and principalities, because they have been replaced by the power and principality of inward/inspired Presence itself. We are not of the ego nature and the individualism it engenders because Presence itself illuminates, informs, ever renews, and replenishes our spirit. We are essentially monist in nature (if you will) in the sense that our identity is not reflected through the outward mirrors of ideological and institutional forms. We are gathered is in and through the power of inspired Presence itself which sustains us in the experience itself, not in reflections or similitudes of Presence. Our Gathering is not identified or reflected through a particular outward religious form. We are gathered and gathering in Presence itself. This is the message of the early Quakers to the Protestant and Catholic churches of their time. It is becoming evident to me that some of those early founders came to a place where they thought returning to and intermingling with the outward forms they had once gathered against, was a needful thing for the longevity of the gathering. They then set out to crush, through outward institutional and personal coercion, those who did not share their wish to be re-established and identified with a particular centralized reflected or mirrored form. The fact that there were those who, for the sake of conscience itself, could not relinquish the very core of their meaning and identity in the immediacy of Presence itself, over to the rule and subjugation of outwardly expired and established forms and similitudes, demonstrates a line all the way back to the very begins of those gathered in the Light that held to no-thing but the immediacy of Presence itself and validates those of us who, even today, share the same faith and experience. We did not die or fade away, we are still present on this earth and we are still gathering.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 24, 2015 at 11:52pm: Keith, even though I think we're talking about the same what-it-is, I keep wondering whether we're quite on the same page.

That is, people could use your words without really knowing what they point to (because people do exhibit remarkable powers of 'seeing without seeing, hearing without understanding'); while people do use different words to mean the same thing -- That is, it's a universal center-of-life so I don't think we could really be pointing different directions. But do you recognize this going on in any presently-embodied people, having different ways of putting it?

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 25, 2015 at 3:49pm: Forest, Yes. In short, I have recognized it in meetings I've had in certain evangelical contexts. I look back with fondness to conversations I had with a small group of evangelical Christians in the Okefenokee Swamp in southern Georgia in a holiness context . I have recognized it in certain discussions I've with people in a Taoist context, though I have little specific or practical knowledge of it. There are also those I have recognize it in a Catholic context in Louisiana and in an American Indian context near Helena, Montana. The last two were chance encounters. I have also encountered it in a non-religious context with individuals deeply steeped in the philosophical works of Rudolf Steiner as opposed to the purely anthroposophical. These encounters came out of my visits to certain functions at the Waldorf Institute in Ann Arbor, Michigan; though I was not affiliated with them. I also recognize it in the scientific community with individuals (atheist, theist, and agnostic) I've encountered in the context birding bird and natural community studies. I have recognized it among people in mere living and loving family contexts wherein faith in the presence of Christ alone supports, sustains, and informs their relationships inside and outside of specific religious institutional contexts. I have also encountered it in Quaker contexts. And there are more encounters I could share.

In each of these encounters, we came together in that point of recognition, through shared experience, where you just grin in absolute consonance and our differences in diction were not a matter.

I'm sure there are any number of people, in various outward contexts, that know the experience of an inspired or intuited conscious sustained and sustaining their activities. One of the common aspects of this experience seems to be that it happened to them rather than it was anything they did directly or practically. However, once it happened, there is the shared experience that there is volitional aspect or responsibility that results in further growth into the experience and that without this volition the experience can be stunted.

This intuited consciousness is natural to human being and we may be at a point in history were this aspect of our being is coming closer and closer to maturation in what were once considered disparate contexts.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 25, 2015 at 3:52pm: "This intuited consciousness is natural to human being and we may be at a point in history were this aspect of our being is coming closer and closer to maturation in what were once considered disparate contexts."

Yes, I'm hoping so!

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.