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