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 Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 18, 2015 at 3:50pm: While that Presence of God is quite universal, clearly people differ in how readily they understand God's meaning at any one time -- and their messages can differ for various reasons, including the possibility that sometimes two seemingly contradictory propositions both shed light on a subject where either one alone would lack depth, or in some other way distort the actuality they're intended to delineate.

It seems to be where one person or group tries to establish Authority over another, or to claim infallibility for one particular insight, that people distort and misapply the inspiration God truly provides.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 18, 2015 at 4:13pm: What I find compelling in this case Forest, is the separatists forces where not trying to impose any outward form on others in the gathering of Quakers; it was the establishment forces imposing on the separatist. One can easily imagine, if the establishment forces had not forced their outward forms on those Meetings who did not share their conscience, the troubles may not have manifested. It is clear here that the problem is one, and only one, group in the Quaker gathering imposing themselves on another group in the Quaker gathering. This point is significant and key and warrants repeating.

The separatists were not seeking to impose themselves on others. They were fine with some meetings establishing forms not cordial to their conscience. The troubles happened when some folks in the gathering sought to impose their conscience on others. The separatists were basically saying, look, we are not of your conscience in these matters so we will follow our own as we are open to you following yours. This is not a cases of two forces imposing themselves on each other, this is a case of the establishment forces spiritually and, in some cases physically, imposing themselves on another group who just sought the freedom to worship according to their conscience. It is only when the establishment forces sought to rule over the conscience of the separatists that the separatists fought back.

Comment by James C Schultz on 3rd mo. 18, 2015 at 5:21pm: Some things never change:

1Co_8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

1Co_8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

In my old aged feeble mind I thought the benefit of not having a creed was that it allowed each individual to walk in his own revelation and not have to pretend to have received some revelation inscribed on stone or for that matter a stony heart. Whether it's tithes or meat sacrificed to idols (which is pretty much what our meats are today - the idols being expediency and profit/mammon) or individual hormonal sexual drives, we seem only too eager to stop loving our neighbor for the sake of an outward unity built on sand instead of an inward unity built on the Rock.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 18, 2015 at 5:56pm: James. This moment in Quaker history has deep spiritual significant and value. It may very well be the case that George Fox, and many of the founding Quakers, came to a point wherein they were willing to disown other founding Quakers over the establishment outward institutional forms imposed on the whole of the gathering. Leslie's criticism of the inconsistency is powerful. Imagine, these founding Quakers suffered physical and emotional indignities at the hands of the church and state for affirming their spiritual freedom of conscience by the power of the inward Light guiding and teaching them. Then, right at the very germination of the Gathering in the Light, a group of their own spiritual pedigree turn to and strive to impose another set of outward forms on them from within the gathering itself!!!!! Just imagine it. It must have been absolutely debilitating and devitalizing. Then this establishment group goes further and threatens to disown them if those who do not share their conscience refuse to subjugate themselves to their outward forms even against their conscience!

These words you wrote:

"... we seem only too eager to stop loving our neighbor for the sake of outward unity ..." Even many of the founding Quakers, even George Fox, seemed willing to do so. This moment in Quaker history cuts deep and is shattering. Your words are a sword of cold reality piercing my conscious and conscience. I do not lament them ... they are just so shattering ... a breaking wide open of the spirit in re-cognition.

I thought my research into the Wilbur/Gurney schism was difficult. This is on another level altogether.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 18, 2015 at 6:24pm: Here is a link to an short interesting and informative introductory article in pdf format:

Martin, Clare J. L. (2003) "Tradition Versus Innovation: The Hat, Wilkinson-Story and Keithian Controversies," Quaker Studies: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 1.

http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=100...

Comment by James C Schultz on 3rd mo. 18, 2015 at 6:52pm: isn't the benefit of history that we are supposed to learn from it and not repeat it?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 18, 2015 at 10:01pm: This seems to be key [from Keith's link]: "Increased persecution following the Restoration also showed leading Friends that a certain amount of control needed to be exercised over the actions of enthusiastic individuals so that their behaviour would not bring worse sufferings upon Friends.

"Fox and other leading Friends sought to distance the group from traditional Quaker excesses. It became common practice for Friends to judge the spirit of others. If a member felt moved to behave in a manner to which others objected, Friends would question whether this person really had been led by the light within. The Meeting might in fact conclude that the person had been acted upon by a wrong spirit. Indeed, the failure of the individual to comply with the sense or majority of a meeting came to be seen as evidence of a wrong spirit."

That was really the issue in Naylor's case, long before the Restoration, in fact. His [probably legitimate] sign threatened to bring down extra flack on Friends who were already under serious risk of persecution. A similar consideration was whether a break in the ranks would jeopardize an established witness of Friends, for example their witness that compulsory tithes were an illegitimate governmental policy, or that which denied the value of clergy in performing a wedding ceremony.

So it came down to supporting or endangering the body which was bearing the message that the light within was an adequate guide to God's will. The thought that God might have different requirements for different people, all valid and sometimes in conflict, was not a good fit to how these Friends (or their contemporaries) conceived the Spirit, what the church was supposed to look like, or God's purposes for humanity. Hence the efforts to suppress dissent.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 12:15am: But in essence, this did represent the abandonment of Quaker faith in the power of the Spirit to guide and regulate individuals, in favor of continuing their organization as merely one among competing Powers and Principalities -- like them in being unwilling to risk the death of the organization. Hence, a crucial falling-short from Jesus' faith in following God regardless of personal consequences. That is, individual Quakers continued to exemplify that spirit, but they had put collective survival first instead....

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 12:52am: Forest, I appreciate both your comments. I shared the link to that specific document because it has become a sort of reference post for me against the growing frustration and disappointment I struggle with against those founding Quakers who sought outward collective conformity through outward coercion. I feel sort of kinship with those founding Quakers who resisted their outward coercion. I have also gained an even deeper respect for Penington and how he tried to navigate through the animosity that developed between the two forces. His constant loving deference to the conscience of all those gathered to the Light has touched me to the core. This research manifests layers upon layers of pure emotions within me that keep me up long into the hours of the night. There is a something personal here. It has been long since I've experienced the conflict of emotions clouding and crowding out inward peace.

Your words will haunt me for days and nights to come:

"But in essence, this did represent the abandonment of Quaker faith in the power of the Spirit to guide and regulate individuals, in favor of continuing their organization as merely one among competing Powers and Principalities -- like them in being unwilling to risk the death of the organization."

The article I linked to above ends with:

"By the end of the seventeenth century, Quakerism had adopted the new institutions which it needed to achieve longevity but it had lost much of the old enthusiasm which it needed to thrive."

Comment by James C Schultz on 3rd mo. 19, 2015 at 8:51am: This is and has been the bane of Christianity. Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel often said that by the time a movement of the Holy Spirit reached the third generation it was an organization and no longer a Holy Spirit driven move of God. Another Calvary Chapel preacher urged anyone who organized a new church to put it in their bylaws that all buildings and property owned by the Church after 50 years should be sold and the proceeds given to the poor. I don't know if anyone actually followed his advice. I somehow doubt it.

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
2
3
…
5
Next ›

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.