Making this abatement from the value of the book, we are now prepared to say, that as a statement of facts respecting an important ecclesiastical movement, we have read it with interest. In all our controversial reading we have hardly met with an instance of such open, unblushing, almost avowed, persecution for opinion's sake as in the instance before us; nor of more decided artifice and prevarication in the conduct of an argument; nor of more deliberate determination, not only to silence the objections, but to ruin the character of a religious opponent. We think therefore that Mr. Wilbur had just cause of complaint, and of appeal to the judgment of the public.

Our readers do not need to be informed that for several years the Society of Friends has been agitated with intestine dissensions, growing chiefly out of differences of opinion respecting the genuine doctrines of that Society; nor that these agitations have resulted in a schism, both parties, as usual, claiming to be the depositaries of the unperverted truth, and representatives of the founders of the Community. This claim neither party can, in our opinion, substantiate. They both appeal to what we may call the symbolical books of the Society; for in this case, as in so many others, the Christian Scriptures are supplanted by the formularies of the Church. The Episcopalians appeal to the Articles and the Homilies; the Presbyterians, to the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Catechism; the Quakers, to George Fox, William Penn and Robert Barclay. Now we, standing without the circle by which their theological vision is bounded, and having no personal or denominational interest in the issue of their controversies, are decidedly of the opinion, that neither of the combatants is truly orthodox when judged by their own standards. The spirit of Quakerism has long been dead. The extinction of its vitality has nearly been fatal to the existence of the Society, from which so much was once hoped in favor of the freedom of the human mind. Quakerism itself in its genuine simplicity, as a religious system built on the doctrines of the Divine Unity and the influence of the Holy Spirit, has almost ceased to have a being. There is not enough remaining to give a character of consistent unity to the Society.

We once supposed that Quakerism was friendly to

1846.]

The Quaker Discipline.

197

freedom and to a lofty spiritualism. We had so often read in Quaker authors the scriptural expression, "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," that we believed the Quakers heartily adopted it and preached Christianity as a Gospel of freedom. We have lived to see our mistake. We find, if not in Quakerism, at least in Quakers, a melancholy narrowness of views, a suspicious watchfulness against any attempt to depart from the symbols of the Society as interpreted by the Rabbins who sit in the seat of Moses, and a determined spirit of resistance against any influences derived from the growing, light and knowledge of this age. Quakerism systematically shuts itself out from these influences. It condemns them as worldly and profane. It becomes rigid and exclusive. It frowns upon the idea of advancement. So far from advancing beyond the wisdom of its founders, it has receded from it and disowned it. That wisdom was what it professed to be, "a primitive simplicity, Christianity reduced to a determination of our will to act in conformity to the will of God, as we may know it on every occasion, and even in the most complicated circumstances," by means of the continual indwelling of his spirit. It is because Quakerism has abandoned this primitive simplicity, and sought to supply its place with doctrines having no foundation in reason or Scripture, that its glory has departed, and a cold, dead formalism has settled down upon the Society. The ancient Friends rejoiced in the life and power of godliness, which enabled them cheerfully to bear their testimony in an ungodly age, and to count it joy to endure persecution for the sake of Christ. The history of modern Quakerism compels us to ask ourselves, whether these have not been exchanged for the love of worldly influence and dominion over the consciences of men ; whether the maintenance of the Discipline be not an object of as great importance in the eyes of Quakers, as the purity of the creed or its practical efficacy upon the life.

But what has their Discipline done for them? Has it prevented degeneracy of morals, or differences of opinion? Has it maintained the unity of the Society? The weakness of the Quaker Discipline was not perceived so long as the external pressure of persecution was continued. Their common trials and sufferings bound them together, and VOL. XL. -4TH. S. VOL. V. NO. II.

18

kept them in the purity and simplicity of their original estate. When in the course of the advancing civilization of the world that pressure was removed, and persecution for conscience' sake ceased, it was seen that no Discipline, however rigid, could prevent the intrusion of thought within the domain of theology, nor perpetuate an unvarying uniformity of opinion. It was by resisting the inevitable tendencies of thought, by placing themselves in opposition to the onward progress of the world, that they brought upon themselves the calamitous events that have distinguished the later years of their existence. Calamitous we may well call them, not so much in regard to the growth and outward prosperity of the Society, as in reference to the declension of its inner life, and to the increase of an uncharitable and denunciatory spirit. And we may add perhaps, that these events have jeoparded the hope of its longcontinued existence as a separate organization. No creed or discipline, however cunningly devised or authoritatively enforced, can suppress those questions, which men in some form or other will always ask respecting their relations to God and to immortality; nor can any answers, however just, silence all doubts and scruples.

Religious communities must also be prepared to answer another class of questions, those, namely, that touch the social and moral welfare of mankind. These are not to be evaded nor put off with barren generalities. If a community stands upon its dignity, or shuts itself up in sullen separation, or refuses to bestow its notice on any moral or philanthropic enterprise which is exciting profound interest in the minds and hearts of mankind, it must make up its account to be destroyed or rent, or to be left behind, in the progress of the world, a monument of its imperfect adaptation to the wants of an age to the measure of whose thought it has not grown. Men earnestly engaged in great moral enterprises will not be restrained by bands of doctrine and discipline, by forms of faith and modes of church government. Several of the largest religious organizations have recently experienced this truth. They have been shaken by internal dissensions growing out of diversities of opinion respecting such questions, not less than by diversities of opinion upon religious doctrines. Instead of meeting these questions frankly and answering them in

1846.]

Origin of the Separation.

199

accordance with the acknowledged principles of Christianity, they have either evaded them, or disowned and endeavored to injure the individuals most active in effecting the proposed reformation. The Quakers, like others, have found the inefficacy of their Discipline in restraining the expression of opinion. Disownment has lost its terrors. The Preparative, Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, in all the plenitude of their power, cannot prevent earnest and faithful men from exposing formalism and hypocrisy, and sounding the claims of social duty in the ears of a careless generation. A little band of bigots, gathered in some obscure "meetinghouse," cannot increase the effect of their spiritual decisions by excluding offenders against the Discipline from the ordinary courtesies of social life. Society will not regard them as so excluded. The time has gone, if it ever existed, when a Community could be formed to the feelings and habits which Christianity requires by any Discipline, however rigidly enforced.

The immediate occasion of the division in the Yearly Meeting, was the visit to this country of Joseph John Gurney, a member of the Society in England. He has been represented to us as a man of learning, wealth and general culture, of polished manners, extensive intercourse with the world, and a zealous preacher of his distinctive views of religion. In these he seems to have departed further from original Quakerism than even the Yearly Meeting, in fact, to have been a Quaker in name only. Our readers can judge whether he belongs to the same Church as William Penn, when we remind them that he inculcates the doctrine of the Trinity, the Calvinistic view of the Atonement, the sacredness of the Sabbath, and the efficacy of outward Sacraments; that he regards Christ as outwardly the enlightener, in opposition to the Quaker doctrine of "Christ himself the evangelical and saving light and grace in all;" that he attributes a paramount authority to the Scriptures, looks favorably upon forms of devotion, and teaches us to expect the resurrection of the same body that dies. If these points do not involve an actual renunciation of primitive Quakerism, we have read its story to little purpose. In the inculcation of them he was sustained and encouraged by the New England Yearly Meeting. John Wilbur, a member of the South Kingston (R. I.) Monthly Meeting, and

an approved minister, had previously opposed the views of Gurney in England, and pursued the same course upon his return to this country. His object was to show that Gurney was an unfaithful preacher of Quakerism, judged by the acknowledged standards of the Society; and that the tendency of his preaching was, to increase formalism and outwardness, by diverting attention from the fundamental doctrine, namely, that "true religion in all its parts and articles springs from this divine principle, the Light of Christ in man, as the manifestation of God's love for man's happiness."* It was contended, that the generally received views of the atonement and of imputed righteousness were not only inconsistent with Christianity and Quakerism, but tended to the loss of the spirit, life and power of that religion, which is immediately revealed by Christ in the soul and mind of man. In short, that the modern orthodoxy of Friends is an abandonment of their ancient spiritualism.

The controversy with Gurney necessarily brought Wilbur into conflict with the majority of the Society in New England. To silence without answering him, they summoned him before their ecclesiastical tribunals on a charge of violating the Discipline, in that he had published books on the dogmas of Quakerism without subjecting them to the revision of the Society! He repeatedly invited them to a comparison of Gurney's doctrines with their symbolical books. Evading the true issue, they replied that this was not a question of doctrine, but of discipline. Following up this disingenuous beginning with misrepresentations of his character and opinions, they at last succeeded in procuring his "disownment," first by the lower and then by the higher tribunals. This result, however, was not attained without suppressing the Monthly Meeting to which he belonged, and uniting its members with another more yielding. This is Quaker liberality. It is also an approved, long-standing method of avoiding the inconveniences of unrestricted discussion. We had supposed, that he who publishes his opinions with a view to influence or change the opinions of others, has no right or reason to complain of any examination of his views, however critical, provided it be made in a candid and charitable spirit. His opinions become the

William Penn.