 |
[Footnote 111: Mat. 9.38.]
[Footnote 112: Acts 20.28.]
[Footnote 113: Rom. 10.15.]
The Quakers then, rejecting school divinity, continue to think with Justin, Luther, Dell, Milton, and indeed with those of the church of England and others, that those only can be proper ministers of the church, who have witnessed within themselves a call from the spirit of God. If men would teach religion, they must, in the opinion of the Quakers, be first taught of God. They must go first to the school of Christ; must come under his discipline in their hearts; must mortify the deeds of the body; must crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof; must put off the old man which is corrupt; must put on the new man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness;" must be in fact, "Ministers of the sanctuary and true tabernacle, which the Lord hath pitched, and not man." And whether those who come forward as ministers are really acted upon by this Spirit, or by their own imagination only, so that they mistake the one for the other, the Quakers consider it to be essentially necessary, that they should experience such a call in their own feelings, and that purification of heart, which they can only judge of by their outward lives, should be perceived by themselves, before they presume to enter upon such an office.
The Quakers believe that men, qualified in this manner, are really fit for the ministry, and are likely to be useful instruments in it. For first, it becomes men to be changed themselves, before they can change others. Those again, who have been thus changed, have the advantage of being able to state from living experience what God has done for them; [114] "what they have seen with their eyes; what they have looked upon; and what their hands have handled of the word of life." Men also, who, by means of God's Holy Spirit, have escaped the pollutions of the world, are in a fit state to understand the mysteries of God, and to carry with them the seal of their own commission. Thus men under sin can never discern spiritual things. But "to the disciples of Christ," and to the doers of his will, "it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven." Thus, when the Jews marvelled at Christ, saying [115] "How knoweth this man letters, (or the scriptures) having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Such ministers also are considered as better qualified to reach the inward state of the people, and to "preach liberty to the captives" of sin, than those who have merely the advantage of school divinity, or of academical learning. It is believed also of these, that they are capable of giving more solid and lasting instruction, when they deliver themselves at large: for those, who preach rather from intellectual abilities and from the suggestions of human learning, than from the spiritual life and power which they find within themselves, may be said to forsake Christ, who is the "living fountain, and to hew out broken cisterns which hold no water," either for themselves or for others.
[Footnote 114: Coloss. 2. 6.]
[Footnote 115: 1 Tim. 6.20.21.]
This qualification for the ministry being allowed to be the true one, it will follow, the Quakers believe, and it was Luther's belief also, that women may be equally qualified to become ministers of the Gospel, as the men. For they believe that God has given his Holy Spirit, without exception, to all. They dare not therefore limit its operations in the office of the ministry, more than in any other of the sacred offices which it may hold. They dare not again say, that women cannot mortify the deeds of the flesh, or that they cannot be regenerated, and walk in newness of life. If women therefore believe they have a call to the ministry, and undergo the purification necessarily connected with it, and preach in consequence, and preach effectively, they dare not, under these circumstances, refuse to accept their preaching, as the fruits of the spirit, merely because it comes through the medium of the female sex.
Against this doctrine of the Quakers, that a female ministry is allowable under the Gospel dispensation, an objection has been started from the following words of the Apostle Paul: [116] "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak"—"and if they will learn any thing, let them ask their Husbands at home." but the Quakers conceive, that this charge of the Apostle has no allusion to preaching. In these early times, when the Gospel doctrines were new, and people were eager to understand them, some of the women, in the warmth of their feelings, interrupted the service of the church, by asking such questions as occurred to them on the subject of this new religion. These are they whom the Apostle desires to be silent, and to reserve their questions till they should return home. And that this was the case is evident, they conceive, from the meaning of the words, which the Apostle uses upon this occasion. For the word in the Greek tongue, which is translated "speak," does not mean to preach or to pray, but to speak as in common discourse. And the words, which immediately follow this, do not relate to any evangelical instruction, which these women were desirous of communicating publicly, but which they were desirous of receiving themselves from others.
[Footnote 116: 1 Cor. 14.34.35.]
That the words quoted do not relate to praying or preaching is also equally obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers; for if they had related to these offices of the church, the word "prophesy" had been used instead of the word "speak." Add to which that the Apostle, in the same epistle in which the preaching of women is considered to be forbidden, gives them a rule to which he expects them to conform, when they should either prophesy or pray: but to give women a rule to be observed during their preaching, and to forbid them to preach at the some time, is an absurdity too great to be fixed upon the most ordinary person, and much more upon an inspired Apostle.
That the objection has no foundation, the Quakers believe again, from the consideration that the ministry of women, in the days of the Apostles, is recognized in the New Testament, and is recognized also, in some instances, as an acceptable service.
Of the hundred and twenty persons who were assembled on the day of pentecost, it is said by St. Luke that [117] some were women. That these received the Holy Spirit as well as the men, and that they received it also for the purpose of prophesying or preaching, is obvious from the same Evangelist. For first, he says, that "all were filled with the Holy Ghost." And secondly, he says, that Peter stood up, and observed concerning the circumstance of inspiration having been given to the women upon this occasion, that Joel's prophecy was then fulfilled, in which were to be found these words: "And it shall come to pass in the hist days, that your sons and your daughters shall prophesy—and on my servants and handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my spirit; and they shall prophesy."
[Footnote 117: Acts, Chap. 1.]
That women preached afterwards, or in times subsequent to the day of pentecost, they collect from the same Evangelist. [118]For he mentions Philip, who had four daughters, all of whom prophesied at Caesarea. Now by prophesying, if we accept [119]St. Paul's interpretation of it, is meant a speaking to edification, and exhortation, and comfort, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It was also a speaking to the church: it was also the speaking of one person to the church, while the others remained silent.
[Footnote 118: Acts 21.9.]
[Footnote 119: 1 Cor. 14.]
That women also preached or prophesied in the church of Corinth, the Quakers show from the testimony of St. Paul: for he states the manner in which they did it, or that [120]they prayed and prophesied with their heads uncovered.
[Footnote 120: 1 Cor. 11. 5.]
That women also were ministers of the Gospel in other places; and that they were highly serviceable to the church, St. Paul confesses with great satisfaction, in his Epistle to the Romans, in which he sends his salutation to different persons, for whom he professed an affection or an esteem: [121]thus—"I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church, which is at Cenchrea." Upon this passage the Quakers usually make two observations. The first is, that the [122]Greek word, which is translated servant, should have been rendered minister. It is translated minister, when applied by St. Paul to [123]Timothy, to denote his office. It is also translated minister, when applied to [124]St. Paul and Apollos. And there is no reason why a change should have been made in its meaning in the present case. The second is, that History has handed down Phoebe as a woman eminent for her Gospel labours. "She was celebrated, says [125]Theodoret, throughout the world; for not only the Greeks and the Romans, but the Barbarians, knew her likewise."
[Footnote 121: Romans 16.1.]
[Footnote 122: [Greek: Diokogos.]]
[Footnote 123: 1 Thess. 3. 2.]
[Footnote 124: 1 Cor. 3. 5.]
[Footnote 125: In Universa Terra celebris facta est; nec eam soli Romani, &c,]
St. Paul also greets Priscilla and Aquila. He greets them under the title of fellow-helpers or fellow-labourers in Jesus Christ. But this is the same title which he bestows upon Timothy, to denote his usefulness in the church. Add to which, that Priscilla and Aquila were the persons of whom St. Luke [126]says, "that they assisted Apollos in expounding to him the way of God more perfectly."
[Footnote 126: Acts 18. 24. 26.]
In the same epistle he recognizes also other women, as having been useful to him in Gospel-labours. Thus—"Salute Tryphena, and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord." "Salute the beloved Persis, who laboured much in the Lord."
From these, and from other observations, which might be made upon this subject, the Quakers are of opinion that the ministry of the women was as acceptable, in the time of the Apostles, as the ministry of the men. And as there is no prohibition against the preaching of women in the New Testament, they see no reason why they should not be equally admissible and equally useful as ministers at the present day.
SECT. II.
Way in which Quakers are admitted into the ministry—When acknowledged, they preach, like other pastors, to their different congregations or meetings—They visit occasionally the different families in their own counties or quarterly meetings—Manner of these family-visits—Sometimes travel as ministers through particular counties or the kingdom at large—Sometimes into foreign parts—Women share in these labours—Expense of voyages on such occasions defrayed out of the national stock.
The way in which Quakers, whether men or women, who conceive themselves to be called to the office of the ministry, are admitted into it, so as to be acknowledged by the society to be ministers of the Quaker-church, is simply as follows.
Any member has a right to rise up in the meetings for worship, and to speak publicly. If any one therefore should rise up and preach, who has never done so before, he is heard. The congregation are all witnesses of his doctrine. The elders, however, who may be present, and to whose province it more immediately belongs to judge of the fitness of ministers, observe the tenour of his discourse. They watch over it for its authority; that is, they judge by its spiritual influence on the mind, whether it be such as corresponds with that which may be presumed to come from the spirit of God. If the new preacher delivers any thing that appears exceptionable, and continues to do so, it is the duty of the elders to speak to him in private, and to desire him to discontinue his services to the church. But if nothing exceptionable occurs, nothing is said to him, and he is allowed to deliver himself publicly at future meetings. In process of time, if, after repeated attempts in the office of the ministry, the new preacher should have given satisfactory proof of his gifts, he is reported to the monthly meeting to which he belongs. And this meeting, if satisfied with his ministry, acknowledges him as a minister, and then recommends him to the meeting of ministers and elders belonging to the same. No other act than this is requisite. He receives no verbal or written appointment or power for the execution of the sacerdotal office. It may be observed also, that he neither gains any authority, nor loses any privilege, by thus becoming a minister of the Gospel. Except, while in the immediate exercise of his calling, he is only a common member. He receives no elevation by the assumption of any nominal title, to distinguish him from the rest. Nor is he elevated by the prospect of any increase to his wordly goods in consequence of his new office; for no minister in this society receives any pecuniary emolument for his spiritual labours.
When ministers are thus approved and acknowledged, they exercise the sacred office in public assemblies, as they immediately feel themselves influenced to that work. They may engage also, with the approbation of their own monthly meeting, in the work of visiting such Quaker families as reside in the county, or quarterly meeting to which they belong. In this case they are sometimes accompanied by one of the elders of the church. These visits have the name of family visits, and are conducted in the following manner:—
When a Quaker minister, after having commenced his journey, has entered the house of the first family, the individual members are collected to receive him. They then sit in silence for a time. As he believes himself concerned to speak, he delivers that which arises in his mind with religions freedom. The master, the wife, and the other branches of the family, are sometimes severally addressed. Does the minister feel that there is a departure in any of the persons present, from the principles or practice of the society, he speaks, if he believes it required of him, to these points. Is there any well disposed person under any inward discouragement; this person may be addressed in the language of consolation. All in fact are exhorted and advised as their several circumstances may seem to require. When the religious visit is over, the minister, if there be occasion, takes some little refreshment with the family, and converses with them; but no light or trifling subject is ever entered upon on these occasions. From one family he passes on to another, till he has visited all the families in the district, for which he had felt a concern.
Though Quaker ministers frequently confine their spiritual labours to the county or quarterly meeting in which they reside, yet some of them feel an engagement to go beyond these boundaries, and to visit the society in particular counties, or in the kingdom at large. They who feel a concern of this kind, must lay it before their own monthly meetings. These meetings, if they feel it right to countenance it, grant them certificates for the purpose. These certificates are necessary; first, because ministers might not he personally known as ministers out of their own district; and secondly, because Quakers, who were not ministers, and other persons who might counterfeit the dress of Quakers, might otherwise impose upon the society, as they travelled along.
Such persons, as thus travel in the work of the ministry, or public friends as they are called, seldom or never go to an inn at any town or village, where Quakers live. They go to the houses of the latter. While at these, they attend the weekly, monthly, and quarterly meetings of the district, as they happen on their route. They call also extraordinary meetings of worship. At these houses they are visited by many of the members of the place and neighbourhood, who call upon and converse with them. During these times they appear to have their minds bent on the object of their mission, so that it would be difficult to divert their attention from the work in hand. When they have staid a sufficient time at a town or village, they depart. One or more guides are appointed by the particular meeting, belonging to it, to show them the way to the next place, where they propose to labour, and to convey them free of expense, and to conduct them to the house of some member there. From this house, when their work is finished, they are conveyed and conducted by new guides to another, and so on, till they return to their respective homes.
But the religious views of the Quaker ministers are not always confined even within the boundaries of the kingdom. Many of them believe it to be their duty to travel into foreign parts. These, as their journey is now extensive, must lay their concern not only before their own monthly meeting, but before their own quarterly meeting, and before the meeting of Ministers and Elders in London also. On receiving their certificates, they depart. Some of them visit the continent of Europe, but most of them the churches in America, where they diligently labour in the vineyard, probably for a year or two, at a distance from their families and friends. And here it may be observed, that, while Quaker ministers from England are thus visiting America on a religious errand, ministers from America, impelled by the same influence, are engaging in Apostolical missions to England. These foreign visits, on both sides, are not undertaken by such ministers only as are men. Women engage in them also. They cross the Atlantic, and labour in the vineyard in the same manner. It may be mentioned here, that though it be a principle in the Quaker society, that no minister of the Gospel ought to be paid for his religious labours, yet the expense of the voyage, on such occasions, is allowed to be defrayed out of the fund, which is denominated by the Quakers their national stock.
CHAP. XI.
Elders—Their appointment—One part of their office to watch over the doctrines and conduct of ministers—Another part of their office to meet the ministers of the church, and to confer and exhort for religious good—None to meddle at these conferences with the government of the church.
I mentioned in the preceding chapter, as the reader must have observed, that certain persons, called Elders, watched over those who came forward in the ministry, with a view of ascertaining if they had received a proper qualification or call. I shall now state who the elders are, as well as more particularly the nature of their office.
To every particular meeting four elders, two men and two women, but sometimes more and sometimes less, according as persons can be found qualified, are appointed. These are nominated by a committee appointed by the monthly meeting, in conjunction with a committee appointed by the quarterly meeting. And as the office annexed to the name of elder is considered peculiarly important by the Quakers, particular care is taken, that persons of clear discernment, and such as excel in the spiritual ear, and such as are blameless in their lives, are appointed to it. It is recommended that neither wealth nor age be allowed to operate as inducements in the choice of them. Indeed, so much care is required to be taken with respect to the filling up this office, that if persons perfectly suitable are not to be found, the meetings are to be left without them.
It is one part of the duty of the elders, when appointed, to watch over the doctrine of young ministers, and also to watch over the doctrine and conduct of ministers generally, and tenderly to advise with such as appear to them to be deficient in any of the qualifications which belong to their high calling.
When we consider that every religious society attaches a more than common respectability to the person who performs the sacerdotal office, there will be no difficulty in supposing, whenever a minister may be thought to err, that many of those who are aware of his error, will want the courage to point it out to him, and that others will excuse themselves from doing it, by saying that interference on this occasion does not belong more immediately to them than to others. This institution therefore of elders fixes the offices on individuals. It makes it their duty to watch and advise—It makes them responsible for the unsound doctrine, or the bad conduct of their ministers. And this responsibility is considered as likely to give persons that courage in watching over the ministry, which they might otherwise want. Hence, if a minister in the Quaker church were to preach unsoundly, or to act inconsistently with his calling, he would be generally sure of being privately spoken to by one or another elder.
This office of elders, as far as it is concerned in advising ministers of the Gospel, had its foundation laid by George Fox. Many persons, who engaged in the ministry in his time, are described by him as "having run into imaginations," or as "having gone beyond their measure;" and in these cases, whenever they should happen, he recommended that one or two friends, if they saw fit, should advise with them in love and wisdom. In process of time, however, this evil seems to have increased; for as the society spread, numbers pressed forward to become Gospel ministers; many supposed they had a call from the spirit, and rose up, and preached, and in the heat of their imaginations, delivered themselves unprofitably. Two or three persons also, in the frenzy of their enthusiasm, frequently rose up, and spoke at the same time. Now this was easily to be done in a religious society, where all were allowed to speak, and where the qualifications of ministers were to be judged of in part by the truths delivered, or rather, where ordination was no mark of the ministry, or where an human appointment of it was unknown. For these reasons, that mode of superintendence which had only been suggested by George Fox, and left to the discretion of individuals, was perfected into an establishment, out of imperious necessity, in after times. Men were appointed to determine between the effects of divine inspiration and human imagination; to judge between the cool and the sound; and the enthusiastic and the defective; and to put a bridle as it were upon those who were not likely to become profitable labourers in the harvest of the Gospel. And as this office was rendered necessary on account of the principle that no ordination or human appointment could make a minister of the Gospel; so the same principle continuing among the Quakers, the office has been continued to the present day.
It devolves upon the elders again, as a second branch of their duty, to meet the ministers of the church at stated seasons, generally once in three months, and to spend some time with them in religious retirement. It is supposed that opportunities may be afforded here, of encouraging and strengthening young ministers, of confirming the old, and of giving religious advice and assistance in various ways: and it must be supposed at any rate, that religious men cannot meet in religious conference, without some edification to each other. At these meetings, queries are proposed relative to the conduct both of ministers and elders, which they answer in writing to the quarterly meetings of ministers and elders to which they belong. Of the ministers and elders thus assembled, it may be observed, that it is their duty to confine themselves wholly to the exhortation of one another for good. They can make no laws, like the ancient synods and other convocations of the clergy, nor dictate any article of faith. Neither can they meddle with the government of the church. The Quakers allow neither ministers nor elders, by virtue of their office, to interfere with their discipline. Every proposition of this sort must be determined upon by the yearly meeting, or by the body at large.
CHAP. XII.
SECT. I.
Worship—Consists of prayer and preaching—Neither of these effectual but by the Spirit—Hence no liturgy or form of words, or studied sermons, in the Quaker-church—Singular manner of delivering sermons—Tone of the voice usually censured—This may arise from the difference between nature and art—Objected, that there is little variety of subject in these sermons—Variety not so necessary to Quakers—Other objections—Replies—Observations of Francis Lambert, of Avignon.
As no person, in the opinion of the Quakers, can be a true minister of the gospel, unless he feel himself called or appointed by the spirit of God, so there can be no true or effectual worship, except it come through the aid of the same spirit.
The public worship of God is usually made to consist of prayer and preaching.
Prayer is a solemn address of the soul to God. It is a solemn confession of some weakness, or thanksgiving for some benefit, or petition for some favour. But the Quakers consider such an address as deprived of its life and power, except it be spiritually conceived. [127] "For the spirit helpeth our infirmities. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
[Footnote 127: Rom. 8. 26.]
Preaching, on the other hand, is an address of man to men, that their attention may be turned towards God, and their minds be prepared for the secret and heavenly touches of his spirit. But this preaching, again, cannot be effectually performed, except the spirit of God accompany it. Thus St. Paul, in speaking of himself, says, [128] "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and with power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." So the Quakers believe that no words, however excellent, which men may deliver now, will avail, or will produce that faith which is to stand, except they be accompanied by that power which shall demonstrate them to be of God.
[Footnote 128: 1 Cor. 2. 4.]
From hence it appears to be the opinion of the Quakers, that the whole worship of God, whether it consist of prayer or of preaching, must be spiritual. Jesus Christ has also, they say, left this declaration upon record,[129]that "God is a spirit, and that they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth." By worshipping him in truth, they mean, that men are to worship him only when they feel a right disposition to do it, and in such a manner as they judge, from their own internal feelings, to be the manner which the spirit of God then signifies.
[Footnote 129: John 4.24.]
For these reasons, when the Quakers enter into their meetings, they use no liturgy or form of prayer. Such a form would be made up of the words of man's wisdom. Neither do they deliver any sermons that have been previously conceived or written down. Neither do they begin their service immediately after they are seated. But when they sit down, they wait in silence,[130] as the Apostles were commanded to do. They endeavour to be calm and composed. They take no thought as to what they shall say. They avoid, on the other hand, all activity of the imagination, and every thing that arises from the will of man. The creature is thus brought to be passive, and the spiritual faculty to be disencumbered, so that it can receive and attend to the spiritual language of the Creator. [131]If, during this vacation from all mental activity, no impressions should be given to them, they say nothing. If impressions should be afforded to them, but no impulse to oral delivery, they remain equally silent. But if, on the other hand, impressions are given them, with an impulse to utterance, they deliver to the congregation as faithfully as they can, the copies of the several images, which they conceive to be painted upon their minds.
[Footnote 130: Mat. 10.19. Acts 1.4.]
[Footnote 131: They believe it their duty, (to speak in the Quaker language,) to maintain the watch, by preserving the imagination from being carried away by thoughts originating in man; and, in such watch, patiently to await for the arising of that life, which, by subduing the thoughts of man, produces an inward silence, and therein bestows a true sight of his condition upon him.]
This utterance, when it manifests itself, is resolvable into prayer or preaching. If the minister engages in prayer, the whole company rise up, and the men with the minister take off their hats, that is, [132]uncover their heads. If he preaches only, they do not rise, but remain upon their seats as before, with their heads covered. The preacher, however, uncovers his own head upon this occasion.
[Footnote 132: 1 Cor. Ch. 11.]
There is something singular in the manner in which the Quakers deliver themselves when they preach. In the beginning of their discourses, they generally utter their words with slowness; indeed, with a slowness, which sometimes renders their meaning almost unintelligible to persons unaccustomed to such a mode of delivery; for seconds sometimes elapse between the sounding of short sentences or single words, so that the mind cannot always easily carry the first words, and join them to the intermediate, and connect them with the last. As they proceed, they communicate their impressions in a brisker manner; till, at length, getting beyond the quickness of ordinary delivery, they may be said to utter them rapidly. At this time, some of them appear to be much affected, and even agitated by their subject. This method of a very slow and deliberate pronunciation at first, and of an accelerated one afterwards, appears to me, as far as I have seen or heard, to be universal: for though undoubtedly some may make less pauses between the introductory words and sentences than others, yet all begin slower than they afterwards proceed.
This singular custom may be probably accounted for in the following manner. The Quakers certainly believe that the spirit of God furnishes them with impressions on these occasions, but that the description of these is left to themselves Hence a faithful watch must be kept, that these may be delivered to their hearers conformably to what is delivered to them. But if so, it may perhaps be necessary to be more watchful, at the outset, in order to ascertain the dimensions as it were of these impressions, and of their several tendencies and bearings, than afterwards, when such a knowledge of them has been obtained. Or it may be that ministers, who go wholly unprepared to preach, have but a small view of the subject at first. Hence they speak slowly. But as their views are enlarged, their speech becomes quickened, and their feelings become interested with it. These, for any thing I know, may be solutions, upon Quaker principles, of this extraordinary practice.
Against the preaching of the Quakers, an objection is usually made by the world, namely, that their ministers generally deliver their doctrines with an unpleasant tone. But it may be observed that this, which is considered to be a defect, is by no means confined to the Quakers. Persons of other religious denominations, who exert themselves in the ministry, are liable to the same charge. It may be observed also, that the difference between the accent of the Quakers, and that of the speakers of the world, may arise in the difference between art and nature. The person who prepares his lecture for the lecture-room, or his sermon for the pulpit, studies the formation of his sentences, which are to be accompanied by a modulation of the voice. This modulation is artificial, for it is usually taught. The Quakers, on, the other hand, neither prepare their discourses, nor vary their voices purposely, according to the rules of art. The tone which comes out, and which appears disagreeable to those who are not used to it, is nevertheless not unnatural. It is rather the mode of speaking which nature imposes, in any violent exertion of the voice, to save the lungs. Hence persons who have their wares to cry, and this almost every other minute, in the streets, are obliged to adopt a tone. Hence persons with disordered lungs, can sing words with more ease to themselves than they can utter them, with a similar pitch of the voice. Hence Quaker women, when they preach, have generally more of this tone than the Quaker men, for the lungs of the female are generally weaker than those of the other sex.
Against the sermons of the Quakers two objections are usually made; the first of which is, that they contain but little variety of subject. Among dissenters, it is said, but more particularly in the establishment, that you may hear fifty sermons following each other, where the subject of each is different. Hence a man, ignorant of letters, may collect all his moral and religious duties from the pulpit in the course of the year. But this variety, it is contended, is not to be found in the Quaker church.
That there is less variety in the Quaker sermons than in those of others, there can be no doubt. But such variety is not so necessary to Quakers, on account of their peculiar tenets, and the universality of their education, as to others. For it is believed, as I have explained before, that the spirit of God, if duly attended to, is a spiritual guide to man, and that it leads him into all truth; that it redeems him; and that it qualifies him therefore for happiness in a future state. Thus an injunction to attend to the teachings of the spirit, supersedes, in some measure, the necessity of detailing the moral and religious obligations of individuals. And this necessity is still farther superseded by the consideration, that, as all the members of the Quaker society can read, they can collect their Christian duty from the scriptures, independently of their own ministers; or that they can collect those duties for themselves, which others, who are illiterate, are obliged to collect from the church.
The second objection is, that the Quaker discourses have generally less in them, and are occasionally less connected or more confused than those of others.
It must be obvious, when we consider that the Quaker ministers are often persons of but little erudition, and that their principles forbid them to premeditate on these occasions, that we can hardly expect to find the same logical division of the subject, or the same logical provings of given points, as in the sermons of those who spend hours, or even days together, in composing them.
With respect to the apparent barrenness, or the little matter sometimes discoverable in their sermons, they would reply, that God has not given to every man a similar or equal gift. To some he has given largely; to others in a less degree. Upon some he has bestowed gifts, that may edify the learned; upon others such as may edify the illiterate. Men are not to limit his spirit by their own notions of qualification. Like the wind, it bloweth not only where it listeth, but as it listeth. Thus preaching, which may appear to a scholar as below the ordinary standard, may be more edifying to the simple hearted, than a discourse better delivered, or more eruditely expressed. Thus again, preaching, which may be made up of high sounding words, and of a mechanical manner and an affected tone, and which may, on these accounts, please the man of learning and taste, may be looked upon as dross by a man of moderate abilities or acquirements. And thus it has happened, that many have left the orators of the world and joined the Quaker society, on account of the barrenness of the discourses which they have heard among them.
With respect to Quaker sermons being sometimes less connected or more confused than those of others, they would admit that this might apparently happen; and they would explain it in the following manner. Their ministers, they would say, when they sit among the congregation, are often given to feel and discern the spiritual states of individuals then present, and sometimes to believe it necessary to describe such states, and to add such advice as these may seem to require. Now these states being frequently different from each other, the description of them, in consequence of an abrupt transition from one to the other, may sometimes occasion an apparent inconsistency in their discourses on such occasions. The Quakers, however, consider all such discourses, or those in which states are described, as among the most efficacious and useful of those delivered.
But whatever may be the merits of the Quaker sermons, there are circumstances worthy of notice with respect to the Quaker preachers. In the first place, they always deliver their discourses with great seriousness. They are also singularly bold and honest, when they feel it to be their duty, in the censure of the vices of individuals, whatever may be the riches they enjoy. They are reported also from unquestionable authority, to have extraordinary skill in discerning the internal condition of those who attend their ministry, so that many, feeling the advice to be addressed to themselves, have resolved upon their amendment in the several cases to which their preaching seemed to have been applied.
As I am speaking of the subject of ministers, I will answer one or two questions, which I have often heard asked concerning it.
The first of these is, do the Quakers believe that their ministers are uniformly moved, when they preach, by the spirit of God?
I answer—the Quakers believe they may be so moved, and that they ought to be so moved. They believe also that they are often so moved. But they believe again, that except their ministers are peculiarly cautious, and keep particularly on their watch, they may mistake their own imaginations for the agency of this spirit. And upon this latter belief it is, in part, that the office of elders is founded, as before described.
The second is, as there are no defined boundaries between the reason of man and the revelation of God, how do the Quakers know that they are favoured at any particular time, either when they preach or when they do not preach, with the visitation of this spirit, or that it is, at any particular time, resident within them?
Richard Claridge, a learned and pious clergyman of the Church of England in the last century, but who gave up his benefices and joined the society of the Quakers, has said a few words in his Tractatus Hierographicus, upon this subject, a part of which I shall transcribe as an answer to this latter question.
"Men, says he, may certainly know, that they do believe on the Son of God, with that faith that is unfeigned, and by which the heart is purified: for this faith is evidential and assuring, and consequently the knowledge of it is certain. Now they, who certainly know that they have this knowledge, may be certain also of the spirit of Christ dwelling in them; for [133] 'he that believeth on the Son of God, hath the witness in himself;' and this witness is the spirit; for it is [134] 'the spirit that beareth witness,' of whose testimony they may be as certain, as of that faith the spirit beareth witness to."
[Footnote 133: 1 John 5.10.]
[Footnote 134:1 John 5. 6.]
Again—"They may certainly know that they love the Lord above all, and their neighbour as themselves. For the command implies not only a possibility of knowing it in general, but also of such a knowledge as respects their own immediate concernment therein, and personal benefit arising from a sense of their conformity and obedience thereunto. And seeing they may certainly know this, they may also as certainly know, that the spirit of Christ dwelleth in them;[135] for 'God is love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.' And [136] 'if we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.'" In the same manner he goes on to enumerate many other marks from texts of scripture, by which he conceives this question may be determined[137].
[Footnote 135:1 John 4. 16.]
[Footnote 136:1 John 4. 12.]
[Footnote 137: The Quakers conceive it to be no more difficult for them to distinguish the motions of the Holy Spirit, than for those of the church of England, who are candidates for holy orders. Every such candidate is asked, "Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this office and ministration?" The answer is, "I trust so."]
I shall conclude this chapter on the subject of the Quaker preaching, by an extract from Francis Lambert of Avignon, whose book was published in the year 1516, long before the society of the Quakers took its rise in the world. "Beware, says he, that thou determine not precisely to speak what before thou hast meditated, whatsoever it be; for though it be lawful to determine the text which thou art to expound, yet not at all the interpretation; lest, if thou doest so, thou takest from the Holy Spirit that which is his, namely, to direct thy speech that thou mayest preach in the name of the Lord, void of all learning, meditation, and experience; and as if thou hadst studied nothing at all, committing thy heart, thy tongue, and thyself, wholly unto his spirit; and trusting nothing to thy former studying or meditation, but saying to thyself in great confidence of the divine promise, the Lord will give a word with much power unto those that preach the Gospel."
SECT. II.
But besides oral or vocal, there is silent worship among the Quakers—Many meetings where not a word is said, and yet worship is considered to have begun, and to be proceeding—Worship not necessarily connected with words—This the opinion of other pious men besides Quakers—Of Howe—Hales—Gell—Smaldridge, bishop of Bristol—Monro —Advantages which the Quakers attach to their silent worship.
I have hitherto confined myself to those meetings of the Quakers, where the minister is said to have received impressions from the Spirit of God, with a desire of expressing them, and where, if he expresses them, he ought to deliver them to the congregation as the pictures of his will; and this, as accurately as the mirror represents the object that is set before it. There are times, however, as I mentioned in the last section, when either no impressions may be said to be felt, or, if any are felt, there is no concomitant impulse to utter them. In this case no person attempts to speak: for to speak or to pray, where the heart feels no impulse to do it, would be, in the opinion of the Quakers, to mock God, and not to worship him in spirit and in truth. They sit therefore in silence, and worship in silence; and they not only remain silent the whole time of their meetings, but many meetings take place, and these sometimes in succession, when not a word is uttered.
Michael de Molinos, who was chief of the sect of the Quietists, and whose "Spiritual Guide" was printed at Venice in 1685, speaks thus: "There are three kinds of silence; the first is of words, the second of desires, and the third of thoughts. The first is perfect; the second is more perfect; and the third is most perfect. In the first, that is, of words, virtue is acquired. In the second, namely, of desires, quietness is attained. In the third, of thoughts, internal recollection is gained. By not speaking, not desiring, and not thinking, one arrives at the true and perfect mystical silence, where God speaks with the soul, communicates himself to it, and in the abyss of its own depth, teaches it the most perfect and exalted wisdom."
Many people of other religious societies, if they were to visit the meetings of the Quakers while under their silent worship, would be apt to consider the congregation as little better than stocks or stones, or at any rate as destitute of that life and animation which constitute the essence of religion. They would have no idea that a people were worshipping God, whom they observed to deliver nothing from their lips. It does not follow, however, because nothing is said, that God is not worshipped. The Quakers, on the other hand, contend, that these silent meetings form the sublimest part of their worship. The soul, they say, can have intercourse with God. It can feel refreshment, joy, and comfort, in him. It can praise and adore him; and all this, without the intervention of a word.
This power of the soul is owing to its constitution or nature. "It follows, says the learned Howe, in his 'Living Temple,' that having formed this his more excellent creature according to his own more express likeness; stampt it with the more glorious characters of his living image; given it a nature suitable to his own, and thereby made it capable of rational and intelligent converse with him, he hath it even in his power to maintain a continual converse with this creature, by agreeable communications, by letting in upon it the vital beams and influences of his own light and love, and receiving back the return of its grateful acknowledgments and praises: wherein it is manifest he should do no greater thing than he hath done. For who sees not that it is a matter of no greater difficulty to converse with, than to make a reasonable creature? Or who would not be ashamed to deny, that he who hath been the only author of the soul of man, and of the excellent powers and faculties belonging to it, can more easily sustain that which he hath made, and converse with his creature suitably to the way, wherein he hath made it capable of his converse?"
That worship may exist without the intervention of words, on account of this constitution of the soul, is a sentiment which has been espoused by many pious persons who were not Quakers. Thus, the ever memorable John Hales, in his Golden Remains, expresses himself: "Nay, one thing I know more, that the prayer which is the most forcible, transcends, and far exceeds, all power of words. For St. Paul, speaking unto us of the most effectual kind of prayer, calls it sighs and groans, that cannot be expressed. Nothing cries so loud in the ears of God, as the sighing of a contrite and earnest heart."
"It requires not the voice, but the mind; not the stretching of the hands, but the intention of the heart; not any outward shape or carriage of the body, but the inward behaviour of the understanding. How then can it slacken your worldly business and occasions, to mix them with sighs and groans, which are the most effectual prayer?"
Dr. Gell, before quoted, says—"Words conceived only in an earthly mind, and uttered out of the memory by man's voice, which make a noise in the ears of flesh and blood, are not, nor can be accounted a prayer, before our father which is in Heaven."
Dr. Smaldridge, bishop of Bristol, has the following expressions in his sermons: "Prayer doth not consist either in the bending of our knees, or the service of our lips, or the lifting up of our hands or eyes to heaven, but in the elevation of our souls towards God. These outward expressions of our inward thoughts are necessary in our public, and often expedient in our private devotions; but they do not make up the essence of prayer, which may truly and acceptably be performed, where these are wanting."
And he says afterwards, in other parts of his work—"Devotion of mind is itself a silent prayer, which wants not to be clothed in words, that God may better know our desires. He regards not the service of our lips, but the inward disposition of our hearts."
Monro, before quoted, speaks to the same effect, in his Just Measures of the Pious Institutions of Youth. "The breathings of a recollected soul are not noise or clamour. The language in which devotion loves to vent itself, is that of the inward man, which is secret and silent, but yet God hears it, and makes gracious returns unto it. Sometimes the pious ardours and sensations of good souls are such as they cannot clothe with words. They feel what they cannot express. I would not, however, be thought to insinuate, that the voice and words are not to be used at all. It is certain that public and common devotions cannot be performed without them; and that even in private, they are not only very profitable, but sometimes necessary. What I here aim at is, that the youth should be made sensible, that words are not otherwise valuable than as they are images and copies of what passes in the hidden man of the heart; especially considering that a great many, who appear very angelical in their devotions, if we take our measures of them from their voice and tone, do soon, after these intervals of seeming seriousness are over, return with the dog to the vomit, and give palpable evidences of their earthliness and sensuality; their passion and their pride."
Again—"I am persuaded, says he, that it would be vastly advantageous for the youth, if care were taken to train them up to this method of prayer; that is, if they were taught frequently to place themselves in the divine presence, and there silently to adore their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. For hereby they would become habitually recollected. Devotion would be their element; and they would know, by experience, what our blessed Savour and his great Apostle meant, when they enjoin us to pray without ceasing. It was, I suppose, by some such method of devotion as I am now speaking of, that Enoch walked with God; that Moses saw him that is invisible; that the royal Psalmist set the Lord always before him; and that our Lord Jesus himself continued whole nights in prayer to God. No man, I believe, will imagine that his prayer, during all the space in which it is said to have continued, was altogether vocal. When he was in his agony in the garden, he used but a few words. His vocal prayer then consisted only of one petition, and an act of pure resignation thrice repeated. But I hope all will allow, that his devotion lasted longer than while he was employed in the uttering a few sentences."
These meetings then, which are usually denominated silent, and in which, though not a word be spoken, it appears from the testimony of others that God may be truly worshipped, the Quakers consider as an important and sublime part of their church service, and as possessing advantages which are not to be found in the worship which proceeds solely through the medium of the mouth.
For in the first place it must be obvious that, in these silent meetings, men cannot become chargeable before God, either with hypocrisy or falsehood, by pretending to worship him with their lips, when their affections are far from him, or by uttering a language that is inconsistent with the feelings of the heart.
It must be obvious, again, that every man's devotion, in these silent meetings, is made, as it ought to be, to depend upon himself; for no man can work out the salvation of another for him. A man does not depend at these times on the words of a minister, or of any other person present; but his own soul, worked upon by the divine influence, pleads in silence with the Almighty its own cause. And thus, by extending this idea to the congregation at large, we shall find a number of individuals offering up at the same time their own several confessions; pouring out their own several petitions; giving their own thanks severally, or praising and adoring; all of them in different languages, adapted to their several conditions, and yet not interrupting one another.
Nor is it the least recommendation of this worship, in the opinion of the Quakers, that, being thus wholly spiritual, it is out of the power of the natural man to obstruct it. No man can break the chains that thus binds the spirit of man to the spirit of God; for this chain, which is spiritual, is invisible. But this is not the case, the Quakers say, with any oral worship. "For how, says Barclay, alluding to his own times, can the Papists say their mass, if there be any there to disturb and interrupt them? Do but take away the mass-book, the chalice, the host, or the priest's garments; yea, do but spill the water, or the wine, or blow out the candles, (a thing quickly to be done,) and the whole business is marred, and no sacrifice can be offered. Take from the Lutherans and Episcopalians their liturgy or common prayer-book, and no service can be said. Remove from the Calvinists, Arminians, Socinians, Independents, or Anabaptists, the pulpit, the bible, and the hourglass, or make but such a noise as the voice of the preacher cannot be heard, or disturb him but so before he come, or strip him of his bible or his books, and he must be dumb: for they all think it an heresy to wait to speak, as the spirit of God giveth utterance; and thus easily their whole worship may be marred."
SECT. III.
Quakers reject every thing formal, ostentatious, and spiritless, from their worship—Ground on which their Meeting-houses stand, not consecrated—The latter plain—Women sit apart from the men—No Pews—nor priest's garments—nor psalmody—No one day thought more holy than another—But as public worship is necessary, days have been fixed upon for that purpose.
Jesus Christ, as he was sitting at Jacob's well, and talking with the woman of Samaria, made use of the following, among other expressions, in his discourse: "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither, in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth."
These expressions the Quakers generally render thus: I tell you that a new dispensation is at hand. Men will no longer worship at Jerusalem more acceptably than in any other place. Neither will it be expected of them, that they shall worship in temples, like the temple there. Neither the glory, nor the ornaments of gold and silver and precious stones, nor the splendid garments of the High Priest, will be any parts of the new worship that is approaching. All ceremonies will be done away, and men's religion will be reduced simply to the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. In short, the Quakers believe, that, when Jesus came, he ended the temple, its ornaments, its music, its Levitical priesthood, its tithes, its new moons, and sabbaths, and the various ceremonial ordinances that had been engrafted into the religion of the Jews.
The Quakers reject every thing that appears to them to be superstitious, or formal, or ceremonious, or ostentatious, or spiritless, from their worship.
They believe that no ground can be made holy; and therefore they do not allow the places on which their Meeting-houses are built to be consecrated by the use of any human forms.
Their Meeting-houses are singularly plain. There is nothing of decoration in the interior of them. They consist of a number of plain long benches with backs to them; There is one elevated seat at the end of these. This is for their ministers. It is elevated for no other reason, than that their ministers may be the better heard. The women occupy one half of these benches, and sit apart from the men.
These benches are not intersected by partitions. Hence there are no distinct pews for the families of the rich, or of such as can afford to pay for them: for in the first place, the Quakers pay nothing for their seats in their Meeting-houses; and, in the second, they pay no respect to the outward condition of one another. If they consider themselves, when out of doors, as all equal to one another in point of privileges, much more do they abolish all distinctions, when professedly assembled in a place of worship. They sit therefore in their Meeting-houses undistinguished with respect to their outward circumstances, [138]as the children of the same great parent, who stand equally in need of his assistance; and as in the sight of Him who is no respecter of persons, but who made of one blood all the nations of men who dwell on all the face of the earth.
[Footnote 138: Spiritual officers, such as elders and overseers, sit at the upper part of the Meeting-house.]
The Quaker ministers are not distinguishable, when in their places of worship, by their dress. They wear neither black clothes, nor surplices, nor gowns, nor bands. Jesus Christ, when he preached to the multitude, is not recorded to have put on a dress different from that which he wore on other occasions. Neither do the Quakers believe that ministers of the church ought, under the new dispensation, to be a separate people, as the Levites were, or to be distinguished on account of their office from other men.
The Quakers differ from other Christians in the rejection of psalmody, as a service of the church. If persons feel themselves so influenced in their private devotions, [139]that they can sing, as the Apostle says, "with the spirit and the understanding," or "can sing[140] and make melody in their hearts to the Lord," the Quakers have no objection to this as an act of worship. But they conceive that music and psalmody, though they might have been adapted to the ceremonial religion of the Jews, are not congenial with the new dispensation that has followed; because this dispensation requires, that all worship should be performed in spirit and in truth. It requires that no act of religion should take place, unless the spirit influences an utterance, and that no words should be used, except they are in unison with the heart. Now this coincidence of spiritual impulse and feeling with this act, is not likely to happen, in the opinion of the Quakers, with public psalmody. It is not likely that all in the congregation will be impelled, in the same moment, to a spiritual song, or that all will be in the state of mind or spirit which the words of the psalm describe. Thus how few will be able to sing truly with David, if the following verse should be brought before them: "As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." To this it may be added, that where men think about musical harmony or vocal tunes in their worship, the amusement of the creature will be so mixed with it, that it cannot be a pure oblation of the Spirit, and that those who think they can please the Divine Being by musical instruments, or the varied modulations of their own voices, must look upon him as a Being with corporeal organs, sensible, like a man, of fleshly delights, and not as a Spirit, who can only be pleased with the worship that is in spirit and in truth.
[Footnote 139: 1 Cor. 14. 15.]
[Footnote 140: Ephes. 5. 19.]
The Quakers reject also the consecration and solemnization of particular days and times. As the Jews, when they became Christians, were enjoined by the Apostle Paul, not to put too great a value upon "days,[141] and months, and times, and years;" so the Quakers think it their duty as Christians to attend to the same injunction. They never meet upon saints days, as such, that is, as days demanding the religious assemblings of men, more than others; first, because they conceive this would be giving into popish superstition; and secondly, because these days were originally the appointment of men and not of God, and no human appointment, they believe, can make one day holier than another.
[Footnote 141: Gal. 4. 10.]
For the latter reason also they do not assemble for worship on those days which their own government, though they are greatly attached to it, appoint as fasts. They are influenced also by another reason in this latter case. They conceive as religion is of a spiritual nature, and must depend upon the spirit of God, that true devotion cannot be excited for given purposes or at a given time. They are influenced again by the consideration, that the real fast is of a different nature from that required. [142] "Is not this the fast, says Isaiah, that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out, to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thy own flesh?" This the Quakers believe to be the true fast, and not the work of a particular day, but to be the daily work of every real Christian.
[Footnote 142: Isaiah 58. 6. 7.]
Indeed no one day, in the estimation of the Quakers, can be made by human appointment either more holy or more proper for worship than another. They do not even believe that the Jewish Sabbath, which was by the appointment of God, continues in Gospel times, or that it has been handed down by divine authority as the true Sabbath for Christians. All days with the Quakers are equally holy, and all equally proper for the worship of God. In this opinion they coincide with the ever memorable John Hales. "For prayer, indeed, says this venerable man, was the Sabbath ordained: yet prayer itself is Sabbathless, and admits of no rest, no intermission at all. If our hands be clean, we must, as our Apostle commands us, lift them up every where, at all times, and make every place a church, every day a Sabbath-day, every hour canonical. As you go to the market; as you stand in the streets; as you walk in the fields—in all these places, you may pray as well, and with as good acceptance, as in the church: for you yourselves are temples of the Holy Ghost, if the grace of God be in you, more precious than any of those which are made with hands."
Though, however, the Quakers believe no one day in the sight of God to be holier than another, and no one capable of being rendered so by human authority, yet they think that Christians ought to assemble for the public worship of God. They think they ought to bear an outward and public testimony for God; and this can only be done by becoming members of a visible church, where they may be seen to acknowledge him publicly in the face of men. They think also, that the public worship of God increases, as it were, the fire of devotion, and enlarges the sphere of spiritual life in the souls of men. "God causes the inward life, says Barclay, the more to abound when his children assemble themselves diligently together, to wait upon him; so that as iron sharpeneth iron, the seeing the faces of one another, when both are inwardly gathered unto the life, giveth occasion for the life secretly to rise, and to pass from vessel to vessel: and as many candles lighted and put in one place, do greatly augment the light and make it more to shine forth, so when many are gathered together into the same life, there is more of the glory of God, and his power appears to the refreshment of each individual; for that he partakes not only of the light and life raised in himself, but in all the rest. And therefore Christ hath particularly promised a blessing to such as assemble in his name, seeing he will be in the midst of them." For these and other reasons, the Quakers think it proper, that men should be drawn together to the public worship of God: but if so, they must be drawn together at certain times. Now as one day has never been, in the eyes of the Quakers, more desirable for such an object than another, their ancestors chose the first day in the week, because the Apostles had chosen it for the religious assembling of themselves and their followers. And in addition to this, that more frequent opportunities might be afforded them of bearing their outward testimony publicly for God, and of enlarging the sphere of their spiritual life, they appointed a meeting on one other day in the week in most places, and two in some others, for the same purpose.
CHAP. XIII.
Miscellaneous particularities—Quakers careful about the use of such words as relate to religion—Never use the words "original sin"—nor "word of God," for the scriptures—Nor the word "Trinity"—Never pry into the latter mystery—Believe in the manhood and divinity of Jesus Christ—Also in a resurrection, but sever attempt to fathom that subject—Make little difference between sanctification and justification—- Their ideas concerning the latter.
The Quakers are remarkably careful, both in their conversation and their writings, on religious subjects, as to the terms which they use. They express scriptural images or ideas, as much as may be, by scriptural terms. By means of this particular caution, they avoid much of the perplexity and many of the difficulties which arise to others, and escape the theological disputes which disturb the rest of the Christian world.
The Quakers scarcely ever utter the words "original sin," because they never find them in use in the sacred writings.
The scriptures are usually denominated by Christians "the word of God." Though the Quakers believe them to have been given by divine inspiration, yet they reject this term. They apprehend that Christ is the word of God. They cannot therefore consistently give to the scriptures, however they reverence them, that name which St. John the Evangelist gives exclusively to the Son of God.
Neither do they often make use of the word "Trinity." This expression they can no where find in the sacred writings. This to them is a sufficient warrant for rejecting it. They consider it as a term of mere human invention, and of too late a date to claim a place among the expressions of primitive Christianity. For they find it neither in Justin Martyr, nor in Irenaeus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor in the Fathers of the three first centuries of the church.
And as they seldom use the term, so they seldom or never try, when it offers itself to them, either in conversation or in books, to fathom its meaning. They judge that a curious inquiry into such high and speculative things, though ever so great truths in themselves, tends little to Godliness, and less to peace; and that their principal concern is with that only which is clearly revealed, and which leads practically to holiness of life.
Consistently with this judgment, we find but little said respecting the Trinity by the Quaker writers.
It is remarkable that Barclay in the course of his apology, takes no notice of this subject.
William Penn seems to have satisfied himself with refuting what he considered to be a gross notion, namely, that of three persons in the Trinity. For after having shown what the Trinity was not, he no where attempts to explain what he conceived it to be. He says only, that he acknowledges a Father, a Word, and a Holy Spirit, according to the scriptures, but not according to the notions of men; and that these Three are truly and properly One, of one nature as well as will.
Isaac Pennington, an ancient Quaker, speaks thus: "That the three are distinct, as three several beings or persons, the Quakers no where read in the scriptures; but they read in them that they are one. And thus they believe their being to be one, their life one, their light one, their wisdom one, their power one. And he that knoweth and seeth any one of them, knoweth and seeth them, all, according to that saying of Christ to Philip, 'He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.'"
John Crook, another ancient writer of this society, in speaking of the Trinity, says, that the Quakers "acknowledge one God, the Father of Jesus Christ, witnessed within man only by the spirit of truth; and these three are one, and agree in one; and he that honours the Father, honours the Son that proceeds from him; and he that denies the Spirit, denies both the Father and the Son." But nothing farther can be obtained from this author on this subject.
Henry Tuke, a modern writer among the Quakers, and who published an account of the principles of the society only last year, says also little upon the point before us. "This belief, says he, in the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, induced some of the teachers in the Christian church, about three hundred years after Christ, to form a doctrine, to which they gave the name of Trinity; but, in our writings we seldom make use of this term, thinking it best, on such a subject, to keep to scriptural expressions, and to avoid those disputes which have since perplexed the Christian world, and led into speculations beyond the power of human abilities to decide. If we consider that we ourselves are composed of a union of body, soul, and spirit, and yet cannot determine how even these are united; how much less may we expect perfect clearness on a subject, so far above our finite comprehension, as that of the Divine Nature?"
The Quakers believe, that Jesus Christ was man, because he took flesh, and inhabited the body prepared for him, and was subject to human infirmities; but they believe also in his Divinity, because he was the word.
They believe also in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, as connected with the Christian religion. In explaining our belief of this doctrine, says Henry Tuke, we refer to the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. In this chapter is clearly laid down the resurrection of a body, though not of the same body that dies. "There are celestial bodies, and there are bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. So also is the resurrection of the dead: It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body: there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." Here we rest our belief in this mystery, without desiring to pry into it beyond what is revealed to us; remembering "that secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed, belong unto us and to our children."
The Quakers make but little difference, and not such as many other Christians do, between sanctification and justification. "Faith and works, says Richard Claridge, are both concerned in our complete justification."—"Whosoever is justified, he is also in measure sanctified; and as far as he is sanctified, so far is he justified, and no farther. But the justification I now speak of, is the making of us just or righteous by the continual help, work, and operation of the Holy Spirit."—"And as we wait for the continual help and assistance of his Holy Spirit, and come to witness the effectual working of the same in ourselves, so we shall experimentally find, that our justification is proportionable to our sanctification; for as our sanctification goes forward, which is always commensurate to our faithful obedience to the manifestation, influence, and assistance, of the grace, light, and spirit of Christ, so shall we also feel and perceive the progress of our justification."
The ideas of the Quakers, as to justification itself, cannot be better explained than in the words of Henry Tuke before quoted: So far as remissions of sins, and a capacity to receive salvation, are parts of justification, we attribute it to the sacrifice of Christ; "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." But when we consider justification as a state of divine favour and acceptance, we ascribe it, not simply either to faith or works, but to the sanctifying operation of the spirit of Christ, from which living faith and acceptable works alone proceed; and by which we may come to know, that "the spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God."
In attributing our justification, through the grace of God in Christ Jesus, to the operation of the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies the heart and produces the work of regeneration, we are supported by the testimony of the Apostle Paul, who says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but of his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Again—"But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God."
"By this view of the doctrine of justification, we conceive the apparently different sentiments of the Apostles Paul and James are reconciled. Neither of them say that faith alone, or works alone, are the cause of our being justified; but as one of them asserts the necessity of faith, and the other of works, for effecting this great object, a clear and convincing proof is afforded, that both contribute to our justification; and that faith without works, and works without faith, are equally dead."
CHAP. XIV.
Quakers reject Baptism and the Lord's Supper—Much censured far it—Indulgence solicited for them on account of the difficulties connected with these subjects—Christian Religion spiritual—Jewish types to be abolished—Different meanings of the word "Baptise"—Disputes concerning the mode of Baptism—Concerning also the nature and constitution of the Supper—Concerning also the time and manner of its celebration —This indulgence also proper, because the Quakers give it to others, who differ from them as a body on the subject of Religion.
The Quakers, among other particularities, reject the application of water-baptism, and the administration of the Sacrament of the Supper, as Christian rites.
These ordinances have been considered by many as so essentially interwoven with Christianity, that the Quakers, by rejecting the use of them, have been denied to be Christians.
But whatever may be the difference of opinion between the world and the Quakers, upon these subjects, great indulgence is due to the latter on this occasion. People have received the ordinances in question from their ancestors. They have been brought up to the use of them. They have seen them sanctioned by the world. Finding their authority disputed by a body of men, who are insignificant as to numbers, when compared with others, they have let loose their censure upon them, and this without any inquiry concerning the grounds of their dissent. They know perhaps nothing of the obstinate contentious; nothing of the difficulties which have occurred; and nothing of those which may still be started on these subjects. I shall state therefore a few considerations by way of preface, during which the reader will see, that objections both fair and forcible may be raised by the best disposed Christians, on the other side of the question; that the path is not so plain and easy as he may have imagined it to be; and that if the Quakers have taken a road different from himself on this occasion, they are entitled to a fair hearing of all they have to say in their defence, and to expect the same candour and indulgence which he himself would have claimed, if, with the best intentions, he had not been able to come to the same conclusion, on any given point of importance, as had been adopted by others.
Let me then ask, in the first place, what is the great characteristic of the religion we profess?
If we look to divines for an answer to this question, we may easily obtain it. We shall find some of them in their sermons speaking of circumcision, baptismal washings and purifications, new moons, feasts of the passover and unleavened bread, sacrifices, and other rites. We shall find them dwelling on these as constituent parts of the religion of the Jews. We shall find them immediately passing from thence to the religion of Jesus Christ. Here all is considered by them to be spiritual. Devotion of the heart is insisted upon as that alone which is acceptable to God. If God is to be worshipped, it is laid down as a position, that he is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. We shall find them also, in other of their sermons, but particularly in those preached after the reformation, stating the advantages obtained by that event. The Roman Catholic system is here considered by them to be as ceremonial as that of the Jews. The Protestant is held out as of a more spiritual nature, and as more congenial therefore with the spirit of the gospel. But what is this but a confession, in each case, that in proportion as men give up ceremonies and become spiritual in their worship, their religion is the best, or that spirituality is the grand characteristic of the religion of Jesus Christ? Now there immediately arises a presumption, if spirituality of feeling had been intended as the characteristic of any religion, that no ceremonious ordinances would have been introduced into it.
If, again, I were to make an assertion to divines, that Jesus Christ came to put an end to the ceremonial parts of the Jewish law, and to the types and shadows belonging to the Jewish dispensation, they would not deny it. But baptism and the supper were both of them outward Jewish ceremonies, connected with the Jewish religion. They were both of them types and shadows, of which the antetypes and substances had been realized at the death of Christ. And therefore a presumption arises again, that these were not intended to be continued.
And that they were not intended to be continued, may be presumed from another consideration. For what was baptism to any but a Jew? What could a Gentile have understood by it? What notion could he have formed, by means of it, of the necessity of the baptism of Christ? Unacquainted with purifications by water as symbols of purification of heart, he could never have entered, like a Jew, into the spiritual life of such an ordinance. And similar observations may be made with respect to the Passover-Supper. A Gentile could have known nothing, like a Jew, of the meaning of this ceremony. He could never have seen in the Paschal Lamb any type of Christ, or in the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, any type of his own deliverance from sin, so clearly or so feelingly as if the facts and customs had related to his own history, or as if he had been trained to the connexion by a long series of prophecies. In short, the passover could have had but little meaning to him.
From these circumstances, therefore, there would be reason to conclude, that these ceremonies were not to be continued, at least to any but Jews; because they were not fitted to the knowledge, the genius, or the condition of the Gentile world.
But, independently of these difficulties, which arise from a general view of these ordinances as annexed to a religion which is confessed to be spiritual, others arise from a particular view of each. On the subject of baptism, there is ground for argument, as to the meaning of the word "baptize." This word, in consequence of its representation of a watery ceremony, is usually connected with water in our minds. But it may also, very consistently, be connected even with fire. Its general meaning is to purify. In this sense many understand it. And those who do, and who apply it to the great command of Jesus to his disciples, think they give a better interpretation of it, than those who connect it with water. For they think it more reasonable that the Apostles should have been enjoined to go into all nations, and to endeavour to purify the hearts of individuals by the spirit and power of their preaching, from the dross of Heathen notions, and to lead them to spirituality of mind by the inculcation of Gospel principles, than to dip them under water, as an essential part of their new religion.
But on a supposition that the word baptize should signify to immerse, and not to purify, another difficulty occurs; for, if it was thought proper or necessary that persons should be initiated into Christianity by water-baptism, in order to distinguish their new state from that of the Jews or Heathens, who then surrounded them, it seems unnecessary for the children of Christian parents, who were born in a Christian community, and whose ancestors for centuries have professed the Christian name.
Nor is it to be considered as any other than a difficulty that the Christian world have known so little about water-baptism, that they have been divided as to the right manner of performing it. The eastern and western churches differed early upon this point, and Christians continue to differ upon it to the present day; some thinking that none but adults; others, that none but infants should be baptised: some, that the faces only of the baptized should be sprinkled with water; others, that their bodies should be immersed.
On the subject of the sacrament of supper, similar difficulties have occurred.
Jesus Christ unquestionably permitted his disciples to meet together in remembrance of their last supper with him. But it is not clear, that this was any other than a permission to those who were present, and who had known and loved him. The disciples were not ordered to go into all nations, and to enjoin it to their converts to observe the same ceremony. Neither did the Apostles leave any command by which it was enjoined as an ordinance of the Christian church.
Another difficulty which has arisen on the subject of the supper, is, that Christians seem so little to have understood the nature of it, or in what it consisted, that they have had, in different ages, different views, and encouraged different doctrines concerning it. One has placed it in one thing, and another in another. Most of them, again, have attempted in their explanation of it, to blend the enjoyment of the spiritual essence with that of the corporeal substance of the body and blood of Christ, and thus to unite a spiritual with a ceremonial exercise of religion. Grasping, therefore, at things apparently irreconcilable, they have conceived the strangest notions; and, by giving these to the world, they have only afforded fuel for contention among themselves and others.
In the time of the Apostles, it was the custom of converted persons, grounded on the circumstances that passed at the supper of the passover, to meet in religious communion. They used, on these occasions, to break their bread, and take their refreshment and converse together. The object of these meetings was to imitate the last friendly supper of Jesus with his disciples, to bear a public memorial of his sufferings and his death, and to promote their love for one another. But this custom was nothing more, as far as evidence can be had, than that of a brotherly breaking of bread together. It was no sacramental eating. Neither was the body of Jesus supposed to be enjoyed, nor the spiritual enjoyment, of it to consist in the partaking of this outward feast.
In process of time, after the days of the Apostles, when this simple custom had declined, we find another meeting of Christians, in imitation of that at the passover supper, at which both bread and wine were introduced. This different commemoration of the same event had a new name given to it; for it was distinguished from the other by the name of Eucharist.
Alexander, the seventh bishop of Rome, who introduced holy water both into houses and churches for spiritual purposes, made some alterations in the ingredients of the Eucharist, by mixing water with the wine, and by substituting unleavened for common bread.
In the time of Irenaeus and Justin the Martyr, we find an account of the Eucharist as it was then thought of and celebrated. Great stress was then laid upon the bread and wine as a holy and sacramental repast: prayers were made that the Holy Ghost would descend into each of these substances. It was believed that it did so descend; and that as soon as the bread and wine perceived it, the former operated virtually as the body, and the latter as the blood of Jesus Christ. From this time the bread was considered to have great virtues; and on this latter account, not only children, but sucking infants, were admitted to this sacrament. It was also given to persons on the approach of death. And many afterwards, who had great voyages to make at sea, carried it with them to preserve them both from temporal and spiritual dangers.
In the twelfth century, another notion, a little modified from the former, prevailed on this subject; which was, that consecration by a Priest had the power of abolishing the substance of the bread, and of substituting the very body of Jesus Christ.
This was called the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
This doctrine appeared to Luther, at the dawn of the reformation, to be absurd; and he was of opinion that the sacrament consisted of the substance of Christ's body and blood, together with the substance of the bread and wine; or, in other words, that the substance of the bread remained, but the body of Christ was inherent in it, so that both the substance of the bread and of the body and blood of Christ was there also. This was called the doctrine of Consubstantiation, in contradiction to the former.
Calvin again considered the latter opinion erroneous: he gave it out that the bread was not actually the body of Jesus Christ, nor the wine his blood; but that both his body and blood were sacramentally received by the faithful, in the use of the bread and wine. Calvin, however, confessed himself unable to explain even this his own doctrine. For he says, "if it be asked me how it is, that is, how believers sacramentally receive Christ's body and blood? I shall not be ashamed to confess, that it is a secret too high for me to comprehend in my spirit, or explain in words."
But independently of the difficulties which have arisen from these different notions concerning the nature and constitution of the Lord's supper, others have arisen concerning the time and the manner of the celebration of it.
The Christian churches of the east, in the early times, justifying themselves by tradition and the custom of the passover, maintained that the fourteenth day of the month Nissan ought to be observed as the day of the celebration of this feast, because the Jews were commanded to kill the Paschal Lamb on that day. The western, on the other hand, maintained the authority of tradition and the primitive practice, that it ought to be kept on no other day than that of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Disputes again of a different complexion agitated the Christian world upon the same subject. One church contended that the leavened, another that unleavened bread only should be used upon this occasion: others contended, whether the administration of this sacrament should be by the hands of the clergy only: others, whether it should not be confined to the sick: others, whether it should be given to the young and mature promiscuously: others, whether it should be received by the communicant standing, sitting, or kneeling, or as the Apostles received it: and others, whether it should be administered in the night time as by our Saviour, or whether in the day, or whether only once, as at the passover, or whether oftener in the year.
Another difficulty, but of a different nature, has occurred with respect to the Lord's supper. This has arisen from the circumstance, that other ceremonies were enjoined by our Saviour in terms equally positive as this, but which most Christians, notwithstanding, have thought themselves at liberty to reject. Among these the washing of feet is particularly to be noticed. This custom was of an emblematic nature. It was enjoined at the same time as that of the Lord's supper, and on the same occasion. But it was enjoined in a more forcible and striking manner. The Sandimanians, when they rose into a society, considered the injunction for this ordinance to be so obligatory, that they dared not dispense with it; and therefore, when they determined to celebrate the supper, they determined that the washing of feet should be an ordinance of their church. Most other Christians, however, have dismissed the washing of feet from their religious observance. The reason given has principally been, that it was an eastern custom, and therefore local. To this the answer has been, that the passover, from whence the Lord's supper is taken, was an eastern custom also, but that it was much more local. Travellers of different nations had their feet washed for them in the east. But none but those of the circumcision were admitted to the passover-supper. If, therefore, the injunction relative to the washing of feet, be equally strong with that relative to the celebration of the supper, it has been presumed, that both ought to have been retained; and, if one has been dispensed with on account of its locality, that both ought to have been discarded.
That the washing of feet was enjoined much more emphatically than the supper, we may collect from Barclay, whose observations upon it I shall transcribe on this occasion.
"But to give a farther evidence, says he, how these consequences have not any bottom from the practice of that ceremony, nor from the words following, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' let us consider another of the like nature, as it is at length expressed by John. [143] 'Jesus riseth from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and girded himself: after that, he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Peter said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. So after he had washed their feet, he said, Know ye what I have done to you? If I then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet: for I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.' As to which let it be observed, continues Barclay, that John relates this passage to have been done at the same time with the other of breaking bread; both being done the night of the passover, after supper. If we regard the narration of this, and the circumstances attending it, it was done with far more solemnity, and prescribed far more punctually and particularly, than the former. It is said only, 'as he was eating he took bread;' so that this would seem to be but an occasional business: but here 'he rose up, he laid by his garments, he girded himself, he poured out the water, he washed their feet, he wiped them with a towel.' He did this to all of them; which are circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other. The former was a practice common among the Jews, used by all masters of families, upon that occasion; but this, as to the manner, and person acting it, to wit, for the master to rise up, and wash the feet of his servants and disciples, was more singular and observable. In the breaking of bread and giving of wine, it is not pleaded by our adversaries, nor yet mentioned in the text, that he particularly put them into the hands of all; but breaking it, and blessing it, gave it the nearest, and so they from hand to hand. But here it is mentioned, that he washed not the feet of one or two, but of many. He saith not in the former, that if they do not eat of that bread, and drink of that wine, that they shall be prejudiced by it; but here he says expressly to Peter, that 'if he wash him not, he hath no part with him;' which being spoken upon Peter's refusing to let him wash his feet, would seem to import no less, than not the continuance only, but even the necessity of this ceremony. In the former, he saith as it were passingly, 'Do this in remembrance of me:' but here he sitteth down again; he desires them to consider what he hath done; tells them positively 'that as he hath done to them, so ought they to do to one another:' and yet again he redoubles that precept, by telling them, 'that he has given them an example, that they should do so likewise.' If we respect the nature of the thing, it hath as much in it as either baptism or the breaking of the bread; seeing it is an outward element of a cleansing nature, applied to the outward man, by the command and the example of Christ, to signify an inward purifying. I would willingly propose this seriously to men, that will be pleased to make use of that reason and understanding that God hath given them, and not be imposed upon, nor abused by the custom or tradition of others, whether this ceremony, if we respect either the time that it was appointed in, or the circumstances wherewith it was performed, or the command enjoining the use of it, hath not as much to recommend it for a standing ordinance of the Gospel, as either water-baptism, or bread and wine, or any other of that kind? I wonder then, what reason the Papists can give, why they have not numbered it among their sacraments, except merely Voluntas Ecclesiae et Traditio Patrum, that is, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the Will of the Church."
[Footnote 143: John 13. 3. &c.]
The reader will see by this time, that, on subjects which have given rise to such controversies as baptism and the Lord's supper have now been described to have done, people may be readily excused, if they should entertain their own opinions about them, though these may be different from those which are generally received by the world. The difficulties indeed, which have occurred with respect to these ordinances, should make us tender of casting reproach upon others, who should differ from ourselves concerning them. For when we consider, that there is no one point connected with these ordinances, about which there has not been some dispute; that those who have engaged in these disputes, have been men of equal learning and piety; that all of them have pleaded primitive usage, in almost all cases, in behalf of their own opinions; and that these disputes are not even now, all of them, settled; who will take upon him to censure his brother either for the omission or the observance of one or the other rite? And let the Quakers, among others, find indulgence from their countrymen for their opinions on these subjects. This indulgence they have a right to claim from the consideration, that they themselves never censure others of other denominations on account of their religion. With respect to those who belong to the society, as the rejection of these ceremonies is one of the fundamentals of Quakerism, it is expected that they should be consistent with what they are considered to profess. But with respect to others, they have no unpleasant feelings towards those who observe them. If a man believes that baptism is an essential rite of the Christian church, the Quakers would not judge him if he were to go himself, or if he were to carry his children, to receive it. And if, at the communion table, he should find his devotion to be so spiritualized, that, in the taking of the bread and wine, he really and spiritually discerned the body and blood of Christ, and was sure that his own conduct would he influenced morally by it, they would not censure him for becoming an attendant at the altar. In short, the Quakers do not condemn others for their attendances on these occasions. They only hope, that as they do not see these ordinances in the same light as others, they may escape censure, if they should refuse to admit them among themselves. |
|
