ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

found reverence for the Scriptures that they were not inclined to question their literal commands. But, if that principle be

maintained, persons not so piously inclined will dare to do so. Has it never been said that certain declarations in the Scriptures, which seem to controvert favorite doctrines, originated in Jewish prejudices, and not in the spirit of love? Was not the idea of a special divine illumination the great delusion of St. Francis, when he felt prompted to outrage the opinions and laws of his age by numberless extravagances which we have not time to mention. Was not this notion one of the principles of Mohammed? Did it not characterize Ignatius Loyola in his Mauresan cave? Did it not animate the Anabaptists of Germany, and array them against Luther and his doctrines? Has it not led the Mormons of our own times into great extravagances? The doctrine of special divine illumination by the Spirit of God, thereby teaching truths which could be taught independently of the Bible, is the central principle of many of those systems of religion which even Friends regard as essentially pagan and anti-christian. We do not say that the Friends ever perverted it to any dangerous extent, or vindicated it in its broadest meaning. Their common sense and their reverence for the Scriptures may have kept them from the errors which this notion has certainly, and often produced in less Christian minds, and which it will always lead to among vain and unsanctified people, if practically carried out. We have seen most excellent men and women, not belonging to the Friends, running into absurd and dangerous practices and opinions, and not pretending to support them by scriptural authorities, yet warmly defending them on the ground of a special revelation. This should not be confounded with the ordinary influences of the Divine Spirit, in which all evangelical Christians believe. It is something more a peculiar illumination from God, which places its subjects on nearly the same footing with inspired sages of old. And if it does not mean this, it means something still more revolting to a truly enlightened Christian -even a sort of Pagan spiritualism, such as George Bancroft has attributed to Plato and Pythagoras. Indeed, this historian has either greatly misunderstood the principles of Fox, or aimed to make them attractive to a certain party among the

[ocr errors]

Friends who do sympathize with the rationalistic and transcendental doctrines of a school in and around Boston, which is more Grecian than Christian. But Fox was no more a Platonic philosopher than he was a Lutheran or a Calvinist, and Mr. Bancroft has rendered no service to truth or the Society of Friends by painting Fox as a transcendental Pagan, interesting as such a kind of Pagan may be to those who deny the personality of God and of the Devil. But if Fox was not a transcendental philosopher in the Pythagorean sense, still his favorite doctrine was so much in harmony with either the indefinite and soaring mysticism of the ancient sages, or with the arrogant pretension to special illumination which marked the deluded saints of the Middle ages, that he has exposed himself and his system to severe criticism. And just so far as he really did incline to either the sages of ancient Greece, or the saints of a darkened age in this respect, his doctrine was erroneous and dangerous. If he only meant by the inner light the ordinary influences of God's Spirit, which, of course, are supernatural, then his doctrine has no originality, and his Society has, in its foundation, no grand peculiarity. So far as the Friends make a point about forms, and dress, and social life, they are not widely different from the early Methodists and various other religious people who wish to avoid worldly influences. These are nothing. It is the ideas of Fox which give him all his importance. And if his ideas pertaining to God's Spirit, when refined away, are like those of the Orthodox, why then he does not claim our notice. But they are not the same. There is something peculiar about them. Fox did claim a special divine illumination, and his followers attach a meaning to the inner light which Luther, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox did not even that which would kindle the soul into rapture, and reveal truth, if the Bible had not been written for what is the Bible but the Word of God supernaturally communicated to ancient saints, and which, to be spiritually discerned, needs, according to Fox, special divine influences. And this appears upon every page of his diary. It was the Spirit, and not the Scriptures, which urged him to attack what he called steeplehouses, and the dresses of the clergy, and the external economy of the church. Whenever he spoke his words were substantial

-

ly, as Maurice has interpreted them: "Brother, there is a light within thee, resist it and thou art miserable, follow it and thou art happy. Nor did he say, "this light is mine alone," but "it is as much yours as mine. Nor will it mislead you. It will guide you in all the temptations of life. It is the voice of God within you, even as the ancient poet saith:

'Est Deus in nobis:

Agitante calescimus illo.'”

That Fox was sincere as well as truly religious and conscientious can not be denied. Nor did he dream that the Spirit of his favorite doctrine had been, in ancient times, in no small degree, cherished by those with whom he had no communion. So rare is real originality. So often do unlettered men of genius fancy they are propounding something entirely new, because it is new to them. In reality there is very little which is new under the sun. When unlearned but intellectual men advance something which they fancy new, it will generally be found to be some exploded error which the great enemy of man has suggested in a modified form, or some old truth which has never ceased to be recognized.

After all, Fox is most remarkable for carrying out his principles more radically than other reformers of his age, and, while so doing, overlooking some important duties which his one-sided turn of mind prevented him from appreciating. He was utterly unable to see wisdom or truth in many things which were, in his day, not only regarded as important, but which also in our own are so considered by the most enlightened men, and men as conscientious and clear-headed as he. Attaching undue value to an inward guide, as the revealer of all truth, he supposed that the institution of the clergy, as a distinct order, was needless. Moreover as Christ came to establish a spiritual dispensation, therefore outward observances, like fasts and festivals, and Baptism, and the Eucharist, and a ministry appointed by the imposition of hands, should be dispensed with. He turned with disgust from creeds and confessions of faith, even the simplest, and such as were undoubtedly instituted in primitive times, because they direct our thoughts to the outward acts and events of Christ upon earth, rather than to his presence in our hearts.

Such views, whether true or false, plainly were not those of the early Reformers, nor of the primitive Christians, any more than of the great body of the evangelical church in this age. Nor were they in harmony with the genius of Protestantism, since that is a supreme reliance on the Word of God, in his written testimony, as the highest and only infallible guide, both in faith and practice.

It is equally obvious that Fox and his disciples claimed to possess greater spirituality than any other of the existing sects of their day; and so to be peculiarly the spiritual church of Christ upon earth. The fundamental idea of their system is, that they are brought directly under a divine influence and government, to be witnesses against the world. Says Maurice :

[ocr errors]

'They were therefore to keep themselves entirely from the habits of the world, from its varying fashions, from its amusements, and even, in some cases, from its phraseology; and all who are not walking in the divine light are of the world. But as no parents, however religious, can always expect their children to be animated by their spirit, the evil arose of people who were not of the light, being separated from the surrounding world by external peculiarities, while their hearts inclined them to mingle in vanities which their religious parents detested, and thus exposed the Society constantly to violate the very distinctions for which its presence was meant to be the abiding testimony."

There were also some peculiarities which gave the Society the appearance of exclusiveness, for it was separate from the world not only in manners, habits, dress and intercourse, but even intermarriage with other sects was prohibited, not merely for those who were truly religious, but for those who were worldly-minded, thus perpetuating a form when the spirit had departed. And, for some time after Fox had declared his message, education was spurned if it was offered from those without their ranks. Sooner than accept religious instruction from ministers out of their own body, the Society would deprive their members of any religious instruction at all. And as Fox did not place a very high value on any other than common education, instruction in the classics and the higher departments of science was generally neglected. As he did not believe in a learned clergy, or in lawyers, or classical literature, or the fine arts, education was chiefly confined to the more practical and

ordinary pursuits of life. We believe no class of men have ever been more generally instructed in the common branches of useful knowledge than the Society of Friends, and no body of wealthy and substantial people, at the same time, can boast of so small a proportion of eminent masters in elegant and classic literature. Their common schools were excellent, but colleges until lately have been rare, and have not been deemed desirable, as estranging the mind from high spiritual interests.

Another apparent inconsistency has appeared in reference to the support of free and liberal governments. It can not be denied that the Friends have ever been among the best supporters of law and order. They have ever practically believed in the majesty of law as opposed to a wild, agrarian democratic license. They have rendered tribute to whom tribute is due, honoring magistrates as servants of a higher power, and never entering into schemes of revolutionary excess. And yet

George Fox was opposed to those very agencies by which law and order are secured and guaranteed, even to the sword of the magistrate, to armies, and physical force, and still more to those influences which kindle and support patriotic ardor and enthusiasm among rude people, such as warlike poetry, martial music, and honor to successful generals. Is it too much to say that Fox and his followers, while they have gloried in spiritual liberty, have overlooked the benefits conferred by former heroes upon the cause of freedom, have not been sufficiently grateful for their struggles, toils and martyrdom, without which a gloomy inspiration and an iron despotism would have been perpetuated? Who, more than the followers of Fox, glory in the breaking up of feudal bondage, in the revolt from Rome, in those great social privileges which were bestowed by the mighty agitations of the 16th century? But who delivered Europe from the fetters of proud and oppressive nobles? Who broke forever the despotism of absolute kings? Who disenthralled the mind from the delusion of Rome? Who advanced the great cause of civilization more than those men who yielded up their lives on the bloody battle-fields which were the natural consequence of the agitation of great ideas? Shall we honor Luther and Calvin, and yet derogate from the fame of those who practically prevented their principles from being trodden in the dust, or shut up in dungeons and inquisitorial chambers?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »