Chapter VIII: Appendix: Note a

The following are the twelve queries now read, “at least once in the year,” in all our meetings. The parts of the second and tenth, to which alone answers are required, are printed in italics. It should, however, be observed that, “with regard to those queries to which no answer is required, Monthly Meetings are encouraged to report to their Quarterly Meetings, from time to time, on such of the subjects comprised in them, as they may think desirable. Quarterly Meetings are recommended to transmit such reports, or a summary of them, to the Yearly Meeting.”[32]

Queries.

1. What is the religious state of your meeting? Are you individually giving evidence of true conversion of heart, and of loving devotedness to Christ?

2. _Are your meetings for worship regularly held; and how are they attended?_ Are they occasions of religious solemnity and edification, in which, through Christ, our ever-living High Priest and Intercessor, the Father is worshipped in spirit and in truth?

3. Do you “walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us”? Do you cherish a forgiving spirit? Are you careful of the reputation of others; and do you avoid and discourage tale-bearing and detraction?

4. Are you individually frequent in reading, and diligent in meditating upon, the Holy Scriptures? And are parents and heads of households in the practice of reading them in their families in a devotional spirit, encouraging any right utterance of prayer or praise?

5. Are you in the practice of private retirement and waiting upon the Lord; in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, making your requests known unto Him? And do you live in habitual dependence upon the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit?

6. Do you maintain a religious life and conversation as becometh the gospel? Are you watchful against conformity to the world; against the love of ease and self-indulgence; or being unduly absorbed by your outward concerns to the hindrance of your religious progress and your service for Christ? And do those who have children or others under their care endeavour, by example and precept, to train them up as self-denying followers of the Lord Jesus?

7. Do you maintain a faithful allegiance to the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ as the one Head of the Church, and the Shepherd and Bishop of souls, from whom alone must come the true call and qualification for the ministry of the Word? And are you faithful in your testimony to the freeness and spirituality of the gospel dispensation?

8. Are you faithful in maintaining our Christian testimony against all war, as inconsistent with the precepts and spirit of the gospel?

9. Do you maintain strict integrity in all your transactions in trade, and in your other outward concerns; and are you careful not to defraud the public revenue?

10. _Are your meetings for Church affairs regularly held; and how are they attended?_ Are these meetings vigilant in the discharge of their duties towards their subordinate meetings, and in watching over the flock in the love of Christ? When delinquencies occur, are they treated timely, impartially, and in a Christian spirit? And do you individually take your right share in the attendance and service of these meetings?

11. Do you, as a Church, exercise a loving and watchful care over your younger members; promoting their instruction in fundamental Christian truth, and in the scriptural grounds of our religious principles; and manifesting an earnest desire that, through the power of Divine grace, they may all become established in the faith and hope of the gospel?

12. Do you fulfil your part as a Church, and as individuals, in promoting the cause of truth and righteousness, and the spread of the Redeemer’s kingdom, at home and abroad? (1875.)

NOTE B.
Home Mission Committee of the Yearly Meeting.

The desire felt by many Friends that the Society should, in a more systematic manner than was formerly thought necessary, recognize and provide for what is called “evangelistic” and “pastoral” work, led, in 1882, to the appointment of a Committee of the Yearly Meeting on “Home Missions.” This Committee began its work by inviting the co-operation of the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings, and in its first Annual Report it mentions that ten of the Quarterly Meetings had appointed Committees to correspond with it; in the next year thirteen of the Quarterly Meetings were thus in correspondence with the Home Mission Committee; and in 1887 the Report states that the Home Mission Committee itself includes members of every Quarterly Meeting except one.

In 1888, the number of Friends working in connection with the Home Mission Committee was nineteen. The Report of 1889 speaks of a considerable extension of the work of the Committee, but does not give the number of workers.

The donations and subscriptions received by the Committee in the year ending May, 1889, amounted to £2333.

The work undertaken by “Home Mission Friends” is of various kinds; such as conducting first day schools, Bible classes, temperance meetings, lecturing on Friends’ principles, in some neighbourhoods visiting the sick and the poor, and in various ways endeavouring to build up and strengthen meetings which seem to be in need of help.

Notwithstanding the large measure of support which the Committee has met with, there are many Friends who feel very serious hesitation about this practice of providing “pastoral care,” and who fear lest it should tend to weaken, if not to destroy, the force of our testimony against a paid or humanly appointed ministry. The danger is obvious; and I shall not attempt to estimate the degree in which it can be averted, or the force of the reasons for encountering it. I will content myself with making from the Reports of the Committee a few extracts bearing upon this question.

“We have been forcibly impressed with the extent and variety of openings for service which have presented themselves to us. Much of this work is of a character which can, we believe, be more effectually performed by the Society of Friends than by any other religious body.... In two instances we have deemed it right to give pecuniary assistance to Friends who felt it laid upon them, as a religious duty, to give the whole or a greater part of their time to the work.... These arrangements involve no bargain or understanding whatsoever for the preaching of the gospel, and their work has been largely of an organizing character.” (1883.)

“It is found that Friends in all parts of the country are watchful lest a separate class of supported ministers should be set up, and this is a matter which has from the first received our very serious attention. It is our practice, when a Friend has offered his services to this Committee, not to enter upon the question of the amount or manner of support to be granted him until after he has been accepted by us. We have carefully avoided the establishment of any scale of maintenance, each case being separately considered on the basis of the actual needs and circumstances of the Friend in question; and we have encouraged Friends, where practicable, to contribute by their labour to their own support.” (1886.)

“We are glad to report an increase in the number of those who require no pecuniary assistance beyond necessary expenses when actually on religious service. About half the workers are living on their private means, or partially maintaining themselves by their labour. About half of the number may also be considered as stationed more or less in one place, and the remainder as engaged in evangelistic visits to various towns as way may open. Of the resident workers, several have travelled with minutes from their Monthly Meetings, or have rendered temporary assistance to particular meetings by request of other Monthly Meetings than their own.... In the meetings where our workers are resident, the voices of many new members are frequently heard in exhortation and prayer. In one of them a visiting Friend desired a meeting with all those who took vocal part in meetings. No fewer than thirteen responded to his invitation, while three or four more were prevented by other engagements.... We believe our workers are, without exception, loyal to the testimony of the Society against the establishment directly or indirectly, of a ‘one-man ministry.’... Since the formation of this Committee there is hardly a Quarterly Meeting in which they” (the Friends engaged in “evangelistic” work) “have not travelled, in several of them many times and for many weeks together.... Some of these visits have originated in concerns of the Friends themselves. In other cases the way has been made for them by an invitation of a Quarterly, Monthly, or particular Meeting, or the Committee of some Friends’ mission or adult school. In no case has this Committee deemed it consistent to SEND any worker anywhere, or to do more than lay such invitation before him, leaving it to his own conviction of duty as to whether he can see his way to accept it or not.” (1888.)

“With one exception, every Friend in connection with us has been engaged during the year to a greater or less extent in work outside the meeting in which he resides.” (1889.)

NOTE C.
Slavery.

In the introduction by J. G. Whittier to a recent edition of John Woolman’s “Journal,”[33] there is a remarkable account of the manner in which our Society in America was gradually freed from all complicity with slavery, long before the struggle for its abolition was begun elsewhere; from which I venture to make some extracts, for the sake of the illustration it affords of the working both of our principles and of our machinery.

From the time of George Fox himself, who in 1671 visited Barbadoes, and admonished those who held slaves there to bear in mind that they were brethren, and that “after certain years of servitude they should make them free,” voices had been raised again and again in several of the American meetings to witness against the buying and keeping of slaves.

In 1742, John Woolman, then in the employment of a small storekeeper in New Jersey, was desired by his master to make out a bill of sale of a negro slave-woman. “On taking up his pen,” says Whittier, “the young clerk felt a sudden and strong scruple in his mind. The thought of writing an instrument of slavery for one of his fellow-creatures oppressed him. God’s voice against the desecration of His image spoke in his soul. He yielded to the will of his employer, but while writing the instrument he was constrained to declare, both to the buyer and the seller, that he believed slave-keeping inconsistent with the Christian religion.” This circumstance “was the starting-point of a lifelong testimony against slavery.

“In the year 1746, he visited Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. He was afflicted by the prevalence of slavery. It appeared to him, in his own words, ‘as a dark gloominess overhanging the land.’ On his return, he wrote an essay on the subject, which was published in 1754. Three years after, he made a second visit to the Southern meetings of Friends. Travelling as a minister of the gospel, he was compelled to sit down at the tables of slave-holding planters, who were accustomed to entertain their friends free of cost, and who could not comprehend the scruples of their guest against receiving as a gift food and lodging which he regarded as the gains of oppression. He was a poor man, but he loved truth more than money. He therefore placed the pay for his entertainment in the hands of some member of the family, for the benefit of the slaves, or gave it directly to them, as he had opportunity....

“The annual assemblage of the Yearly Meeting in 1758 at Philadelphia[34] must ever be regarded as one of the most important religious convocations in the history of the Christian Church. The labours of Woolman and his few but earnest associates had not been in vain. A deep and tender interest had been awakened, and this meeting was looked forward to with varied feelings of solicitude by all parties. All felt that the time had come for some definite action.... At length,” after a “solemn and weighty appeal” from John Woolman, “the truth in a great measure triumphed over opposition; and, without any public dissent, the meeting agreed that the injunction of our Lord and Saviour, to do to others as we would that others should do to us, should induce Friends who held slaves ‘to set them at liberty, making a Christian provision for them;’ and four Friends” (of whom John Woolman was one) “were approved of as suitable persons to visit and treat with such as kept slaves, within the limits of the meeting.

“This painful and difficult duty was faithfully performed.... These labours were attended with the blessing of the God of the poor and oppressed. Dealing in slaves was almost entirely abandoned, and many who held slaves set them at liberty. But many members still continuing the practice, a more emphatic testimony against it was issued by the Yearly Meeting in 1774; and two years after, the subordinate meetings were directed to deny the right of membership to such as persisted in holding their fellow-men as property.... In the year 1760, John Woolman, in the course of a religious visit to New England,” attended their Yearly Meeting, where “the London Epistle for 1758, condemning the unrighteous traffic in men, was read, and the substance of it embodied in the discipline of the meeting; and the following query was adopted, to be answered by the subordinate meetings: ‘Are Friends clear of importing negroes, or buying them when imported; and do they use those well where they are possessed by inheritance or otherwise, endeavouring to train them up in principles of religion?’ ... In 1769, at the suggestion of the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting, the Yearly Meeting expressed its sense of the wrongfulness of holding slaves, and appointed a large committee to visit those members who were implicated in the practice.... It was stated, in the Epistle to London Yearly Meeting of the year 1772, that a few Friends had freed their slaves from bondage, but that others ‘have been so reluctant thereto, that they _have been disowned_[35] for not complying with the advice of this meeting.’

“In 1773, the following minute was made: ‘It is our sense that truth not only requires the young of capacity and ability, but likewise the aged and impotent, and also all in a state of infancy and nonage, among Friends, to be discharged and set free from a state of slavery; that we do no more claim property in the human race, as we do in the beasts that perish.’

“In 1782, no slaves were known to be held in the New England Yearly Meeting. The next year, it was recommended to the subordinate meetings to appoint committees to effect a proper and just _settlement between the manumitted slaves and their former masters for their past services_. In 1784, it was concluded by the Yearly Meeting that any slaveholder who refused to comply with the award of these committees should, after due care and labour with him, be disowned from the Society. This was effectual; settlements without disownment were made to the satisfaction of all parties, and every case was disposed of previous to the year 1787.

“In the New York Yearly Meeting, slave-trading was prohibited about the middle of the last century. In 1771, in consequence of an epistle from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, a committee was appointed to visit those who held slaves, and to advise with them in relation to emancipation. In 1776, it was made a disciplinary offence to buy, sell, or hold slaves upon any condition. In 1784, but one slave was to be found in the limits of the meeting. In the same year, by answers from the several subordinate meetings, it was ascertained that an equitable settlement for past services had been effected between the emancipated negroes and their masters in all but three cases.

“In the Virginia Yearly Meeting slavery had its strongest hold.” In 1757, it “condemned the foreign slave trade. In 1764, it enjoined upon its members the duty of kindness towards their servants, of educating them, and carefully providing for their food and clothing. Four years after, its members were strictly prohibited from purchasing any more slaves. In 1773, it earnestly recommended the immediate manumission of all slaves held in bondage, after the females had reached eighteen and the males twenty-one years of age. At the same time it was advised that committees should be appointed for the purpose of instructing the emancipated persons in the principles of morality and of religion, and for advising and aiding them in their temporal concerns....

“In 1784, the different Quarterly Meetings having reported that many still held slaves, notwithstanding the advice and entreaties of their friends, the Yearly Meeting directed that, where _endeavours_ to convince those offenders of their error proved ineffectual, the Monthly Meeting should proceed to disown them. We have no means of ascertaining the precise number of those actually disowned for slave-holding in the Virginia Yearly Meeting, but it is well known to have been very small. In almost all cases the care and assiduous labours of those who had the welfare of the Society and of humanity at heart were successful in inducing offenders to manumit their slaves, and confess their error in resisting the wishes of their friends, and bringing reproach upon the cause of truth.

So ended slavery in the Society of Friends. For three-quarters of a century the advice put forth in the meetings of the Society at stated intervals, that Friends should be ‘careful to maintain their testimony against slavery,’ has been adhered to, so far as owning, or even hiring, a slave is concerned. Apart from its first fruits of emancipation, there is a perennial value in the example exhibited of the power of truth, urged patiently and in earnest love, to overcome the difficulties in the way of the eradication of an evil system, strengthened by long habit, entangled with all the complex relations of society, and closely allied with the love of power, the pride of family, and the lust of gain.’

I need hardly remind my readers of the singular interest of John Woolman’s own account of his experiences in this and other matters, which would scarcely admit of abridgment. I have, therefore, been obliged, though unwillingly, to content myself with the above bare enumeration of the actual steps taken by the various meetings, without making any attempt to show to what an extent John Woolman’s own deep exercises of mind contributed to bring them about. For a study of Quaker experience, in its purest and most impressive form, the “Journal” itself is perhaps unrivalled.

FOOTNOTES

[1]“Book of Christian Discipline of the Religious Society of Friends in
Great Britain; consisting of Extracts on Doctrine, Practice, and
Church Government, from the Epistles and other Documents issued
under the sanction of the Yearly Meeting held in London from its
first institution in 1672 to 1883.” London: Samuel Harris and Co.,
5, Bishopsgate Street Without. 1883.

[2]The queries now in use are given at length in the Appendix, Note A.

[3]It is estimated that in 1680 (or thirty-two years from the beginning
of George Fox’s ministry) the number of Friends was about 40,000.
“In 1656 Fox computed that there were seldom less than 1000 in
prison; and it has been asserted that, between 1661 and 1697, 13,562
Quakers were imprisoned, 152 were transported, and 338 died in
prison or of their wounds” (“Encycl. Brit.,” 9th edit., art.
“Quakers”).

[4]I may, perhaps, here be allowed to point out the ambiguity of the
expression “immediate inspiration.” The word “immediate” may be
understood to mean direct, and in this sense it is, I think,
superfluous; for it is surely impossible to conceive of inspiration
as indirect, although revelation may easily be so. But it may also,
in reference to any particular thought communicated, be understood
as meaning “instantaneous;” and in this sense a special importance
has been attached to it by some Friends, which is, I believe,
deprecated by others, as restricting “ministry” to the utterance of
words believed to be at the moment given for utterance, under what
is called a “fresh anointing” from above. I would, therefore, rather
avoid at present the use of the expression “immediate inspiration,”
when speaking of our belief that there is in every heart a witness
for the truth, which is, so to speak, radiated from the central
truth. The “light” seems, on the whole, to be the figure least open
to any possible misinterpretation.

[5]Let me not be understood to mean that the process of “keeping the
mind” (in Quaker phrase) “retired to the Lord” is an easy one. On
the contrary, it may need strenuous effort. But the _effort_ can be
made at will and even the mere effort thus to retire from the
surface to the depths of life is sure to bring help and
strengthening—is in itself a strengthening, steadying process.

[6]“If ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who
shall give you that which is your own?” (Luke XVI. 12).

[7]I do not, of course, forget that, going to the imperfection of human
laws and human faculties, cases may and do occur in which Divine
guidance must lead us in ways which run counter to them. The figure
used above is intended only to illustrate the general correspondence
between the map, as it were, which can be laid down by the reason of
man, and that individual and immediate guidance which alone can show
us a higher and a narrower, but yet freer, pathway—the pathway of
that highest service which is perfect freedom. When, in exceptional
cases, any contrariety really emerges between the human and the
Divine guiding lines, we may surely still, without too much
straining of our figure, say that it is a living power only which
can free any human spirit from the too narrow fencing in of a morbid
or unenlightened conscience, and guide it by paths running counter
to the beaten track of conventional morality, or even in some rare
instances authorize and enable and require it to overleap even the
cliffs of actual law, trusting that in such cases, as experience has
already taught us, the blood of the martyrs will still be the seed
of the Church.

[8]Sermon XIV., “On the Love of God,” Butler’s “Sermons,” p. 278
(London, 1726). And in his charge to the clergy of Durham, published
with the “Analogy” (London, 1802), he repeats the words which I have
printed above in italics, and speaks of public worship as “a time of
devotion, when we are assembled to yield ourselves up to the full
influence of the Divine presence.”

[9]See Introduction.

[10]It is, I think, in this connection important to distinguish between
the question, How do you in practice distinguish between a true and
a false message? and the quite separate inquiry, How do you in
theory distinguish between the human faculty of imagination and the
Divine action signified by the word “inspiration”? It is with the
first question only that I have been concerned in the text, as it
is, I believe, the only question with which honesty requires us to
grapple. Any attempt to give a full answer to the second question
would require a degree of psychological skill to which I have no
claim; and I doubt whether the very terms of the question do not
lead us beyond the province even of psychology. But, speaking in a
popular and trustful way, I should reply that we are not concerned
to discern the precise limits of the Divine and the human; only to
throw open the deepest human powers to the purest Divine influences;
that the result we look for is the fruit of a devout intelligence,
first purified, and then swayed, by the immediate action of Divine
power. It surely involves something like a contradiction in terms to
inquire at what precise line a distinction is obliterated?

[11]People have said to me again and again, If you want to be silent,
why cannot you be silent at home? Such an objection seems hardly
intended to be seriously answered, yet I have heard it so often that
I cannot but notice it. Surely it need hardly be pointed out that it
applies at least equally strongly to the practice of meeting
together to join in prayers, which, being already in print and
chosen according to the calendar, each of us might read at home. But
the worthier answer is that, whether our utterance be prearranged or
spontaneous, we meet in order to kindle in each other the flame of
true worship, and also to show forth our allegiance to the Master,
to whom we are so united as to feel our need of each other’s
sympathy in drawing near to Him.

[12]In what follows there is, indeed, no “doctrine” of any kind; no
attempt, I mean, to offer formulated or authorized teaching. I have
endeavoured to show how in my own experience the intellectual
difficulties with which the subject is surrounded did, when honestly
and patiently faced, prove in due time the means of purifying, not
of quenching, that true spirit of prayer which is indeed the very
breath of our inner life. I trust that none will misunderstand my
outspokenness in stating those difficulties. They are, and in these
days must be, freely recognized. Unless we who have a witness to
bear for the Author of spiritual worship are willing to face them,
our witness will fail to reach those who most sorely need it. I am
driven once more to appeal to “something more than candour” in my
readers for a right interpretation of my struggle to unfold thoughts
which tax my powers of utterance to the uttermost, and which I yet
dare not withhold.

[13]“Apology,” Prop. xiii.

[14]See Appendix, Note B, for a short account of the “Home Mission
Committee.”

[15]I believe, as I have already said, that few people outside the
Society are aware of the extent to which the practice is still
continued of Friends who feel themselves called to the ministry
travelling, as we say, “in the service of truth,” or “under a sense
of religious concern,” not only from place to place in England, but
also all over the world. A remarkable variety of “services” are in
this way spontaneously undertaken, and carried out, sometimes quite
alone, sometimes with the help of one or more Friends “liberated” to
accompany the minister. And those small meetings where there is but
little vocal ministry are objects of special care and concern to the
larger meetings, of which they form a part; and many Friends make a
practice of visiting them from time to time.

There was also a special service to which ministering Friends
formerly often felt themselves called, and which, though much
disused of late years, is not altogether extinct—that of paying
“religious visits to families” in particular districts or, in other
words, of holding meetings for worship and mutual edification from
house to house—generally, but not invariably, amongst our own
members only. These visits were occasions specially adapted and felt
suitable for the exercise of that peculiar gift of “speaking to the
condition of” individuals which some Friends (especially in former
times) seem to have possessed in a remarkable degree. I believe them
to have been of deep value when rightly conducted by the few
possessing a real qualification for such delicate and at times
searching services, but perhaps peculiarly liable to degenerate into
what was neither edifying nor acceptable.

[16]For a short account of the manner in which, before the end of the
eighteenth century, the Society in America freed itself from all
complicity with slavery, as illustrating the working both of our
principles and of our organization, see Appendix, Note C.

[17]The expression “put under dealing” describes the prescribed
preliminary to disownment. When an overseer, having found private
remonstrance unavailing, is obliged to bring a case of wrong-doing
before the Monthly Meeting, that Meeting appoints one or two Friends
to visit and “deal with” the offender, in the way of exhortation and
counsel, with a view to induce him to acknowledge and condemn or
“disown” his own fault, and thus to avert the penalty of the
Society’s disownment of himself.

[18]I hope it will be remembered that my object throughout is to unfold
the meaning of our ideal, not at all to estimate the degree in which
we actually live according to it. I am not in a position to form any
opinion worth having as to the actual state of the Society, nor if I
had any such opinion should I wish to publish it. My desire is to
explain the secret of our strength, not of our weakness.

[19]I believe that scarcely any Friend would be found to consider the
office of the policeman as an unlawful one, or to entertain scruples
about the use of physical force in maintaining order. I am told that
Friends have often, and without censure, acted as special
constables.

With regard to the subject of capital punishment, the Yearly Meeting
has, indeed, during the last fifty years, expressed very serious
doubts of its being justifiable; but the matter is treated as one
“needing prayerful consideration” by those whom it may concern, not
as beyond all question clear.

[20]It is, I believe, notorious that many of the panics which often
actually lead to war, and which tend to keep up the enormous and
demoralizing burdens of an “armed peace,” are largely brought about
by those who have a pecuniary interest in them, either for
stock-jobbing or for newspaper-selling interests.

[21]I mean by “asceticism” the practice of any humanly devised religious
or spiritual discipline, whether self-chosen or prescribed by
authority.

[22]“But I say unto you, Swear not at all.... But let your communication
be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of
evil” (Matt. v. 34-37).

[23]The victory thus won by Friends has paved the way for greater
liberty for all; and at the present time any one (whether
“professing with us” or not) who objects on the ground of religion
to the taking of an oath is equally at liberty to affirm.

[24]“Book of Discipline,” p. 141.

[25]The number of members was reported in 1862 as 13,844; in 1889 as
15,574. Before 1862 no returns were made.

[26]Many other causes have, no doubt, been at work in bringing about the
changes referred to in the text. I am, indeed, not qualified to
attempt anything like an adequate account, on however slight a
scale, of the recent history of the Society, and have desired in
this passage only to indicate the general direction of the principal
division of parties amongst us.

[27]Robert Barclay, who was for generation after generation regarded as
the main pillar of theoretic Quakerism, plainly declares the
Scriptures to be “a secondary rule”—subordinate, that is, to the
teaching of the Spirit by which they were given forth. He
anticipates many now familiar reflections about the inherent
uncertainties of interpretation and application which preclude the
possibility of our finding in any written words a sufficient guide
in the infinite variety of individual circumstances; and also
recognizes fully the many sources of error appertaining to writings
so ancient, and derived through so many differing versions and
translations. He declares, however, that “because they are commonly
acknowledged by all to have been written by the dictates of the Holy
Spirit, and that the errors which may be supposed by the injury of
Times to have slipt in are not such but that there is a sufficient
clear Testimony left to all the essentials of the Christian faith,
we do look upon them as the only fit outward judge of controversies
amongst Christians,” and adds that “we are very willing that all our
doctrines and practices shall be tried by them;” and that “we shall
also be very willing to admit, as a positive certain maxim, _That
whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to
the Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a Delusion of the Devil._
For as we never lay claim to the Spirit’s leadings that we may cover
ourselves in anything that is evil; so we know, that as every evil
contradicts the Scriptures, so it doth also the Spirit in the first
place, from which the Scriptures came” (Barclay’s “Apology,” p. 86:
London, 1736).

[28]“The Inner Light,” pp. 23-26.

[29]It may be worth while to mention in this connection that there is
not, so far as I have observed, any habitual preponderance of women
in Friends’ meetings. This impression is confirmed by the fact that
the number of habitual “attenders” (non-members) at our meetings is
given (in the tabular statement prepared for the Yearly Meeting of
1889) as follows:—

Males 2,962
Females 3,086
6,048

The rapid growth of Friends’ First Day Adult Schools is another
significant fact, as showing the openness to the teaching and
influence of Friends amongst working men, and at the same time the
energetic way in which that influence is being used. This movement
began, at the suggestion of the late Joseph Sturge, in Birmingham in
1845; and it appears, from the annual report of the Friends’ First
Day School Association, that the number of adult scholars was in
March, 1889, as follows:—

Men 17,591
Women 5,535
23,126

The Society of Friends, it should be remembered, numbers (including
children) only 15,574 members, yet the teaching in these schools is
entirely undertaken by Friends personally, and is, I believe, done
altogether without paid help, though valuable assistance is in many
cases given by former scholars.

[30]The history of James Naylor is the best-known case in point.

[31]When any person applies for membership, the Monthly Meeting appoints
one or more Friends to visit the applicant, and to report to the
meeting the result of the interview, before a reply is given. The
precise conditions to be fulfilled in such cases are nowhere laid
down, but the object is understood, in a general way, to be to
ascertain that the applicant is fully “convinced of Friends’
principles.” The test is thus a purely personal and individual one,
and partakes of the elasticity which characterizes all our
arrangements, and which is felt to favour the fullest dependence
upon Divine guidance.

[32]“Book of Discipline,” p. 229.

[33]Published by Robert Smeal, Glasgow, 1883.

[34]It must be remembered that the Society of Friends in America
consists of many Yearly Meetings, each of which is supreme and
independent within its own compass. Their number has considerably
increased since John Woolman’s time; and in the Western States there
is also a rapid increase in the number of members.

[35]The italics are throughout Whittier’s.

Transcriber’s Notes

—Silently corrected a few typos.

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
is public-domain in the country of publication.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
_underscores_.

End of Project Gutenberg's Quaker Strongholds, by Caroline Emelia Stephen