"THE INNER LIGHT."

193

on the light of Christ. "Believe in the Light, that ye may become children of the Light," was his message again and again. So much did he and his followers dwell on this, that though at first they called themselves "Children of Truth," they were soon termed "Children of Light," a name which they adopted and used for some time. They also called themselves "Friends of Truth," and finally "The Religious Society of Friends," to which was very frequently added, "commonly called Quakers.'

The phrase "Inner Light" has also become inseparably attached to them and their successors.2

Accompanying this spiritual teaching there was the practical testimony against oaths, as being contrary to the words of Christ, "Swear not at all;" against tithes, as being also contrary to the gospel, whose ministers were to freely give what they had freely received; against all language which departed from verbal truthfulness, such as titles of compliment;3 the use of the plural form of the pronouns in address; of refusing to uncover the head to any man, regarding the act as one of worship, and to be practiced only toward God.

1 The origin of the name Quaker is thus described by George Fox himself "This was Justice Bennet of Darby, who was the first that called us Quakers, because I bid them tremble at the word of the Lord. And this was in the year 1650." ("Journal," p. 37; "Doctrinal Works," London, 1706, p. 507.) So also Sewel, who adds, the name hath also given occasion to many silly stories " (Sewel, p. 24. See Gerard Croese, "The General History of the Quakers," London, 1696, p. 5), stories which are repeated to this day. (See Maryland, Wm. Hand Browne, Boston, 1884, p. 135.)

2 There is no doubt that meanings have been attributed to this phrase widely different from that held by Fox. He says: "I turned the people to the divine light, which Christ, the heavenly and spiritual man, enlighteneth them withal; that with that light they might see their sins, and that they were in death and darkness, and without God in the world; and that with the same light they might also see Christ, from whom it comes, their Saviour and Redeemer, who shed his blood and died for them, and who is the way to God, the truth, and the life." ("Journal," p. 168.)

3 Legal bona fide titles, as king, duke, justice, etc., were excepted.

4 This fact explains the tenacity with which the early Friends held to this testimony, believing that to take off the hat was giving the honor to men

It was the practice in those times to make a difference in the manner of speaking to equals and to superiors. "Thou" and "thee" was used to the former and to inferiors, but "you" to superiors. It seemed to many at the time, as well as at a later day, that Fox attached too much importance to language and to the hat, but it is difficult to judge correctly without an accurate knowledge of the period. The principle involved was right, and having accepted that, he carried it to its logical conclusion. The practice of calling the days and months by their numerical names was not original with him, it was a custom among the early Baptists as well. As to dress, there is absolutely nothing to show that Fox advised anything but simplicity; uniformity he does not hint at; that was the product of a later age. His "leather breeches" have become famous through Carlyle,' but there is no authority whatever for the statement that he stitched them himself, and the material seems to have been chosen for its wearing qualities alone. He himself bought for his wife a piece of red cloth for a mantle."

The views of Fox spread, and thousands flocked to hear and to accept the comforting doctrines proclaimed by these earnest men and women. Fox's acceptance of the universality of the gospel, and of the direct visitation of every soul by the Holy Spirit, logically brought him to see that women could not be excepted from any part of the divine commission. Though the number of women who preached

which was due to God only. (Fox's "Journal," p. 179, and many other places.) "There was nothing which brought more abuse on these scrupulous reformers. In vain they explained that they did not mean it disrespectfully. Many were hurried away and cast into prison for contempt of court without any other crime being proved against them." (M. Webb, pp. 31, 32.)

1 " Sartor Resartus," book iii., chap. i.

2 M. Webb, p. 259.

3 Thurloe, State Papers," vol. v., p. 166; vol. viii., pp. 403, 527, etc. 4 His statement of his views on this subject in a letter to the Duke of Holstein is remarkably clear and convincing. ("Journal," pp. 523 ff.) Fox

WOMEN AS PREACHERS.

195

was somewhat less than that of the men, those that preached took an active part in the work at home and abroad, and were full partakers, even to death, in the sufferings of the early days.

The early meetings for worship which sprang up all over the kingdom appear to have been strictly congregational at first, and the beginnings of organization were strikingly like the apostolic practice.

Fox, in 1652, thus writes to Friends: "Be faithful to God, and mind that which is committed to you, as faithful servants, laboring in love; some threshing, and some plowing, and some to keep the sheep: he that can receive this, let him and all to watch over one another in the Spirit of God." This was Fox's ideal meeting, and the whole organization afterward developed by him is based on the principle involved in these words. Like the early church, one of the first objects was the care of the poor, “and to see that all walked according to truth."2

1

did not, however, introduce women's preaching into the modern church. Edwards, in his "Gangræna," mentions the fact of women's preaching more than once. (See part i., pp. 26, 113, London, 1646.)

1 "Epistles," Epistle 16, London, 1698, p. 15. 2་ 'Letters, etc., of Early Friends," p. 311.

CHAPTER II.

DISCIPLINE AND DOCTRINE.

As numbers increased, necessity for some formal plan naturally suggested itself, though from the first, as Fox's "Epistles" and those of other Friends clearly show, the spirit of discipline was always present and carried out, though informally. Individual monthly meetings for discipline were set up, certainly as early as 1653, in Durham, and elsewhere in the northern counties,' but the practice was occasional. Among the earliest held were "general meetings," which were held for discussion, for advice, and to take into consideration all matters of common interest. The first of which any record remains was held at Swanington, Leicestershire, 1654; another was at Balby, Yorkshire, in 1656, which issued a number of directions and advices; and from this time such meetings were held frequently. In 1660 Fox mentions a meeting at Skipton "for business relating to the church both in this nation and beyond the seas." He states also "this meeting had stood for several years, and part of the business was to consider the cases of those who had suffered for truth's sake, and to help the poor." 2

Quarterly meetings were established contemporaneously with monthly meetings, and for similar purposes. The

1 Fox's "Journal," pp. 310, 321, 419; "Letters, etc.," pp. 283, 286, 311 ff; Epistles from Yearly Meeting of Friends held in London," etc., Historical Introduction, London, 1858, vol. i., pp. vii. ff.

2 "Journal," p. 215; Sewel, p. 93.

quarterly meeting of the present day was a later development.

12

Even in 1666, though there were many meetings for discipline, some even in America,' it still was not a general practice. The occasion for the setting up of so many meetings of discipline is one of the most curious episodes in the history of the Society. George Fox had been in prison most of the time for three years, and during this period of his withdrawal from service not a few had gone into extremes. One of the most radical was a John Perrot, a preacher who had been very active, "and though little in person, yet great in opinion of himself; nothing less would serve him than to go and convert the Pope.' Perrot on reaching Rome was confined as a madman. After great difficulty his release was secured. On his return to England his eccentricities were great, but the sufferings he had undergone gave him position, and his ability in speaking gained him adherents. He taught that "unless they had an immediate motion at that time to put it off," the hat should be kept on in time of public prayer, both by the one praying and by those worshiping with him. This teaching spread; some very prominent Friends being temporarily led away by it to a greater or less degree, among them Isaac Penington, Thomas Ellwood, and John Crook."

1 Bowden, vol. i., p. 208.

2 "History of the Life of Thomas Ellwood" (an autobiography), London, 1714, p. 241.

"written "It was

3 In the MS. Records of Virginia Yearly Meeting there is a copy of a letter from Isaac Penington expressing sorrow at his being partly led away, and asking the Virginia Friends to give up or destroy certain papers by me in time of great darkness and temptation. He also says: God's mercy that he [John Perrot] did me no more hurt than he did; and for that of the hat, I did not practice it myself nor desire that others should practice it, but only that the tender-hearted might be borne within that respect." Dated " London, the 29 of the 3rd mo. [May] 1675." There is a letter of the same date from John Crook very much to the same effect, and speaking of " a paper writ by me about 12 years since." Virginia Yearly Meeting of Friends, MS. Minutes, " 28 of 8 month [October] 1675."