CHAPTER V.

DIVISIONS DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

[It should be remembered that the titles in this chapter are used simply for the purpose of distinction, and are those which are employed in the United States Census of 1890. As all divisions claim the name of Friends, some course like this is necessary.]

The Separation of 1827-28.

THE separation of 1827-28 sharply divides the earlier history of Friends from the later. The Society, which had till now presented an almost unbroken front, was to be rent into two parts, each sufficiently large to maintain a separate existence, and each claiming to be the original body.

During the latter years of the eighteenth and the earlier portion of the nineteenth century the attention of Friends had been more engrossed with the enforcement of the Discipline and the carrying out of certain moral reforms than with questions of doctrine or with evangelization. The elders and overseers gradually exercised more and more authority, till they, with a few of the more weighty members, virtually controlled the Society.

In a general way the reading of the Scriptures was encouraged, but it was before the time of low-priced Bibles, and quite a number of families did not own a copy, while others had but a portion of the book.1 Some Friends only

1 In a circular issued by the Bible Association of Friends, an association founded by the Orthodox body after the separation, it was stated that in 1832 four hundred families were without a complete copy of the Scriptures, while one hundred and thirty-eight had not even a New Testament. If this was the case with the body that laid the greater stress on the importance of the Bible, the condition of affairs in the other branch may be imagined.

read it when inwardly moved to do so; and some objected to "fixing times" for reading, as being a lifeless form.1 The lack of biblical knowledge which naturally resulted from this was not supplied by any definite teaching. Bible-schools were not yet known, and the task of instructing the children was left almost entirely to the parents, who too often did not attend to the duty, partly from the fear of interfering with the work of the Spirit in the hearts of their children.2

The ministry was largely hortatory, and many meetings were held in absolute silence. While there is abundant evidence that there were among the Friends during the whole of this period able ministers and experienced Christians who were careful of the younger members, nevertheless the condition of spiritual life throughout the body was low, and a large proportion were Friends rather by tradition than conviction, and many were careless and some unbelieving. The soil was therefore prepared for the introduction of almost any new opinions that might be plausibly presented.

The most prominent person connected with the separation of 1827-28 was Elias Hicks, an eloquent and popular minister of Long Island, N. Y.3 He was a man of powerful build, commanding person, and indomitable will. He had only an elementary education. His mind was strong, logical, intense, and practical, rather than broad or deep. His personal influence was great and lasting, and where he labored most his following was greatest.

1 This was the view of Elias Hicks. (See Foster's "Report," vol. ii., pp. 420, 421.)

2 Memoir of Rachel Hicks," p. 34.

3 He was born in Hempstead Township, Long Island, N. Y., in 1748. His father joined the Friends soon after the birth of this son, and it is probable that Elias Hicks was received into membership about that time. He traveled much as a preacher, his last journey being when he was eighty years He died in 1830. (See "Journal.")

of age.

As his teachings became the subject of much controversy, it is necessary to go into them rather fully, in order that the reader may understand the ground taken by those who objected to him. It must be clearly understood, however, that that body of Friends generally called by his name has never formally accepted his doctrine, and many of its members hold very different views.1

There were two sides to his teaching: the practical, which for many years formed the greater part of his preaching; and the speculative. He was an ascetic, condemning all amusements, as such, saying that even to put on a ribbon to gratify one's self was to worship it rather than the Almighty.2

His central position was that "God is a Spirit,” that a manifestation of his Spirit is given to every man everywhere, and that this alone, if followed and obeyed, is sufficient for his salvation. This thought so possessed his mind that he came to think that everything outward was not only non-essential, but carnal. He went to the logical extent of the theory, and held that the coming and work of Christ Jesus in the flesh, the Scriptures, and all outward teaching were to be classed among the outward things and therefore in no sense essential. The "Light within " was, he taught, the only light that any one need follow.3 The Scriptures can do no more than direct to this inward prin

1 Writers of all parties agree that for a number of years he was a sound and able preacher. The controversy arose in the latter part of his life.

2 ** Philadelphia Sermons," p. 133. Over a thousand printed pages of his sermons were taken down stenographically and printed by M. T. C. Gould, but they all belong to the period of the controversy. While Hicks at first refused to assume any responsibility for these ("Philadelphia Sermons," Advertisement, p. 4), he afterward expressed general satisfaction with them ("The Quaker," vol. iv., p. vii.), and near the close of his life writes that "in them all objections are answered in regard to my belief and doctrine.” ("Six Queries, etc., to Elias Hicks, etc., with Elias Hicks's Answers." See Foster's "Report," vol. ii., P. 434.)

3 "Philadelphia Sermons," pp. 80-82.

ciple, and when they have done this they have finished their work. He taught that they were the best of all books, and had been given by inspiration, and were only to be understood by inspiration, but that without this in the minds of the readers they were not only external, but had been productive of "fourfold more harm than good."2 "The gospels contain a history, a great portion of which may be true." 3 The central cause of the controversy was his teachings as to the person and work of Jesus Christ. He taught that Jesus was superior to the rest of mankind because he had a greater work to perform, just as a man with five talents needs greater power than he who has but one. Beyond this he taught that God placed Jesus on an equality with man. In his scheme Jesus was a man liable to sin, yet free from it on account of his obedience, so that at the time of his baptism in the Jordan he became the Son of God, going through an experience in this respect that all of us must go through.5 In his view, Jesus Christ died because he was killed by wicked men, just as any other prophet was martyred. While Hicks taught that his willingness to suffer was a pattern for us, he denied that the Father had

1 See Elias Hicks's "Answer to Six Queries," Foster's "Report," vol. ii., P. 432.

2E. H. to Phebe Willis, 5th mo. 1818." (Foster's "Report," vol. ii., p. 417.) In a letter to the same individual, "23rd Ninth mo. 1820” (Ibid., vol. ii., p. 420), he writes as follows: "But I may Add that I sometimes think that if they [the Scriptures] are really needful and useful to a few who make a right use of them, yet as I believe they are doing great harm to multitudes of others, whether it would not be better for the few who find Some comfort and help from them to give them up for a time untill the wrong use and abuse of them are done away. . . . It would be a very easy thing for divine Wisdom and Goodness to raise up and qualify some of his faithful Servants to write scriptures if he should think best, as good and as competent for the generation in which they lived, and likely would be much better, than those wrote so many hundred years since," etc.

3 "Philadelphia Sermons," p. 315.

4 "

'Answers to Six Queries," etc., Foster's Report," vol. ii., p. 433; "Philadelphia Sermons," pp. 10, 11, 292.

5 "New York Sermons," p. 96; " Philadelphia Sermons," pp. 69, 70, 162.

sent the Son into the world to suffer, and he maintained that when the trial came Jesus had no alternative, he must be faithful and suffer, or lose his standing with the Father and not be saved with God's salvation. That the death of Christ is of any value to us beyond the example of it, Hicks denied.2

It must, however, be borne in mind that Elias Hicks was not simply iconoclastic in his teachings. He believed that men are saved by the power of God, and he held that what he was presenting was the simple spiritual gospel, freed from all the man-made additions and externalities. He himself states emphatically that he had experienced the power of what he was preaching about. There is at passage of much beauty in his journal in which he describes the kind of Saviour that man needs: one who is all the time with him to save him at the moment help is needed. He seems to have thought that in order to emphasize the inward it was necessary to deny the outward. He distinctly admits differing from the first preachers in the Society of Friends on the subject of the atonement, maintaining that the light was not clear in their day on this subject, and they were not therefore to blame for not holding the broad views he thought were the true ones.4

1 "The Quaker," vol. i., p. 16. 2 Foster's Report," vol. ii., p. 424. As there are frequent references in his writings to Christ as the Saviour, the following passage from his "Journal" will explain what he means by the term: "Therefore all the varied names given in Scripture to this divine light and life, such as Emmanuel, Jesus, sent of God, Great Prophet, Christ our Lord, Grace, Unction, Anointed, etc., mean one and the same thing; and are nothing less nor more than the spirit and power of God in the soul of man, as his Creator, Preserver, Condemner, Redeemer, Saviour, Sanctifier, and Justifier.” (“Journal,” p. 330.) 3 "Journal," p. 304.

4 "Letter to Phebe Willis, Ninth mo. 1820," Foster's "Report," vol. ii., p. 421.