Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VI.

PERIOD OF REORGANIZATION.-FURTHER PROGRESS.

As soon as the separation of 1827-28 was over both Orthodox and Hicksites began to strengthen the things that remained, and to go forward as best they could under the somewhat crippled conditions in which they found themselves. Many heartily regretted the separation.

Nearly thirty years after, Samuel Bettle, who had been the Orthodox clerk at the time of the separation in Philadelphia, publicly stated that he believed patient labor and suffering would have been better than division.1 A careful study of the times can hardly fail to lead to the same conclusion. The Society, never very numerous, presented thereafter a broken front with diminished influThat some members would have been lost in any case is probable, but the same Book of Discipline continued to be used by the Hicksites, with the clauses making it a disownable offense to deny the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ.2

ence.

The leaders who agreed with Hicks held views very different from the Orthodox; but many of those who followed them did so in order to maintain what they felt was right liberty. In the Yearly Meetings of New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, where their great strength lay, theirs was the popular party. This fact became their

1 Hodgson, vol. ii., pp. 219, 220.

2 A late revision of the Discipline in their Baltimore Yearly Meeting has removed the clauses relating to disownment, and somewhat weakened the doctrinal statements.

strength and their weakness, for while they gained numbers they also received the large proportion of those who had no settled convictions, but who went with the current. Most of those who sided with the Orthodox did so from personal conviction, and therefore added strength to them. Many on both sides, however, adopted the course they took from social and family motives.

The Hicksites.

As has been said, it would be most unjust to credit Hicks's doctrines to even the bulk of those who are popularly called by his name. Their fundamental principle was that in matters of doctrine there should be the fullest liberty. They therefore freely accepted Hicks and indorsed him as a minister without thereby assuming to adopt his opinions. The first effect of the separation on them, however, at least in Philadelphia, seems to have been to cause a reaction in favor of more " orthodox" teaching. At all events, they addressed an Epistle to London Yearly Meeting in 1830,2 in which they protest that they hold essentially the same doctrines as they had always held, and that English Friends have misjudged them on. ex parte testimony. They claim that the dissensions have not been caused by doctrinal differences so much as by the "exercise of an oppressive authority in the church." They also claim to accept the Scriptures with their record of Jesus Christ, and the fundamental principle of the light of Christ within, as God's gift for man's salvation, and all the blessed doctrines which grow from it as their root.

1 The Orthodox claimed that by this action they virtually took the ground that belief as to the outward appearing and work of Jesus Christ is a matter of indifference, and thereby opened the door for and invited unbelief.

2 "Journal" of John Comly, Appendix, p. 638 (containing a copy of the Epistle).

[blocks in formation]

They close by referring to their large majority over the other branch.1

Memoirs of prominent members of the Society about this time show that the doctrinal question was by no means settled. Lucretia Mott herself met with serious opposition on account of her views, which were almost rationalistic. But any "orthodox "orthodox" reaction was overpowered, and the era of freedom of expression on points. of doctrine was established.2

Lucretia Mott was probably the ablest representative of the extreme radical school of thought in the Society. She worked in connection with the Free Religious Association, was a member of the Anti-Sabbath Association, and appeared to have grave doubts on the subject of the future life. Her statements concerning Jesus Christ are most radical, and she took the ground that the Bible was a dangerous book. She had, however, great faith in righteousness, and labored with persistent zeal and untiring perseverance on behalf of the slave, often enduring no little opposition and sometimes being in danger of vio

1 This Epistle was not sent without earnest protest. The clerk of the Woman's Meeting at the time, the afterward celebrated Lucretia Mott, opposed it very positively, on the ground that "it contained sentiments utterly opposed to her own convictions, and to what she believed to be the inherent spirit of Quakerism." She was overruled, but signed it in her official capacity. She was so far justified by the fact that the document was not read in London Yearly Meeting at large, and was returned in a rather peremptory manner. ("James and Lucretia Mott," p. 167, and note.)

2 Edward Hicks, one of their prominent ministers at the time of the separation, writes in 1840 complaining of the growing power of the Unitarian element and says that Elias Hicks never meant to introduce this, but only to prevent Friends from running to the opposite extreme of Trinitarianism; that before his death the old man, seeing how things were going, had said that he was more afraid of his professed Friends than his professed enemies. "But," adds Edward Hicks, I had he lived till now, he would have found gallery members of his branch of Friends having less reverence for Jesus Christ than the Turks, and have heard one of their prominent ministers declare from a Quaker gallery that a Roman Catholic priest in Ireland had done more good than ever Jesus Christ had done." ("Memoirs" of Edward Hicks.)

lence. Nothing could daunt her in this work, and she lived down opposition both inside and outside of her Society. It was undoubtedly her strong and successful efforts on behalf of the negro that served to turn the attention of her fellow-members from her radical doctrines and to give her the great place in their love and esteem which she attained during the latter years of her life. This prominence also gave weight to her teaching and caused it to be more widely accepted.1

There always continued to be a body of Friends belonging to this branch who entertained views closely approximating evangelical doctrines, although a minority; so, in full accord with the foundation principle of freedom which underlies the Hicksite branch of the Society, one can hear very differing views advocated in the same meeting. As a body this branch has given special attention to philanthropy and moral reform. First for the slave, and now for peace, total abstinence from alcoholic beverages, and other movements for the uplifting of humanity, their members, both in their corporate capacity and individually, have been active and efficient. In the field of literature, Samuel M. Janney, a prominent minister in Loudoun County, Va., is acknowledged to have produced the most authoritative life of William Penn that has appeared.2

This branch of the Society has been much interested in education, having had under the care of their members, and still having, a number of institutions for learning, of

1 See "Life of James and Lucretia Mott." She was the daughter of Thomas and Anna Coffin, and was born in Nantucket, 1793; she married James Mott, Jr., in 1811, and died in 1880.

2 Orthodox Friends take exception to his "Life of George Fox" and to the doctrinal parts of his "History of Friends," as not giving sufficient weight to the evangelical views of early Friends. His section on the causes of the separation is a very able production, but is open to the charge of special pleading.

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.

277

all grades.1 One of the earliest of these was the Alexandria Boarding-school in Virginia, under the charge of Benjamin Hallowell. It was opened in 1824, and continued thirty-four years. Many sons of slave-owners were in attendance. The school attained wide celebrity, especially for its superior instruction in advanced mathematics. General Robert E. Lee and General Kirby Smith were among the students. Benjamin Hallowell was also a prominent minister, and was greatly esteemed for his high character and abilities.

A very important school, considered by some as the precursor of Swarthmore College, was begun in 1838 by John and Rachel Jackson, near Darby, Pa. It was among the first which offered advanced educational privileges to young women. John Jackson imported the largest refracting telescope owned by any individual in the United States.

Since 1845 there has been a day-school for boys and girls under the care of the three monthly meetings in Philadelphia. It now numbers six hundred pupils, and is a very thorough institution. Its students, who belong to all denominations, regularly attend midweek meeting for worship with their teachers. Other schools which may be mentioned are: Friends' Seminary, New York (1861), Friends' School in Brooklyn (1867), which together have an endowment of $100,000; Friends' Elementary and High School, Baltimore, Md. (1864), and the George School (1893) at Newtown, Pa. By the will of the late

1 A great deal of the information concerning the educational institutions among Friends of both branches is gathered from an able account of them by Edward Magill, LL.D., late president of Swarthmore College, Pa., which is to be found in "The Proceedings of the Friends' Religious Congress, Chicago, 9th mo. 1893." (Hicksite Conference.) Almost the only criticism on the paper that can be made is that he writes as if all the institutions were under one body, the inference being that they are all Hicksite. Divisions are greatly to be regretted, still when they exist they should be recognized.

« PreviousContinue »