Beyond Majority Rule Pt 1 Ch 1,2 [wk 1-2] 16514

======[wk 1-2]

PART I Historical

Chapter I Quaker Beginnings, 1647-1666

The central idea was the complete elimination of majorities and minorities; it became the Quaker custom to reach all decisions in unity. The clerk of the meeting merely performed the function of reporting the corporate sense, i.e., the judgment of the assembled group, and of recording it. If there were differences of view, as there were likely to be in such a body, the consideration of the question at issue would proceed, with long periods of solemn hush and meditation, until slowly the lines of thought drew together towards a point of unity. Then the clerk would frame a minute of conclusion, expressing the "sense of the meeting'1

This simple decision making process already characterized the tiny Quaker communities which evolved after the first decade of explosive growth following 1647. In that year, as political England struggled towards the beheading of a king and declaration of Cromwell's commonwealth, which would occur two years later, George Fox began his effort to bring all the world to "walk in the light of Truth. 112 His greatest appeal would lie among England's Baptists, Seekers, Familists, Ranters, and other "masterless men" who together constituted the non-Episcopalian, non-Puritan politically insignificant 50 percent of the nation. At Fox's death, forty-four years later, one in every hundred Englishmen would be a Quaker,3 and the process of replacing majority rule with unity would be firmly entrenched as the linchpin of this Quaker polity.

Central to the Quaker understanding of unity-based decision mak­ing is Fox's idea that there is "that of God in every one. '14 When a group of believers comes together to deliberate about the best way to serve God 3 
here and now, each expects to find in others some manifestation of "that of God;' and looks for the mark of the Spirit of Christ—Truth with a capital "T'—in everyone else's remarks. In short, since the same Spirit speaks in each heart, the members expect to end their meetings united

But how were those meetings conducted? The earliest clear statement this writer has found is Edward Burroughs 1662 testimony concerning the origins of the London Business Meeting in 1655. Burrough tells us that those men who were not engaged in the full-time preaching and tract writing of the unordained ministers gathered every week or two to deliberate: "concerning providing convenient meeting places for the publishing of Truth; and how the poor people that believed should be honestly taken care for, that no want should be amongst them; and that the sick and weak and impotent should be visited and provided for; and that such servants as were put away out of their services for receiving the Truth, should be looked after, and placed in some honest employment. 6

Their style of deliberation was singular, continues Burrough: 

"Not in the way of the world, as a worldly assembly of men, 

by hot contests, by seeking to outspeak and overreach one another in discourse, as if it were controversy between party and party of men, 

or two sides violently striving for dominion, 

in the way of carrying on some worldly interests for self-advantage; 

not deciding affairs by the greater vote, or the number of men, as the world, who have not the wisdom and power of God ."7 

The Quaker procedure is just the opposite, wrote Burrough: 

"[I]n the wisdom, love and fellowship of God, 

in gravity, patience, meekness, in unity and concord,. . . 

and in the holy Spirit of truth, in love, coolness, . . . as one only party, 

. . . to determine of things by a general mutual concord, 

in assenting together as one man in the spirit of truth and equity, and 

by the authority thereof.1"8

1] The Root of the Meeting for Business: Quaker Worship

As these remarks of Burrough make clear, early Friends understood the decision making dimension of Quaker life as one moment in the en­tire religious experience of the community. 

Today one is reminded force­fully of this fact by the five minutes or so of silent worship which begin and end every Quaker meeting for business. If one is to understand the Friends business meeting, it is necessary to appreciate the style of wor­ship itself. 

The procedure is deceptively simple. All gather together in an unadorned room and sit in silent worship. After awhile, one or another may stand and speak of a religious insight he or she feels called upon to share. The meeting ends, perhaps an hour after it began, with the general shaking of hands. 

An example of the power sometimes experi­enced in such a period of worship is reflected in Caroline E. Stephen's recollection of an 1872 meeting.

On one never-to-be-forgotten Sunday morning, I found myself one of a small company of silent worshippers who were content to sit down together without words, that each one might feel after and draw near to the Divine Presence, unhindered at least, if not helped, by any human utterance. Utterance I knew was free, should the words be given; and before the meeting was over, a sentence or two were uttered in great simplicity by an old and apparently untaught man, rising in his place amongst the rest of us. I did not pay much attention to the words he spoke, and I have no recollection of their purport. My whole soul was filled with the unutterable peace of the undisturbed opportunity for com­munion with God.

Robert Barclay, the Quaker Apologist, tells us:

When I came into the silent Assemblies of God's people, I felt a secret Power among them, which touched my heart; and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me, and the Good raised up.

Such is the evident certainty of that divine Strength, that is com­municated by thus meeting together, and waiting in Silence upon God: that sometimes when one hath come in, that hath been unwatchful, and wandering in his Mind, or suddenly out of the hurry of outward business, and so not inwardly gathered with the rest; so soon as he retires himself inwardly, this Power being in a good measure raised in the whole Meeting, will suddenly lay hold upon his Spirit, and wonderfully help to raise up the Good in him, and beget him into the sense of the same Power, to the melting and warming of his Heart°

In Fox's Journal, the most common observation of a Quaker meeting is to the effect that "we had a blessed meeting; the Lord's power and presence was felt among us21

At the center of Quakerism is this communal experience. Quakers do not begin with a theory. They begin with an event in which, ideally, the presence of God is experienced by each person as part of a group ex­perience. Rufus Jones emphasizes that "Quakerism is peculiar in being a group mysticism, grounded in Christian concepts." The experience is "mystical" in the extended sense of a "self-evident conviction" of the divine presence, a "vital discovery of divine Life revealing itself here and now in and through a group of persons who are bent on transmitting that Life. 11 12

The entire Quaker format of worship, as described by Howard Brinton, can be understood best in terms of seeking this experience.

At first sight, it might appear that the meeting can only be described by negatives—there is no altar, no liturgy, no pulpit, no sermon, no organ, no choir, no sacrament, and no person in authority. No external object of attention prevents the worshipper from turning inward and there find­ing the revelation of the Divine Will. Whatever is outward in worship must come as a direct result of what is inward—otherwise, it will be form without power. There must first be withdrawal to the source of power and then a return with power.13

Gerald K. Hibbert expresses the experiences in the language of sacrament:

Suddenly or gradually we realise "the Presence in the midst;' and the silence becomes fully sacramental. Thus comes the sense of our com­munion one with another through partaking together of the Bread of Life, and we go forth to actualise that communion and fellowship in our daily lives.14

In Quaker parlance, a special term is used to identify this phenome­non. During the time the group is aware of "the Presence in the midst;' the meeting is "covered" or "gathered" or, in Barclay the Apologist's phrase, "gathered into the Life'15

Now the early meeting for business (a decision making meeting) is a type of meeting for worship, an outgrowth of the latter. It seeks to reach decisions "in the Life," decisions which grow out of the experience of God's invitations, his "leadings" during the time of gathered prayer. One might oversimplify, but only slightly, that the regular meeting for worship seeks corporately for God's presence; the special meeting for worship which focuses on matters of business seeks corporately for God's will. And, at least in serious matters, the group finds God's will by first finding God. The atmosphere of a meeting for business is well described by Richard Vann in a discussion on Buckinghamshire Monthly Meeting Minutes for 5 February 1683 in which the "extraordinary psychic atmosphere" requires that all present be in the "state and condition" of openness to God. Vann marvels at "this feeling that even one person out of harmony with the meeting could prevent it from accomplishing anything, 11 16

The extraordinary authority credited to decisions made in this situa­tion cannot be minimized. In the second part of this study we shall at­tempt to draw out the peculiar motivation to obey which is produced by the decision making rules of a unity-seeking body. Here let us underscore the enhancement of legitimacy which comes when a group believes that its decision is divinely guaranteed. Disobedience is not an act against the group, but sin against God himself. Even should a member be unable to see the wisdom of the decision some months after it was reached, he or she still feels weighty obligation to obey. Obedience is required whether he or she sees the reason or not, and must be obeyed until such time as the group is led to rescind the requirement, thus reflecting fresh divine guidance for new circumstances.

2] Individual Inspiration

At this point, we turn for a moment to a complementary Quaker belief. For, if the Spirit of God speaks to the meeting, he also speaks through individuals in the meeting. There is no reason to think that the Spirit's voice can be heard only in the gathered meeting. Let us see how individual inspirations (leadings) might occur and then turn to the community crises which sometimes arise out of them.

A typical example is the call of Marmaduke Stevenson: "In the begin­ning of the year 1655, I was at the plough in the east parts of Yorkshire; and, as I walked after the plough, I was filled with the love and presence of the living God. . . . And. . . the word of the Lord came to me in a still, small voice, which I did hear perfectly, saying to me in the secret of my heart and conscience, 'I have ordained thee prophet unto the nations'"

Stevenson accepted this call to missionary service. And "the Lord said unto me, immediately by His Spirit" that he would care for Stevenson's wife and children. With this reassurance, Stevenson and William Robin­son set off for the American Colonies. As it turned out, the call was not only to mission but also to martyrdom; on October 27, 1659, both were hanged on Boston Common, the first Quakers to be executed under a 1658 Massachusetts statute against the "cursed sect" of Quakers.17

3] Revelation as Seed of Persecution, 1647-1649

Impressive as the missionary vocation and martyrdom of a Marma-duke Stevenson may be, such reliance on individual inspiration had its pitfalls. George Fox's own early experience of revelations illustrates the point well. For example, sometime in 1648, Fox had an "opening" "that such as were faithful to [God] in the power and light of Christ, should come up into that state in which Adam was before he fell, in which the admirable works of the creation, and the virtues thereof, may be known, through the openings of that divine Word of wisdom and power by which they were made'18

Two important claims are made here. First, sinful man is capable of inner holiness, even perfection. Secondly, a man in that state of prelap-sarian holiness can have direct and reliable divine revelation on the nature and qualities of all creation. So strong was Fox on the point that he even paused over "whether I should practise physic for the good of mankind, seeing the nature and virtues of the creatures were so opened to me by the Lord'19

This vision is the root of two prolonged difficulties. 

First, there was the claim that perfection is possible for man, a claim shared with General Baptists, Familists, and other sects. However, Fox expressed the claim in the language of the Ranters, an amorphous group of disenfranchised men notorious for their immoral lives. The Ranters simply carried Fox's idea of restoration to holiness a step further: If Christ's resurrection restores the believer to Adam's sinless state, then any action a believer performs, be it dancing or cursing or fornicating, is sinless! However, the Ranters would bring the Commonwealth's persecution on their heads in 1651 and 1652 when their leaders were imprisoned and the flock scattered into in­visibility without religious groups similar to their own in theology among the "masterless men" of English society. Quakers would find themselves publicly suspect as being mere "externally upright Ranters" for more than a decade.20

The second prolonged difficulty with beginnings in this 1648 open­ing is more fundamental. Fox was proposing a theory of direct divine in­spiration of an extraordinarily detailed sort: God showed him the inner workings of all reality. This divine illumination was dependent upon neither Book nor human event; hence, the normal avenues of indepen­dent verification were closed. Fox would spend decades trying to cope with the ramifications of this mystical experience. He would soon find that separate religious insights, at least when they are reduced to human concepts and language, can vary and can even contradict one another, yet he would have no adequate standard for assessing their validity. A religious community based on such sometimes conflicting openings would often find itself adrift. Fox first faced this central problem with the scan­dalous excesses of James Nayler.

4] The James Nayler Crisis, 1656

Certainly Marmaduke Stevenson's vocation and martyrdom was ade quate to edify the community. But suppose a Friend's leading proves em­barrassing. And suppose the Friend is a man of special prominence. James Nayler is a case in point. Well-known for his spirited and attractive presen­tation of Friends' beliefs, James Nayler vied with Fox himself as the most noteworthy Quaker during the period from 1652 to 1656. In an official nar­rative, London Yearly Meeting explains what occasioned the crisis:

In 1655, Nayler came south to help in work in London, where he became ensnared by flatterers, who behaved themselves in an extravagant fashion, bowing, kneeling and singing before him. On going to Bristol he was persuaded by Friends there to see Fox, then in Launceston jail, but on the way he was taken and imprisoned at Exeter. He was freed in October, 1656, and a few days later entered Bristol on horseback with his followers around him. They spread garments before him and sang, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Israel' The authorities interfered and sent him to Lon­don, where Parliament after long debates sentenced him to imprison­ment after being whipped and pilloried in London and Bristol, and brand­ed for a blasphemer, and having his tongue bored through?1

The seriousness of the problem that Nayler suddenly had become is illustrated by the fervor of Parliamentary debate. There had been previous messiahs in this religion-ridden age, such as William Franklin, Arise Evans, Theaureaujohn. All had been dealt with by local magistrates with brief prison terms. But to Nayler, Cromwell's House of Commons devoted six weeks of frenzied vitriol. The horrors Nayler finally suffered were an at­tempt to placate those who demanded a sentence of death. The difference? The other messiahs were insignificant men without serious followings. Nayler, however, was leader of a large movement which had spread rapidly, drawing many members from the anti-parlimentary Levellers and the im­moral Ranters?2

Suddenly the pleadings in Quaker pamphlets for social justice began to look like preachments of political revolution. A 1653 publication had threatened, for example, that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. He hath given it to the sons of men in general, and not to a few lofty ones which lord it over their brethren. '23 Another prophesied woe to "you lofty ones of the earth, who have gotten much of the creation into your hands . . . and are become lords of your brethren.1124

"God is against you;' Nayler himself told "covetous cruel oppressors who grind the faces of the poor and needy."25 Elsewhere Nayler lamented, "Who could have believed that England would have brought forth no better fruits than these, now after such deliverance as no nation else can witness?1"26

As the reader would expect, Nayler's case brought an increase of persecution upon the heads of Friends and a vivid sense of the vulnerabili­ty of the Quaker community to individual excess. In order to understand the significance of the Quaker response to this double threat, the reader is asked to consider Quaker organizational structures prior to the Nayler affair and then to contrast them with the changes Fox felt forced to in­troduce in its aftermath.

5] Early Quaker Polity, 1649-1656

In reporting the origin of Quaker meetings for business, George Fox comments: "The first Monthly Meeting was on this wise in the North:

we did meet concerning the poor, and to see that all walked accord­ing to the Truth, before we were called Quakers, about the middle of the nation in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and part of Leicestershire, where there was a great convincement. 1127

These are all districts where Fox had found groups of adherents by the end of 1648, two years before Judge Hotham dubbed the sect Quakers. Since there are no records of the sessions held among these groups, we must jump ahead to records of practice among the northern Seekers Fox attracted in 1652.28

In Westmoreland and East and West Riding, Fox found Seeker groups which already met at regular intervals of three or four weeks to handle relief of their poor and discipline of the "disorderly walkers" among their membership. In 1653, William Dewsbury, who had set up the East Riding Meeting the year before, wrote a general epistle urging that "one or two Friends who are most grown in the power and life, in the pure discerning in the Truth" should be chosen to "take care and charge over the flock of God" as overseers9

In the same year, an epistle was sent out in Fox's name recommend­ing various points of good order in the local business meetings. A secretary should keep a record of all "sufferings" which could eventually be shared with other Friends at a regional meeting. Idleness should be discouraged. Friends in financial straits should be aided if possible from locally col­lected and administered funds. Although it is clear that Fox and those who consulted with him prior to the letter's writing.held great influence over the local meetings, it is equally clear that Fox was making strong sug­gestions to groups that were autonomous and self-governing. Constant encouragement was given to local resolution of problems. Provision, however, was made for special, regional gatherings for those instances  10  when local Friends were unable to resolve problems. But the very ir­regularity of such regional gatherings indicates how great was the primacy of the local meetings°

It would appear that meetings for business were not held on a regular monthly basis in many districts outside the region; instead sessions might be summoned only when need was felt. With the increase of persecu­tion, however, such gatherings became necessary on a more consistent basis. 

On one hand, those in jail and their families needed looking after, as did those who lost their employment because of joining Friends. On the other, any hint of immorality which might justify the persecutors' charge that Friends were "secret Ranters" must be remedied. The meetings kept busy discovering such "disorderly walkers;" they then either public­ly asserted in writing that the individual in question was not a member of their group or obtained from the culprit a written public confession that his action had been contrary to "Friends' Principles" along with a promise of reformation. Both approaches were described as actions to "clear Truth ."31 For example, Fox notes in his Journal for 1655 that "Christopher Atkinson, that dirty man, had run out and brought dishonour upon the Lord's Truth and his name; but he was judged and denied by Friends, and he after gave forth a paper of condemnation of his sin and evil'32

By 1654, however, Fox had realized that regular local business meetings were important to the community's survival and had set about the task of "settling" Quaker groups where regularity was lacking3

In that same year, Fox had gathered a sizable group of full-time itinerant preachers who, like himself, spread the Quaker good news about the Inner Light of Christ, establishing and then fortifying little groups of fellow believers wherever they travelled. The "Valiant Sixty" or "First Publishers of Truth;' as they have come to be known in Quaker annals, taught a doctrine which can be summarized in four cardinal principles. There is:

(1) Something of divine origin—"that of God," "the Inner Light of Christ"—in every human being; 

(2) a universal grace; 

(3) a universal call to moral perfection and religious union with God; and 

(4) a continuing progressive revelation of God's will through the ages.34

The emphasis was not on specific doctrines about God, Christ, or redemption but on the kind of life that should be lived by someone who experiences God's activity in his life. Says British historian G. M. Trevelyan, "The finer essence of George Fox's queer teaching common to the excited revivalists who were his first disciples was surely this: that Christian qualities matter much more than Christian dogmas:'35

It is important to notice that, in this earliest period, Fox did almost nothing to organize his brethren above the local level. The meetings kept in touch with each other through the loose and informal contact of the Valiant Sixty or other travelling Friends. There is simply no indication that Fox or his followers had any more rigorous plan of governance in mind. As the reader is about to see, any development of polity above the local level seems always a step forced by the need to defend Friends from government actions or those inner excesses which invite government ac­tion; and always it is tailored to achieve maximum effect with a minimum of added structure.

6] Fox's Attempts to Protect Quaker Communities, 1656-1660

At the time of Nayler's punishment, George Fox, fresh out of jail, toured the nation and discovered an increase in the frequency of harass­ment for such Friendly offenses as refusal to pay tithes, take oaths, or show respect for civic officials by removing the hat. A significant explanation of increased persecution is, perhaps, found in Fox's remark, "Oliver Pro­tector began to harden :'36

Fox sought first to achieve a restoration of order within the various Friends' communities, bringing them back from "that evil spirit. . . which had drawn James Nayler and his followers out from Truth, to run Friends into heats about him:'37 He wrote three epistles to Friends, one urging that their "patience must get the victory and answer that of God in every one, must bring every one to it, and bring them from the contrary:' This can be interpreted as a plea for internal reconciliation and, perhaps, a less "aggravating" public witness. The second and third epistles are concern­ed with deepening the sense of the Spirit's presence ("the power of the Lord") in meetings for worship and loving but firm guidance to be exer­cised by more mature Friends over those who may "go beyond their measure:'

From this very positive starting point, Fox set out to reinforce the meagre structures of the separate communities: monthly meetings of men—prime places for discovering and dealing with "disorderly walkers'—were established wherever they were not already set up; special general meetings involving one or two representatives from each county were to be held at Skipton annually to bring ordinarily isolated local units together for a period of renewal and united decisions; "reliable" books were wide­ ly disseminated; and regional meetings were established to meet four times a year (quarterly meetings) throughout the nation8

Fox did not use the Nayler episode to exercise undue personal power. He did, however, respond to the crisis by initiating a regular, if minimal, superstructure above the level of the local units. The local units remained primary, although the superstructure served to communicate and advise in a consistent way which the haphazard journeys of the travelling ministry—the First Publishers of Truth—had not been set up to achieve.39

The function of the now regular gatherings of travelling ministers and elders from local meetings was clearly regarded as advisory. There was no doubt of local sovereignty. An excellent illustration of the spirit with which the new structure would approach its task was the 1656 epistle of "the brethren in the north" which was sent from a special meeting of elders gathered at Balby. Since they wrote while Nayler's case was being debated in Parliament, their exhortations to internal discipline and self-constraint, including supervision by local elders, are understandable. But these Balby Friends followed their injunctions with a postscript that would set the tone for the regular gatherings of elders to follow.

Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the measure of light which is pure and holy, may be guided: and so in the light walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."40

The importance of Fox's tour of England becomes more apparent when we face the advisory nature of the Balby epistle and those that were to follow. Greater control over excesses could be exhorted by gatherings above the local level, but implementation was by local option. If the Balby pro­posals were to become effective, the vigorous charismatic presence of Fox was sometimes crucial. Fox's gentle but insistent efforts proved adequate to reunite and discipline the community after the Nayler fiasco, aided greatly, one must note, by Nayler's own humble repentance and return to the fold.

As for government opposition, it is not clear whether Christopher Hill has adequate evidence for his general judgment that "once the Nayler case had broken the radical-political back of Quakerism, the men of property seemed secure from the perils which had environed them since 1647'41 That imprisonment of Quakers continued, there can be no doubt. Whether the pace slackened is hard to say.

It does seem clear that the tide of pamphlets from Quaker pens continued to urge social reform. Anthony Pearson advocated abolition of tithes as a device to relieve the poor. Already by 1658, John Audland prophesied immediate divine wrath against immoral Bristol—significantly, the town Nayler had entered as messiah two years previously and where he had subsequently been flogged the following yea02

7] The Restoration and Renewed Persecution

The turbulence immediately preceding the 1660 restoration of the monarchy brought forth a large volume of Quaker political tracts calling on Parliament to "set free the oppressed peoples' Army leaders were ac­cused of arming Anabaptists and Quakers in an attempt to prevent the Restoration3

The collapse of parliamentary government led Fox to personal despair over the political realm. Just before the Republic's fall, he issued an un­characteristic pamphlet objecting to democracy itself. Its lengthy title ex­presses the theme: A Few Plain Words To be considered by those of the Army, Or others that would have a Parliament That is chosen by the voyces of the peo­ple, to govern the three Nations. Wherein is shewed unto them according to the Scripture of Truth, that a Parliament so chosen are not likely to govern for God and the good of his People.44 This thoroughly anti-democratic essay still calls for abolition of tithes, reform of law, and religious toleration. It is also a prelude to the despair of politics that would take hold of Fox and his movement in 166W'5

When the Restoration finally occurred, suppression of Quakers by the agents of Charles II was singularly bruta06 One must remember that Quakers were among the most visible targets to be found by the Royalists in their drive to make the kingdom safe against Parliamentarianism and the "masterless men" who had joined the Army and who had otherwise supported the Parliamentary forces.

The Fifth Monarchy Uprising against the new king in early January 1661, led the government to mass imprisonment of Quakers as likely par­ticipants. Fox tells us that "several thousands" of Friends were imprisoned in January by the King and Counci07

At this point, Fox and Richard Hubberthorne drew up a declaration against "plots and fightings" to be presented to the king. It was seized while at the printer's and destroyed. A second version was prepared by Friends and printed over the names of Fox, Hubberthorne, and ten other prominent Quakers who wrote "in behalf of the whole body of the Elect People of God who are called Quakers:' The king was told: "All Bloody 14 principles and practices, we as to our own particulars, do utterly deny, with all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever. And this is our testimony to the whole world. "48

This is a curious document. A dozen prominent Friends took it upon themselves to declare that pacifism was a central Quaker tenet. Yet we know that at least two of the signers, Howgil and Hubberthorne, had advocated the use of force as late as 1659. And Fox, himself, though he had refused an army commission in 1651, still felt free in 1657 to urge "the inferior officers and soldiers" of the army to conquer Rome9   Further, it would appear that the plight of imprisoned Friends was so pressing that the twelve were led to define Quaker belief with an absoluteness un­characteristic of the movement. Because their action—combined with the timely denial of Quaker complicity by Fifth Monarchy leaders just before their own execution50—brought relief from the large-scale imprisonment of Friends, it seems to have drawn no immediate objections from within the Quaker communities scattered over England.

But the action underscores the weakness of the position Friends were in. Conceived by their opponents as a national group of possibly revolu­tionary proclivity, they had no regular national unit which could speak authoritatively for them. To what extent was a declaration by twelve Friends—even twelve prominent ones—a definitive statement of the com­munity's belief?  

Even more important theoretically, if not recognized at the time, how could any body representing the local communities speak authoritatively for them all? The local autonomy which was central to Quaker com­munities implied a  nondelegatable power of local decision. The Balby elders, in 1656, had gone as far as a nonlocal unit could go simply by giv­ing strong advice to the local meetings. The proclamation of 1661 by the twelve leading Friends declared to the government a testimony of pacifism which not only had not been approved by all the local communities but which was inconsistent with the recent statements of some of the most prominent signers themselves. In this clear emergency, under great im­mediate threat of major persecution, the twelve had let necessity be their guide. Their action opened the door for Friends to metamorphose from a sect of locally sovereign communities to a church with central polity. This transition involved a substitution of central for local divine guidance.

For other sects, this substitution, though difficult, has not been funda­mental because it does not affect the general body of doctrines the sect 15 holds. Not so for Friends. Quakerism is a religion which tries to be without doctrines. What is central instead is the common experience, the felt ac­tion of God in the gathered meeting. In the personal experience of deci­sions which arise from that felt presence, the Friend draws confidence that the decision is truly "of God" and therefore that it calls for his or her obedience. 

To transform this "authority from experience". into "authori­ty from external directives" is to transplant a tree by cutting off its root. In fact, Friends will never quite make a successful transition from sect to church. The regional and national government units, no matter how justified in theory, remain in constant de facto tension with the theological fundamentum of experience which makes local meetings innately sovereign51

But now back to 1661. Given Friends' high visibility and the govern­ment's efforts to suppress them, there was clear impetus for some sort of national structure in the early years after the Restoration. But the persecution was so strident that even those regular regional meetings Fox had succeeded in establishing in the 1656-1660 period52 became irregular at best and disappeared entirely at worst.

The local communities, however, thrived in spite of the persecution. When others went into hiding, Friends insisted on meeting publicly for worship every First Day (Sunday). In some instances when all the parents in a meeting were imprisoned, their children kept the meeting going as usual. Says Christopher Hill, "One of the most important reasons for the survival of the Quakers was their stoutness under persecution, on which even their enemies commented:'53

8] The Perrot Threat, 1661-1666

But in the midst of these once again isolated communities, an old prob­lem emerged. Although James Nayler had died contrite and restored in 1660, his earlier heresy reemerged in the highly appealing John Perrot. Some writers have been so misled by the apparently paltry nature of Per-rot's disagreement with Fox as to dismiss the issue as insignificant or even to blame Fox for being unduly harsh towards a relatively innocent offender.54

The occasion of the famous "hat controversy" was Perrot's leading in prayer that he should not remove his hat when he (or anyone else) prayed aloud in meeting for worship. This was an insight "which I have received by express commandment from the Lord God of heaven ."55 The reason Perrot's position was not insignificant is that it was a direct reminder of  16 Nayler's actions. 

Says Fox: "But James Nayler and some of them could not stay the meeting but kept their hats on when I prayed. And they were the first that gave that bad example amongst Friends:'56 Nor was Nayler's custom original. In a denunciation of hat-wearers in 1681, Fox indicates that this practice was a trademark of the Ranters: "And alsoe all such as weare their hatts when ffrinds pray, and are gotten into ye old rotten prin­ciple of ye ranters whoe sets up ye wearing theirof in oppostion to ye power of god. 1157

As one might expect, Perrot held a cluster of positions associated with Nayler and with the Ranters hidden within Quakerism and he numbered "most of those that had joyned to James [Nayler]" among his own enthusiasts.58 At the center is the idea that the individual Friend should act according to his own leadings no matter what others may hold, even if one's leadings are exactly the opposite of the agreement of Friends. Per­rot believed that: "The Lord in me [is] more worthy of audience and obe­dience than the voyce of any messenger to me; and therefore till I hear the voice of god in me, though I have heard the voice of a trumpet with me[,] I am to stand still and wait for a certain knowledge of the echoings through the valley of my soul, as found answerings of God's minde in me,

Out of this doctrine came the anarchical argument that meetings for worship should not be scheduled regularly but should only occur when members of the community felt moved to worship together. Next Perrot imitated Nayler in growing a Jesus-like beard and encouraging a number of women to show him respect bordering on obeisance. Under color of achieving spontaneity, he organized separate evening worship sessions among London Friends. At this, Fox explicitly denounced the increasing­ly popular Perrot.60 A pamphlet war ensued during the 1661-1665 period.

Perhaps the clearest statement of the basic threat which Perrot's thought presented is in Richard Farnsworth's 1663 critique. Farnsworth charged that Perrot first totally split the outward and inward man, then claimed that God's inner teachings touch only the inner man. Thus, the outward life need not be an expression of the inner convictions. For the old Ranters this had meant freedom from the need to live externally moral lives so long as their inner lives were renewed. For Perrot and his followers, it meant that one did enough if he conformed to the "outward" religious legislation of the restored and unFriendly king so long as he had a non­conforming heart. This was an all too appealing subterfuge to avoid being "liable to any persecutions of suffering for righteousness' sake.1161

17

A good example of Perrot's technique may well be his own arrange­ment in 1662 to go into voluntary exile in Barbados in return for his release from Newgate Prison. This agreement was followed at once by his inform­ing the Quaker settlement in Barbados that he was coming "to preach the Gospel" among themP2

To Fox, Perrot's journey to the New World did not have the earmarks of a divine missionP3 For Perrot, this gap between inner life and outer expression seemed most acceptable. Once in Barbados, he divided his time between missionary journeys and taking on such unFriendly (but lucrative) duties as becoming royal negotiator to the neighboring Spanish (a post which involved wearing a sword) and acting as clerk of a court where Perrot cheerfully administered oath04

====[19]

Chapter II The Growth of Central Decision Making, 1666-1736

The last chapter examined the origins of Quakerism and traced its history through the years of early fervor and persecution. The autonomy of the local meeting emerged as central to the peculiarly experiential religion of Friends. What superstructure there was operated irregularly and in strictly advisory relation to the sovereign local meetings. The very existence of such structure was heavily dependent on the need for inter­nal discipline as a rampart against actions like Nayler's, which brought such public opprobrium and persecution on Friends. With the truly harsh governmental action of the early Restoration, this meagre system of gather­ings above the local level disintegrated just as a dangerous variant of Naylerism, the teaching of John Perrot, seriously divided the local communities.

This chapter explores the gr

owth of the permanent and effective authority superimposed on local meetings which gradually made local sovereignty more theoretical and less actual. It all began with the drive to combat Perrot's influence.

1] Solid Structure Above the Local Meetings, 1666-1670

John Perrot died in early September 1665. His movement continued, however, and attracted many; for he had placed personal leadings ahead of group leadings and allowed external conformity with government religious decrees—an easy gospel, indeed. Fox, who had opposed Perrot for some years, was once again in jail. Eleven prominent Friends convened specially in London in May 1666, and approved a strong letter to Friends written by Richard Farnsworth. The burden of their message was that "if any differences arise in the church, . . . we do declare and testify, that the church, with the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, have power, without the assent of such as dissent from their doctrines and practices, to hear and determine the same'1 

William C. Braithwaite aptly summarizes the impact of this letter: "It obviously marks an important stage in Quaker history. Individual guidance is subordinated to the corporate sense of the Church, which is treated as finding authoritative expression through the elders who are sound in faith. The fellowship is still grounded in a common experience of spiritual life; but agreement with the approved practices and principles which have sprung from that experience is also essential:12

Howard Brinton agrees, writing "this letter, by definitely subordinating individual guidance to the sense of the meeting as a ihole, marked an important step in Quaker development."

What Braithwaite and Brinton overlook, however, is the drama of the critical situation in which the letter appeared. First, none of the signers of the 1661 disclaimer of violence is numbered among the eleven who wrote this letter. Imprisonment, far-flung travels, and death may account for the absence of the earlier twelve, but the authority of the eleven who spoke in the 1666 letter is unclear.

Admittedly all of the eleven were prominent elders or ministers. But they had no regular authority, being specially convened to write the let­ter. Furthermore, there were very many equally prominent Quaker ministers and elders to be found in the Perrot camp4

There is no indication of how the elders' letter was received in the months following its publication. What we do know is that George Fox set out immediately upon his release three months after the letter's pro­mulgation to visit as many areas as possible, holding special meetings for reconciliation and establishing monthly business meetings for men and for women wherever these were not functioning. Fox tells us: "But I was so weak with lying about three years in cruel and hard imprisonments, my joints and my body were so stiff and benumbed that I could hardly get on my horse. Neither could I well bend my knee, nor hardly endure fire nor eat warm meat: I had been so long kept from it. . . And though I was very weak, yet I travelled up and down in the service of the Lord15

Why would someone in this condition drag his body through an ex­cruciating journey lasting months? Given the extent of the Perrotonian party, it would appear that Fox believed his movement was in critical danger. He sought reconciliation and introduced a structure that would regularize internal discipline, provide for organizational coordination among local units through quarterly meetings in each region, and cap­ped the operation by establishing a yearly meeting, which was first held at Christmas 1668.6

In this four-year period of hectic travel, we have something of a paradox. George Fox kept the movement from falling apart and succeed­ed in reconciling dissidents by the power of his own clear devotion and his inspired preaching. But what he was "moved of the Lord God 117 to preach and establish by his charismatic presence was a two-fold institu­tionalization of charisma. First there was a subordination of all individual leadings to the control of the community, a belief that the Spirit's voice in the gathered community was more reliable than the Spirit's voice within oneself. This made official what had already been standard practice among ministers who regularly tested their leadings by entrusting them to other ministers for "clearance," and to some degree among Friends in general who knew that their actions were under the watchful discernment of the local meeting's overseers. Nor was this action simply a substitution of in­stitution for charisma. It is properly described as substituting communal charismatic decision for individual charismatic decision.

The second form of institutionalization was the establishment of regular quarterly and yearly meetings. True, their procedure was to be according to the same decision rules as the local meetings and their deci­sions were always advisory. But their very regularity and efficiency soon raised them to a predominant position.

Fox reveals a clear  n the path he chose. He did not make the political atmosphere and the inner strife an opportunity for imposing a structure which would institutionalize his own preeminence. Insofar as he did achieve special status, it came from the extent of his devotion to his communities, a devotion made obvious by his travels in such bad health, and the historical accident that many of the other First Publishers of Truth either died or were permanently imprisoned.8 Fox's charismatic personal authority comes through clearly in William Penn's generous appreciation:

And truly, I must say, that though God had visibly clothed him with a divine preference and authority, and indeed his very presence expressed a religious majesty, yet he never abused it; but held his place in the Church of God with great meekness and a most engaging humility and moderation.

For upon all occasions, like his blessed Master, he was a servant to all; holding and exercising his eldership in the invisible power that had gathered them, with reverence to the Head, and care over the body;

and was received only in that spirit and power of Christ, as the first and chief elder in this age; who, as he was therefore worthy of double honour, so for the same reason it was given by the faithful of this day; because his authority was inward and not outward, and that he got it and kept it by the love of God and power of an endless life.

I write by knowledge and not report; and my witness is true, having been with him for weeks and months together on diverse occasions, and those of the nearest and most exercising nature, and that by night and day, by sea and by land, in this and in foreign countries; and I can say I never saw him out of his place, or not a match for every service or occasion.

For in all things he acquitted himself like a man, yea, a strong man, a new and heavenly-minded man, a divine and a naturalist, and all of God Almighty's making.9

This is not to say that Fox was faultless nor even that he showed good grace at all times when his personal leadings were not accepted by the community. A telling example of Fox's chagrin at having to subordinate himself to his own institutions appeared a decade later in his 1676 remarks concerning a strongly-worded polemic which the "Seconddays* Morn­ing Meeting" of men ministers had refused to let him circulate: Fox wrote, "I was not moved to set up that meeting to make orders against the reading of my papers'10 By 1676, Fox's charisma, too, was under institutional control.

With Fox's hectic journeys from 1666 to 1670, then, we get the initia­tion of a firm system of governance. And, because of Fox's successful cam­paign, the letter of 1666 from the eleven elders became the procedure for resolving future conflicts between individual community leadings.

2] Individual Discernment and Personal Infallibility

In order to understand a bit more clearly the leadings we have been discussing, we might take a few pages here to explore the concept of spiritual discernment. Spiritual discernment is the ability to differentiate reliable leadings from unreliable ones.

George Fox tells us that he received two separate gifts early in his spiritual life. 

First, "the spiritual discerning came into me, by which I did discern my own thoughts, groans and sighs, and what it was that did veil me, and what it was that did open me." 

* Monday

Subsequently, he received a gift of discerning others' spirits "through which I saw plainly that when many people talked of God, the Serpent spoke in them. And a report went abroad of me that I was a young man that had a discerning spirit "11 These two gifts are examples of charisma in the New Testament sense—intense gratuitous presence in an individual of a quality which builds up the Chris‑tian community"2

Fox's power of discernment, his reading of the Inner Light, was the root of his apostolic decision making. He believed his discernment to be incapable of error, that it was infallible. "I was commanded to turn peo­ple to that inward light, spirit and grace. . . which I infallibly knew would never deceive any."13 

Fox's claim of infallible knowledge was consistent with his antecedents. The Seekers, for example, believed that in the Apostolic Age "all was administered under the anointing of the Spirit, clearly, certainly, infallibly." Not so in this age of apostacy. Therefore, "they waited for an Apostle, or some one with a visible glory and power, able in the Spirit to give visible demonstration of being sent ."14 And, for many, Fox was just such a man.

Nor was the belief limited to Fox. Edward Burrough, one of the chief Publishers of Truth wrote, "The judgment in that matter [heresy] must be just, equal, Holy and [only] by the Spirit of Christ, which is infallible, and gives infallibility of judgment and discerning into all cases and things.

Quaker belief in infallible inspiration by the Spirit drew barbs from adversaries. These critics attempted to pinpoint weak arguments in Quaker tracts, arguing that any such error proved that Quaker leadings were not divinely inspired. One such critic concluded his 1674 argument that "your Books must be false; and consequently not the issue of the infallible Spirit, as you would have the world believe they are.'/16

Modern apologists for the Society of Friends have occasionally at­tempted to minimize this dimension of Quaker origins. Henry Van Etten, for example, asserts, "It must be remembered that he [George Fox] did not use the word 'Truth' in any exclusive sense, and that he never be­lieved himself infallible."17 In reality, Fox considered infallible knowledge of God's will to be so universal a gift that it even appears in a 1663 tract on marriage which he coauthored with Thomas Lawrence. When asked "whether freedom from all sin, and infallible assurance of God's will be of absolute necessity" for marriage, he replied, "To have infallible assurance [that] there is freedom from all sin, to hunger and thirst, and press after it, to witness a growth, to be sincere in heart, and faith to God in measure, is of absolute necessity:'18

Fox's own reliance on inspiration was so complete that it led him far beyond the strictly religious realm. We have noted above his brief flirta­tion with the practice of medicine as the result of an enlightenment about the inner nature of creatures. William Braithwaite suggests that similar inspiration lay behind Fox's attempt to demonstrate the correctness of using "thou" for one person and "you" for many. "He seems in some way to have regarded himself as possessing a spiritual counterpart to human learning, which took him above and beyond it.19

The same conviction that his inspiration was infallible led Fox, long after the event, to rationalize his behaviour in Lichfield in a manner which Christopher Hill considers "singularly unconvincing, 1120

More generally, writes Braithwaite, this belief in infallible inspiration led to a "forcefulness and also [a] mixture of unperceived error [in early Quaker apologists], e.g., confident preaching in the face of persecution but also intolerance, deprecation of the value of intellectual gifts, frequent extravagance of conduct. The violent language often used showed a want of charity, which was only to be excused because the Quaker was con­vinced that he was infallibly right."21

It was Nayler's fall that first cast serious doubt on personal infallibili­ty. Here, indeed, was a pillar of the church who was so clearly deceived as to bring ridicule on Friends. Yet what controls could be introduced to test inspiration without denying inspiration altogether?22

a. Tests of Leadings: The Cross

The earliest major test of one's leading seems to have been whether one finds the Cross in what he is drawn to. Wrote Fox, "To speak of truth when ye are moved, it is a cross to the will; if ye live in the truth which ye speak, ye live in the cross of your own Wills. '23 

So, too, Richard Farns­worth wrote in 1652 that "you will be brought into a discerning, to savour truth from error, both in yourselves, and also in one another" if you will follow the cross which will "cross and crucify that which would consult with human wisdom and reason:' And thus, "that which is earthly, car­nal, and brutish, will be cut down in you:'

Ten days later, Farnsworth exhorted the newly convinced* Margaret Fell to "keep in the cross, and purity will grow;—the safest way is in the cross: take up the cross daily; mind to be guided by that which crosseth your own wills, and it will bring every idle word, thought and deed to judgment in you; and so the old man will be crucified, with the affec‑tions and lusts thereoL1124

* Converted


The appropriateness of this test of one's leadings is especially clear if one recalls that Quakers needed to dissociate themselves from the licen­tious Ranters who "fled the cross:' Actions from the true Spirit were therefore seen by Friends as always contrary to self-will?5

But as a positive mark of divine leadings, the presence of the cross left much to be desired. Friends found themselves justifying many un­wise actions "partly because of the strong call under which they were ex­ercised, but mainly because they were contrary to Friends' natural inclina‑tion and so involved 'a very real taking of the cross. 1126

Thus, the practice of going naked as a sign—a display last seen among the Munster Anabaptists—was not disowned by Quaker leaders. James Nayler, in 1654, says that the Friends who acted this way acted contrary to their own will?7 Vernon Noble tells us of the reception of this sort of witness at Oxford.

These two young girls from Kendal. . . went the wrong way about con­verting the riotous university scholars and they were soundly beaten for it. Elizabeth Fletcher, a dainty girl of 17, took off all her clothes and walked through the streets "contrary to her own will or inclination, in obedience to the Lord." She was described as "a very modest, grave young woman;' and this startling behavior was to be a sign that God would strip the people of their hypocrisy?8

As late as 1672, the intellectual author of the Apology, Robert Barclay, called the city of Aberdeen to repentance by walking three of the main streets in sack cloth and ashes. The criterion of action: he did not want to do it?9

b. Tests of Leadings: Scripture

Although one might expect that Scripture would be of help in sorting 

out some of the leadings of early Friends, there is not much satisfying evidence. For example, those who went naked at Munster noted the biblical passage of the prophet Isaiah who went naked for six months as a testimony to the doom of Jerusalem° Other scriptural passages could be cited which urged modesty or avoidance of scandal,31 but who was to say which scriptural strand was more appropriate.

As J. William Frost comments, the Friends, like all other Christian communities, had their own special emphases in reading Scripture. They heard literally Matthew's injunction to "swear not at all:' But, "although they believed in the duty of charity, they did not echo Christ's advice to the rich young ruler to 'sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor" 

Again:

Friends refused to bow; when opponents mentioned that Abraham bowed to the children of Heth and Lot to the two angels, Barclay argued that the practice of the patriarchs was not to be the practice of today or else polygamy would be allowed. Yet, since the Old Testament was much clearer than the New Testament about forbidding mixed marriages, Friends used as a precedent the passages in Genesis where the giants became sinful because they married daughters of the earth and Jacob pleased his parents by marrying one of Isaac's kin while Esau displeased them by marrying a Hittite2

In a sense, the problem Quakers faced was even more fundamental. Other Protestant communities, no matter how they decided what Scrip­ture meant, held that Scripture itself was normative. For Fox, his com­rades, and successors, only the Spirit of God—the Inner Light—was nor­mative. 

The Holy Spirit, not Scripture, was the "touchstone and judge by which . . . to try all doctrines, religions, and opinions and to end all controversies:' Fox noted that he reached his own early leadings entirely by the inspiration of the Spirit, not from Scripture. Only subsequently did he turn to Scripture, always finding, of course, that it was possible to construe its meaning according to his enlightenment. In this sense, he remarked, "Yet I had no slight esteem of the Holy Scriptures, and what the Lord opened to me I afterward found was agreeable to them. 1133 

Nor was Fox ready to limit this power of understanding to himself. In 1658 he wrote: "That which may be known of God is manifest within people. Thou needest no man to teach thee.

Friends found themselves in a permanently ambiguous situation. Robert Barclay, for example, could explain that "because the Spirit of God is the Fountain of all Truth and sound reason, therefore, we have well said, That it cannot contradict neither the Testimony of the Scripture, nor right reason. 1135 The Inner Light or the Spirit, however, provided the test of the meaning of Scripture and of the rightness of reason.

We are not saying that Friends threw out Scripture. In fact, when some of the extreme followers of John Perrot did so, perhaps even burning their Bibles, they were castigated for it by Fox's party. Clearly, however, the authority of Scripture remained secondary to an individual's strong in­ner leadings6

c. Tests of Leadings: Submission of Openings

It is no surprise that early preachers found it expedient to submit their leadings to each other as a way of testing or letting the "self-consistence of the Spirit" become operative. For instance, in 1659, Aldam wrote Fox and Burrough to "take into your consideration the things written downe in that power which came to mee and W. Dewsbury at Yorke and lett mee have an answer, how the Large wisdom of God in you doth aprove of the particular thinges to bee done, and what it disaproves of, that in one Mynde wee may meete."37

The same attitude appears in the informal First Day meetings of Lon­don ministers who would gather to share ideas before dispersing to preach at the different meetings in the area.

d. Tests of Leadings: The Fruits of the Holy Spirit

But, when Friends gathered, be they ministers on First Day or all the brethren in local meeting for business, how were they to know whose leading was genuine and whose was not? The early literature abounds in descriptions of the fruits of the good and evil spirits. The principle of God within, writes Fox, produced soberness, peace, stillness, quietness, and strength. The transgression of the principle of God resulted in distrac­tions, distempers, unruliness, and confusion. 

Another epistle listed the fruits of the good spirit as "tender love, unity, grace, and good order" as well as "a sweetness and harmony of life, unity, and subjection to one another, and a preserving one another in the Lord: 

In essence the assorted lists turn out to be variants of the Pauline catalogue of fruits of the Holy Spirit: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control:'

The litany boiled down to the "presence of inner peace" which Howard Brinton characterizes as "the main Quaker test of right guidance:' 

As Barclay put it, "And since there is no greater Mark of the People of God, than to be at Peace among themselves; what­soever tendeth to break that Bond of Love and Peace, must be testified against :'38

e. Later Tests of Leadings: Silence, Unadorned Speech

With the passage of time, the community drew upon its experience to add some supplemental tests of reliable leadings. 

Barclay underscored the importance of the silence in a meeting; 

internal silence was necessary if one was to "discern. . . the still, small Voice of the Spirit:' One who was waiting for the Lord in inner silence could not be deceived because "the Excellency of this silent waiting upon God doth appear, in that it is impos­sible for the Enemy, viz, the Devil, to counterfeit it, so as for any Soul to be deceived or deluded by him in the Exercise thereof.1139

27

Additionally, a special plain style of speech in meeting was taken as a sign of genuine inspiration. Penn described Fox as such a speaker.

And abruptly and brokenly as sometimes his sentences would fall from him about divine things, it is well known they were often as tests to many fairer declarations. And indeed it showed, beyond all contradiction, that God sent him, that no arts or parts had any share in his matter or man­ner of his ministry; and that so many great, excellent, and necessary truths as he came forth to preach to mankind had therefore nothing of man's wit or wisdom to recommend them°

f. Limitations of Friends Tests of Leadings

Friends tests were not fully reliable. Simplicity of speech could always be fabricated by those who knew that an audience favored such a style. Inner silence could be fabricated, too, so that even the individual who sought to be silent might be deceived. And harmony of the group could be achieved by excluding those who disagreed—the history of Quaker schisms shows how readily a divided community can split into separate camps each of which manifests internal love and unity.

More basically, the Friends doctrine of discernment lacked a number of the assets of other religious traditions. First, belief in corruption of nature led Friends to replace reason solely with direct inspiration. 

In an insightful paragraph, J. William Frost explains, "Both Friends and Puritans recog­nized the necessity of something other than reason in religion, but with this difference: The Puritans used and defended all possible tools of man in learning about and communicating the contents of revelation; the Friends admitted only supernatural means in evaluating supernatural matters"41

Secondly, Friends lacked—at least at the beginning—a theological tradi­tion. Surrounded with a sampler of theological positions on every pos­sible topic, early Quakers constantly used the Spirit to discern which of these theologies was correct. Many issues such as war or pacifism, mar­riage with or without officiating witnesses, independent local units or one of the many variants of central control or some combination of the two—these were areas that had to be determined before Friends had developed a distinctive tradition which they could then use as a criterion for judg­ing the merits of each fresh concern. We shall see how quickly Friends created and sanctified such a tradition—a mark in itself of how badly some sort of objective test was needed.

Finally, strictly in the area of assessing the person's inner motions, Friends clearly seem to have been deprived of a working knowledge of the literature of discernment that had preceded them. While there were precedents for Quaker belief in guidance by the Holy Spirit (see Appen­dix A), a reading of the letters of Fox and early Friends does not reveal that this general inclination to trust the Spirit was accompanied by an understanding of the nuances of discernment as it had developed and flourished from the Fathers of the Desert to the mystic who founded the Jesuits, Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) 42

For example, Loyola's approach made a basic distinction among leadings. There was a special kind of spiritual experience that was "without any previous cause through which a soul might be led to such a consola‑tion through its own acts of intellect and will This "experience of transcendence" was reliable and self-authenticating to the person who ex‑perienced it. 

All other inward experiences could come from either the good or the evil spirit. The whole question of infallibility which plagued Friends was thus eliminated by Ignatius. Certainty was attached only to the rare special sorts of visitations of the first category, and even these visitations could be tested by outsiders. Ignatius could rely on the objective goodness and badness of actions which could be determined by natural law as well as on the rich tradition and legislation of the Roman Church because "it is necessary that all matters of which we wish to make a choice be either indifferent or good in themselves, and such that they are lawful within our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, and not bad or opposed to her."

Loyola proceeded to suggest guidelines for discovering the hidden meanings of those inner leadings which were not in the special self‑authenticating class. After much weighing of inner experiences, individual decisions could be made by heading in the direction where genuine peace seemed most to lie, but the decision was never made with certainty3

What was true in individual discernment was equally so in the case of a group. Loyola's earliest companions gathered with him to discern God's will for them. Although they sought to find the Spirit and achieve unity in their conclusions ("todos contentos"), they made no claim of in­fallibility in their attempt4

For Fox, there was no adequate distinction between types of spiritual leadings and no external yardstick by which to measure such individual leadings. No wonder the meeting came to assume so central a role. For only the inspired group was available to act as a check on the individual's inspiration.

We have already seen how this reliance on the meeting's unity officially triumphed over individual inspiration in the ministers' letter of 1666. Now we shall see how the local meetings themselves gradually became sub­ject to the unifying influence of the higher levels of meetings which slow­ly ate away at local autonomy.

3] Defeat of Localism: The Wilkinson-Story Dispute: 1670-1676

Let us return to the development of Quaker structures. In the 1660-1670 period, Fox was busy establishing regular monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings, with the first yearly meeting held in 1668. This newly created system had two results. First, there was a "bracing effect upon the Socie­ty" giving "the strength that comes from a well devised organization:'

But there was a drawback as well because "the natural result was not mere­ly to coordinate the discernment of the community with the spiritual leadings of the individual, but to enlarge continuously, by the successive encroachments with which a system of organization aggrandizes itself, the area of conduct over which the community exerted absolute sway:145

Eventually, the community's sway would touch even the cut of one's clothes. If such excess was not experienced immediately, the potential was clearly there and recognized. An anonymous 1673 pamphlet railed against the "Foxonian-unity" which stigmatized those Friends who dissented from a decision because they were not inwardly moved to favor it as being God's truth. The result was "to deprive us of the law of the Spirit and to bring in a tyrannical government: it would lead us from the rule within to sub­ject us to a rule without:'

The anti-Fox pamphlet also cited supposed abuses from outside the local meetings. There was too much rooting out of error, too much exter­nal programming of supposedly spontaneous meetings for worship in order to assure that the recognized ministers monopolized the time with their preaching, thus eliminating both the time of silence and the chance for ordinary members of the community to minister [preach] if they felt so moved6

Fox was on a missionary journey to America at the time, so the abuses—to the extent that they were real—were laid at his door because of the system he had established rather than because of his personal ac­tions. The pamphlet proved unsuccessful in some quarters because Friends were still so painfully aware of the perils of disunity which Perrot's similar views had caused, and as one might expect, the pamphlet was rebutted by the 1673 Yearly Meeting.

By 1675, however, with Fox back in England, a group which had en­dorsed the 1673 pamphlet formed around two traditionalist leaders, John 30 Wilkinson and John Story. This duo called for a return to the individual freedom and local autonomy which had been prevalent prior to 1666. In addition, their affirmation that one need not provoke persecution from the government was ambiguously close in expression to Perrot's argument that one need not accept persecution at all, 47 a phenomenon making them at once liable to accusation from Fox's group and attractive to many who had followed Perrot.

Finally, in 1676, the ministers gathered for their yearly meeting and affirmed that "the Power of God is the authority of the men's and women's meetings and of all the other meetings. 11'48 

Individual Friends' leadings, when they contradicted the decision of the meeting, were not to be followed.

 The authority of local meetings was not attacked, of course, and superior meetings remained only advisory. 

But there was no attempt to force these new units to refrain from issuing definitive "advice:' The Wilkinson-Story party went into schism.

An example of this forceful "advice" was the decision of the Yearly Meeting of Ministers in the following year. Now happily unified because it was free of the unrepresented Wilkinson-Story faction, the meeting felt drawn to "reprove and judge that jealous, rending and separating spirit (of Wilkinson and Story). By that salt which we have in ourselves from the Lord are we enabled to savor between the transformation of the enemy and the scruples of the innocent, and, as to be tender to the one, so to give judgment against the other'49

Officially, of course, nothing had changed. The 1676 Yearly Meeting of Ministers had been careful to avow that "all the faithful men and women in every county, city, and nation, whose faith stands in the power of God, have all right to the power of the meeting, for they be the heirs of the Power and Authority."50

In 1678, elders representing the country districts met for a yearly meeting and received a gracious letter from the ministers' yearly meeting declaring that the latter utterly rejected "all power, authority and govern­ment in the Church of Christ that is not exercised in the holy power and free spirit of the Lord  151

4] Robert Barclay and The Anarchy of the Ranters, 1674

As one can readily understand, the victory of corporate over individual discernment carried its own difficulties. 

1. Friends started with the primitive conviction that the Spirit infallibly guided them. 
2. But, when harsh ex­perience showed that sometimes the individual could err, people tended to decide that the community which judged their leadings should assume the infallibility which they had previously attributed to themselves. 
3. The next step—in a period when units above the local meetings were still emerging—was to argue that local meetings were not the ultimate focus of infallibility, but the yearly (national) meeting was.

Robert Barclay, a young Scotsman of twenty-eight who had been a Friend for only six years, addressed this problem in his 1674 booklet, The Anarchy of the Ranters, a carefully thought-out defense of Fox's new form of ecclesiastical polity. Although the book was an effective weapon against the Wilkinson-Story party, Barclay later commented that he knew nothing of this group at the time he wrote.52 Barclay first sought to eliminate in­fallibility as a necessary adjunct of either individual or group decisions. Then he set out constructing a new basis for church government.

Recent authors show a penchant for misreading Barclay. Arnold Lloyd, for example, asserts that in The Anarchy of the Ranters, Barclay upheld the "infallible Voice of the Spirit in the doctrinal positions held in common by Church leaders" Lloyd accuses him of an "emphasis on infallibility quite out of harmony with the Seeker temper" of the original Quakers.53 The opposite was quite true.

Barclay wished to steer a middle course between those who put in­fallibility in every individual leading and those who made every action of the gathered meeting infallible. This task was not easy because some form of infallibility was held by every Christian church. He argued that Matthew 18 did guarantee that the "Gates of Hell shall not prevail" against the church and therefore that it must be truly guided by the Spirit in crisis situations. But infallibility was the property of the Spirit, not of men. Barclay wrote that "the only proper Judge of Controversies in the Church, is the Spirit of God, and the Power of deciding solely lies in it; as having the only unerring, infallible and certain Judgment belonging to it; which infallibility is not necessarily annexed to any Persons, Person or Places whatsoever, by Virtue of any Office, Place or Station any one may have or have had in the Body of Christ ."54

Furthermore, an individual or group judgment was infallible only if it fully expressed the Spirit's leading: "The Judgment of a certain Person or Persons in certain cases is infallible, not because they are infallible, but because in these Things, and at that Time they were led by the infallible Spirit."

Hence, Quaker infallibility differed from the Protestant version which was present whenever there was a "Synod or Council" representing all 32 true Churches of Christ. And Friends certainly differed from Papists who held that infallibility occured if there was "Plurality of the Votes" and agree­ment by "the Pope and his Legates." For Friends, in the event of a crisis so serious that the "Gates of Hell" threaten to prevail, "there will be an infallible Judgment from the Spirit of God, which may be in a General Assembly; yet not limited to it, as excluding others: And may prove to be the Judgment of the Plurality; yet not to be decided thereby, as if the Infallibility were placed there, excluding the fewer." In brief, therefore, the "Infallible Judgment from the Spirit of God" would inevitably occur, but "either in one or other, few or more 

For Barclay, then, infallibility was a mark of the church in time of crisis. But infallibility was not fixed in any body or individual. Instead, it was found in the person or group which most clearly manifested the signs of the Spirit's presence. Barclay's infallibility, therefore, was reduced to an unobtrusive minimum. It was only guaranteed to appear in a radical crisis of the church, but in no predetermined place. 

Its presence would be discerned by the faithful, whether the utterance was from a yearly meeting of ministers or an otherwise undistinguished member of a local meeting. 

Barclay definitively freed Quakerism from the taunts of such con­temporary critics as William Allen who accused Friends of "pretending to as much infallibility in your Body representative in managing it, as the Papists do in reference to the Pope.

Having eliminated infallibility as the source of authority of the various meetings, Barclay justified the exercise of governmental authority on more traditional ecclesiastical lines. Ordinarily, he told us, those who had the higher spiritual gifts, the ministers and elders, were specially blessed with the Spirit's guidance, but not inevitably. For the church's good order, these people of known ability to discern were to be encouraged by other members of the church to "instruct, reprove, yea, and command in some cases "56

Thus, the basis for decision making was effectively changed. Friends had always had great respect for the opinions of such weighty members as the travelling ministers. But now, with the local communities' decisions no longer infallibly guaranteed by the gathered unity in which the deci­sion was reached, authority was prudently attributed by Friends to the gatherings which were blessed with the presence of the largest number of ministers and elders. Quarterly and especially yearly meeting decisions thus afforded far more respect than those of the local meeting. Having thus established the authority of the new superstructure,

33

Barclay went on to establish the limited but real power of church govern­ment. The needs of the community required the conformity of its members when the issue involved "fundamental Principles and Doctrines of Faith;' and even in some secondary matters (Barclay referred to the circumcision controversy in Acts 15), there was to be unity without such uniformity that individual gifts and needs were slighted.57 Although the forms of government Fox had set up and which Barclay justified were not really as sensitive to individual gifts as Barclay hoped, Barclay succeeded in giv­ing a presumption of correctness to the decisions of the community, especially to the decisions of the ministers gathered in yearly meeting, but without claiming infallibility for them. 

No longer did the individual Friend obey a decision because he or she had participated in the decision making process and had felt the presence of the Spirit. Instead, individuals accepted the decision on faith that the elders and ministers, gathered in a meeting he or she did not attend, had been spiritually led to this decision.

In the past, advisories from such nonlocal gatherings got their power from the local meeting's religious experience at the time it considered them. This is why Fox's presence in each local meeting, not the authority of the writers, was needed to gain acceptance for the 1666 ministers' letter against Perrot's group. Now, though local meetings would still go through the form of accepting the "advice" of the yearly meeting, Barclay had succeeded in transferring the real authority to the presumed spiritual insight of the remote regional or national assembly.

Barclay's desire to protect Friends against meetings claiming the automatic infallibility which Friends had previously claimed for themselves as individuals was certainly prescient. Already in 1680, a group of eighty-two Friends in Barbados—where Perrotism and the Wilkinson-Story movements had both been very active—attempted to escape some of the excess individualism within these two groups by swinging too far the other way. They subscribed to the following statement:

I desire to give up my whole concern, if required, both spiritual and tem­poral, unto the judgment of the Spirit of God in the Men and Women's Meetings, as believing it to be more according to the universal wisdom of God than any particular measure, in myself or any particulars [i.e., individuals], with which the Men and Women's Meetings have not unity58

Fox and two other notables, George Whitehead and Alexander Parker, wrote to request that the statement be dropped since it overstated the role of the meeting and would be a ball for the Wilkinson-Story cannon.

The movement to accentuate the authority of the meeting finally reached its extreme expression in George Keith, a noted Quaker intellectual and polemicist. His explicit claim that "all decisions of meetings for discipline should be regarded as infallibly determined by the Holy Spirit" led to con­frontation and, finally, expulsion (disownment) by the yearly meeting in 1695.

5] Robert Barclay and the Apology, 1676

Barclay's skill as a polemecist quickly made him emerge as a prime spokesman for the pro-Fox group during the Wilkinson-Story dispute. At the conclusion of that struggle, Barclay issued his master work, the Apology. This extensive justification of Quaker belief was eloquently enunciated in the combination of Cartesian and scholastic language then in vogue. Widely accepted by Friends from the very beginning, the Apology became a mainstay not only of external polemics but, more importantly, of Quaker self-understanding.6°

Because the Apology was so widely consulted by Friends, one should not be overly surprised to see it blamed for the rigidities which became apparent in Quakerism in the years after its publication. Rufus M. Jones was particularly strong in this judgment at the turn of the present cen­tury. Jones' own reputation among Friends has been so hallowed that his assessment of Barclay has received less challenge than it deserves.

Jones tells us that Quakerism shifted from the "dynamic affirmation mysticism of the first period (1648-1676) to a passive and negative type'—the quietism of eighteenth century Quakerism—because of Barclay's theology in which "every spiritual action is miraculous' Thus, man in­itiates nothing, he merely waits for God to actP1

Barclay, according to Jones, tied Friends' "fresh discovery of spiritual truth" to the "ancient dogmatic theory of 'man "Rufus Jones writes fur­ther that "what I regret most is that the early formulation of Quakerism should have been made as an adjustment with the Augustinian and Calvinistic system instead of following the fresh and transforming path which the spiritual reformers, the real forerunners and progenitors of 'the Children of the Light' had discovered."

At the root of Barclay's error, charges Jones, is his acceptance of the Calvinist doctrine of original sin and corrupt human nature. Jones becomes somewhat emotional in his appeal to personal experience: "No attempt is made to sound the deeps of human experience itself. It does not occur to [Barclay] that this is a question to be settled by the testimony of the soul, and that first of all one ought to investigate actual human life as it is and to build the theory on facts of experience.

Building from this base, Jones goes on to contend that Barclay's quietism, like all quietism, gives no criteria for distinguishing true from false lights because the gap between supposedly corrupt nature and divine grace makes it impossible for the "higher" spiritual movements to be tested by the "lower" activity of human reason. For Barclay, there was no test, no criterion of true leadings. For Jones, inner experience of the divine is natural, not supernatural. Reason can therefore be the test 3

Jones' line of argument is by no means without its followers. This writer has often encountered it when interviewing contemporary Friends. Such an estimable authority as Arnold Lloyd adopted it in 1950: "[Barclay's] theory of the divine in man cannot be reconciled with the original Quaker message. It was widely read and was a considerable factor in the decline into quietism in the eighteenth century. [Barclay] regarded the divine and the human as mutually exclusive categories. "64

It is true, of course, that Barclay held a very "Protestant" view of the degeneracy of man: "All Adam's Posterity. . . is fallen, degenerated, and dead:' Unlike the Calvinists, however, Barclay argued that the Inner Light or Divine Seed was a supernatural gift to every man which opened to each the chance to achieve perfection. On the other hand, Barclay did indeed argue that a Quaker should wait for the Lord's initiative in worship and decisions about action instead of simply relying upon his spontaneous inclination 5

But in these arguments Barclay was not creating a new theory but ex­pressing traditional Quaker belief. In 1654, Francis Howgill and Edward Burrough—outstanding among the earliest of the First Publishers—wrote to Margaret Fell that they had argued against the magistrates of Bristol who "said the light was natural and that every one had it not166 Had not Fox declared in 1663 that the true Christian must necessarily "wait on God, in his Light to receive his counsel; [for] how else do Friends differ from the World?"67

Even Isaac Penington, an early Friend whose name is often associated with those opposing the new structures of government, is guilty of the basic distinction between natural and supernatural orders which underlies the preceding quotations. William Braithwaite, after lauding Penington, concludes that "he was fettered by the dualistic thought of the age, which put the natural and the Divine in two separate compartments, and accord­ingly he fails, like others of the early Friends, to reach a unified concep­tion either of human personality or of the person of Christ. 1168

In short, if Fox and his earliest brethren believed that the saving ac­tion of Christ could raise them back to the "state of Adam before he fell;' a fortiori they held that there was need of such elevation. Therefore, Fox's man was by nature a sinnerP9

It seems safe to conclude, then, that Barclay was not the source of the cleavage between natural and supernatural in man nor of the passive quietism that called Quakers to wait for the Lord's initiatives. Barclay was simply a faithful and clear expositor of the great bulk of what beliefs Friends already held. Dean Freiday, editor of the most recent edition of the Apology, criticizes Barclay for underplaying the "confessional and prac­tical significance (so important for Fox) [of Christ] the Cornerstone:' But Freiday also emphasizes that the "Quaker doctrine of the supernatural Inward Light of Christ" is "beautifully developed by Barclay" in a "systematic presentation of what Fox was trying to say170

In a limited sense, of course, there is truth in Jones' allegation. Barclay wrote clearly and authoritatively, and was republished by Quaker leaders with enthusiasm. For the first time, Friends had a source book to which they could turn when in doubt about what Fox and his early followers had taught. This meant that Fox's thought suddenly became more effec­tive in unifying Quaker practice simply because it was suddenly so readi­ly available. Fox's skepticism about human reason and his quietism in the face of human dilemmas were now expressed in Barclay's clear language for every Friend to ponder. In short, Barclay did not present a doctrine which could not "be reconciled with the original Quaker message. `171 Barclay presented, in clear and distinct terms, that very message. The one thing in Barclay's writings not found in the earliest Quaker sources is his justification of the new governing structures which Fox had done so much to establish. Insofar as these new structures would eventually weaken the life of the local meetings, Barclay can be criticized; but even here he shares the blame with Fox.

The British myth that the king can do no wrong has led Englishmen to blame the royal advisors for regal blunders. So, too, Catholics have wagged their tongues about the evil men of the Roman Curia who were supposedly "holding back" information from the ever-benevolent Pope. Perhaps, Rufus Jones was guilty of a similar fallacy when he attacked Barclay for creating detrimental doctrines that in fact originated with George Fox. If Barclay sinned, it could only have been in saying clearly in one tract what Fox had put forward in an unsystematic variety of utterances.

6] The Gradual Ascendance of Central Hegemony, 1676-1736

With the successful exclusion of the lack of structure proposed by Wilkinson and Story, the rise of central predominance was only a matter of time. Let us quickly sketch the way the development occurred.

a. The Meeting for Sufferings as Lobby and Legal Aid Society

The key to Quaker government became the Meeting for Sufferings, established by the Yearly Meeting of 1675 to act on its behalf when it was not in session. As the name implies, the Meeting for Sufferings had as its first duty the alleviation of misery for those Friends who were feeling the heavy sting of persecution. The body met weekly from 1676 onwards "that the cruelty and opressions (which also under pretence of Law are committed) tending to the ruine of Innocent families may not be hid but be laid before those in power to redress them."77 

At its first meeting, in October 1675, the Meeting for Sufferings quickly agreed "that Friends' sufferings be layd upon those in power" and appointed a subcommittee to "draw up some instances of most gross sufferings to be presented to the Parliament.1173

The whole network of quarterly meetings was marshaled to achieve a change in the Recusancy Laws so that Friends might not suffer so cruel­ly. Each quarter (county quarterly meeting) appointed one Friend to come up to London at the beginning of parliamentary sessions to lobby the local member of parliament under the coordinating guidance of the Meeting for Sufferings. In 1676, arrangement was made for regular correspondence between the Meeting for Sufferings and each quarterly meeting. From this base an effective series of letters, personal presentations and printed pro­paganda was put together, and Quakers were deprived of changes in the law in 1679 and 1681 only because of untimely royal dissolutions of parliamentary sessions. By 1679, the Meeting for Sufferings was using its county network to organize the Quaker vote in an effort to ensure the return of those members of parliament who favored Friends.

The period from 1681 to 1688 saw a temporary end to Friends' parliamentary lobbying for the simple reason that Parliament was for the most part out of session. A smooth switch of tactics led the Meeting for Sufferings to private interventions with influential judges, bishops, ex-members of parliament, and peers as persecution continued on an even harsher basis than while Parliament was in session.

After the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689 installed William and Mary, the Toleration Act gave basic freedom of public worship to Friends.

38

However, the new religious toleration made no provision for many Friends' practices, including their objections to taking oaths and paying tithes. The Meeting for Sufferings returned to its previous pattern of political lobby­ing, although on a more intense and coordinated pattern. At the same time, it found itself relaying to the quarterly and monthly meetings not only all the latest actions of Parliament touching Friends, but also the suc­cessful strategies used to defend Friends in court. So complete was the coordination that N.C. Hunt remarks, "In this respect the Meeting for Suf­ferings, linked as it was with the country-wide Quaker network, was ob­viously ensuring by action in the Courts that the law as enacted by Parlia­ment was being applied correctly in regard to detail throughout the length and breadth of the country:174

The Meeting for Sufferings continued its campaigns on behalf of Friends. Because it was on the scene in London, its advice came to be obeyed without challenge by the less well-informed quarterly and month­ly meetings. Hunt goes on to describe in detail the four major campaigns between 1696 and 1736 which were conducted by the Meeting for Suffer­ings to repeal those laws which restricted Friends75 

The growth of the authority of the Meeting for Sufferings was in large measure a natural outgrowth of the need for centralized coordination if the campaigns to influence legislation were to succeed.

The Affirmation Act of 1696 allowed Friends to "declare in the presence of Almighty God" instead of swearing. But some Friends found this still too much like an oath to satisfy their reading of the Matthean injunction to "swear not at all '76 The Yearly Meeting of 1702 allowed those who were dissatisfied with the wording to organize their own campaign for new legislation. Their efforts, not abetted by the Meeting for Sufferings, pro­duced only successive failures which culminated in 1712 when the unof­ficial campaign to reword the affirmation ran counter to efforts by the Meeting for Sufferings to obtain renewal of the about-to-expire 1696 Act. The divided loyalty of members of parliament who were sympathetic to Friends spelled defeat for both campaigns. In 1715, the next occasion for seeking parliamentary action, the Meeting for Sufferings co-opted the unofficial campaigners. First, it promised to make "sincere endeavours" to get a wording acceptable to the unhappy Friends. If that proved im­possible, they promised to take care that "the present affirmation not be lost ''

The sincere endeavours turned out to be an unenthusiastic presenta­tion of new wording which was rejected by the Commons on the same

39

day it was proposed. The token attempt now complete, the serious cam­paign which had been shrewdly pushed all along moved into high gear. The original Affirmation Act of 1696 quickly was elevated to a permanent place in the Statute Book. In the process, the Meeting for Sufferings moved subtly into the position of becoming the Society of Friends' sole contact with Parliament.78

The extent of the Meeting for Sufferings' growing hegemony in this area is illustrated by a 1735 incident. In that year, York Quarterly Meeting decided to write some members of parliament asking for a tithe bill to include a clause enabling Quakers to serve as sheriffs, aldermen, and jurors. The Meeting for Sufferings was aghast by the action since it had its own strategy which called for no such additions to the bill. It arranged to admonish the York Friends for "this independent and irresponsible action *1179

The point is not that the Meeting for Sufferings was being unreason­able or usurping power. However, if it was to lobby effectively for Friends, it had to assume central supervision of all Quaker action which could af­fect the attitudes of members of parliament. But there was no avoiding the basic tension this central power created. Gradually, bit by bit, the local meetings lost their sovereignty. Quakerism was saved from further persecution by a central institution whose very existence was in conflict with the founding Quaker principle that decisions were based on local experience in common with God's leadings.

b. The Meeting for Sufferings as Arbiter of the Externals of Life

arbiter ... 1 : a person with power to decide a dispute : judge The mayor will act as the final arbiter in any dispute between board members.

It would be naive, perhaps, to think that structure so effective in mar­shaling Friends' political life could be limited to political endeavors alone. After all, the success of Friends in influencing Parliament depended on their reputation throughout the country. Anything that could damage that reputation was therefore appropriate matter for central concern. All ex­ternals soon become grist for the central mill. William Braithwaite observed that "the new instrument of Church government was a ready means for retrenching extravagances which gave insidious entrance to the spirit of the world; and zealous Friends did not see that they were substituting legalism for liberty, the control of the form for the control of the Spirit.80

Before long, Quakers—even as they entered the economic middle class—took on the separateness of dress and life-style that would characterize them well into the nineteenth century. Already in 1700, George Fox's widow, Margaret Fell, would write an epistle of pained exasperation as she watched Friends transformed.

For it is now gone forty-seven years since we owned the Truth, and all things has gone well till now of late that this narrowness and strictness is entering in, that cannot tell what to do or not do. Our Monthly and Quarterly Meetings were set up for reproving and looking into suspicious and disorderly walking . . . and not [for] private persons to take upon them to make order and say, This must be done and the other must be done. Christ Jesus saith, That we must take no thought what we shall eat or what we shall drink but bids us consider the lilies, howe they grow in more royalty than Solomon. But contrary to this, we must not look at no colours, nor make anything that is changeable colours, as the hills are, nor sell them, nor wear them. But we must be all in one dress and one colour. This is a silly poor gospel.81

But Margaret Fell's warning went unheeded. Friends won political liberty at the price of personal and local religious autonomy. The personally-felt leadings of the Spirit, whether experienced in private or in the local meeting, were supplemented and, to a large extent, supplanted by the directions received from higher structural entities.

Of interest to the general study of organizations is the curious way in which Quaker experience in the period we have traced both confirms and denies the Contingency Theory approach of Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch. In Contingency Theory, the future of an organization is not significantly determined by the long-term directions its managers give it. Instead, what is critical is "the interplay between any major part of an organization and its relevant external environment1,82 This interplay, quite independent of the decision makers' intent, determines the directions the organization will take in its development.

Assessed on these terms, Quaker growth exemplifies the Lawrence-Lorsch thesis admirably. Here is an organizational entity with a radical commitment to local autonomy—a commitment to the authority of religious experience which is clearly far more fundamental than the struc­tural orientations normally found in organizations. If any organization is unlikely to change its structures under external pressure, it is Quakerism, because of its extreme decentralization. Yet Quakerism does change; the fundamental autonomy of the local meeting becomes a formality as the community's innate drive for survival overcomes even its foundation in religious experience.

Building on research by Lawrence E. Fouraker, Lawrence and Lorsch differentiate type "T" groups from type "L' 

The former are marked by independent members, responsive leaders, little hierarchy, and committee decisions. 

The contrasting "L" groups present responsive members, autocratic leaders, much hierarchy, and decisions which are made high in the hierarchy and passed down. "L" groups function best when there is some external threat, test, or competition against which the group must work.83 

Earliest Quaker meetings were clearly, of the "T" group variety. The shift to an "L" type structure in face of external threat fits the Lawrence-Lorsch general hypothesis very nicely.

On a more specific level, however, the fit between Quaker history and Contingency Theory is not as tight as one might wish. Lawrence and Lorsch add to Fouraker the supposition that "L" groups cannot handle rapid environmental change with the adaptive abilities evidenced by "T" group04 In the case of Friends, we have discovered that "T" groups were incapable of the effective and united inner discipline which persecution made necessary. The "L" organization pattern made survival possible.

A closer look at Quaker roots suggests that the Lawrence-Lorsch generalization that "T" groups are superior to '1" groups in adaptation to external threats is at least partially true. In the first ten years, when persecution itself was spasmodic and localized, Quakers seemed quite able to cope on a local level. The Quaker superstructure developed in response to persecution on a national level which was marked by uniform enforce­ment procedures. In light of the general principle that organizational de­velopment depends upon the interplay between organization and rele­vant external environment, one should not be surprised to discover that an environment of local and unsystematic persecution calls for the quick local adaptability of the "T" style group while an environment of systematic national persecution requires the disciplined and coordinated adaptation of the "L" type structure. A major change in the relevant external environ­ment demands a major change in the corresponding internal structures for dealing with that environment.

7] A Look Ahead

We have now come to the end of the historical section of this study. Pursuit of the origins and development of Quaker decision making has revealed 

1. how the decision process evolved and 
2. how external pressures produced a structure contrary to the local experiential base of early Friends.

The chapters which follow focus on decision making by American Friends today. The method of study shifts. The object of attention becomes once more the "T" type structure of local entities which, in the United States where there was no such external threat as persecution, have re- tamed their autonomy and guard it jealously against incursions from such higher bodies as the yearly meeting!35

The chapters ahead will explore Quaker decision making in much more concrete detail than was necessary in these historical chapters. These introductory chapters now stand simply as a historical backdrop for ex­amination of contemporary decision making practices of Quakers in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.ㅕㅓㅜ