|
The History of the Quakers'
Departure from Truth
(continued)
The Gurney Apostasy - The Takeover of the British Quaker Society
This was the beginning of perhaps the saddest chapter in the Quakers' history, the serious split of the majority of American Quakers into two groups: 1) those called orthodox who were in agreement with the British Quakers, and 2) those called Hicksites who dissented with the views promulgated by the British on the American Society.
After the rise of dispute to the Bible's accuracy and the Irish separation, the British Society became very conscious that they needed to emphasize the Scriptures more. They were particularly concerned with maintaining the divinity of Jesus Christ, both as He who walked the earth, and he who ascended into heaven. Their emphasis was at the expense of Christ, the principle and Light in man; and left the society in a permanent state of confusion as Christ's multiple locations, as being one, the same, and indivisible. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I place you enemies under your feet.
Their concern gave rise to the swing of the pendulum much too far in the Scripture's direction, landing in doctrine that was identical to the classic Protestant doctrines that the early Quakers had spent their lives testifying against, suffering and dying in consequence.
Joseph John Gurney had been educated
under the care of clergymen of
the Episcopal Church, and many of his intimate
friends were rectors and bishops, members of
parliament, and peers of the realm. Thus while enjoying the form of silent worship with thee's and thou's, he embraced the same doctrine for which Keith had been expelled a century earlier - a doctrine that was exactly what so many early Quakers had died opposing. He and his friends were in total control of the Quaker hierarchy around 1825. They embraced instant salvation by accepting the sacrifice of Christ, infants guilty of sin, and the Trinity. For the British Quaker Society to accept such people in leadership, and to concur with their doctrines, only points to the great majority of the Quakers were without divine guidance or maturity to even be able to recognize the total antithesis of their Society's fundamental beliefs for the previous 150 years. It also shows, the vast majority of Quakers had already discounted the claims of their many early founders' writings - 528 early Quakers leaving a record of 2800 books and pamphlets, whose message was discounted with indifference.
There were, doubtless, some, who dissented
from some of his views, but they were either in a
minority in the Yearly Meeting, or had already been driven from the meetings rather than listen to the apostasy of false doctrine being preached. Love does not insist on its own way; while pride does.
It is painful to detail his clear apostasy from traditional Quaker beliefs. His writings were highly approved by the Church of England's Bishops. They are very twisted, with a mixture of truth and lies - designed to confuse, but leading to Babylon. He wrote several books earlier; the following are quotations from Gurney's 1825 book, Essays on Christianity:
-
He changed the Light of Christ to be called the light of nature; a subtle distinction, used for later denial of Christ being the Light that enlightens all men, the Life which is the Light of man.
The opposers of the early Quakers consistently tried to diminish the Light, calling it a natural light.
-
Receiving a measure of divine light, men who fear God and keep the law in their hearts [not even knowing his name] are accepted for Christ's sake, and regarded as
partakers in their measure, and according to their capacity, of the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ.
[accepted the body and blood of Christ, not even knowing his name?]
- As eating the bread of life is identical with believing
in Christ the incarnate Son of God, so eating his flesh is identical with such a belief in him as is especially
directed to his atoning sacrifice.
Believing Christ to be the incarnate Son of God, is not in any way eating the bread of life. To eat the bread of life and his flesh, is to go to Christ, listen, hear, and obey his word heard; to eat his words, take them in, keep them, and do them.
[Are you beginning to see his subtle weaving of scriptural terms, sounding very holy, but so confusing that it is difficult to confront; he is leading up to clearer departures from the Truth.]
- In the fulfillment
of the written prophecy; in the wisdom of the in the purity of the written law in
the harmony of the contents of the Bible, and
almost endless variety - and in its efficacy; as the principal
means employed by divine Providence for the
illumination, conversion, and spiritual edification of men - the inquirer cannot fail to perceive unquestionable indications of the divine origin of Holy Writ.
[The Bible is the principal means of God for illumination, conversion, and spiritual edification? This is so wrong it screams in error, placing the Bible as the primary source, not even mentioning the Light and Spirit to teach, convince, judge, and cleanse.]
- Whatsoever in the preachings or writings of
modern Christians, has any tendency to convert, purify, and save the souls of men, never fails to be found in
its original form, in the Bible. [Writings purify, convert? Writings save souls?]
That which may be known of God is manifest [revealed] within them, for God has shown it to them. Rom 1:19
- The Bible which alone fully reveals the nature
and character of sin, expressly declares that all men
have sinned and are guilty in the sight of God.
Although it is chiefly from the light of Scripture that
we obtain a knowledge of this doctrine, we are quite certain now that we have obtained it, that the doctrine is true.
[Notice he has now ascribed Light to Scripture. Notice, it is not the Holy Spirit that convinces of sin, it is the Bible; contrary to what the Bible says.].
- That the very 'sure word of prophecy,'
which had been uttered and was written, is here meant,
is evident from the immediate context, in which the Apostle distinguishes this word from 'the day-star which arises in the heart,' and at the same time identifies
it (as I conceive) with prophecy of the Scriptures.
This is in direct contrast to many Quakers' writings, including George Whitehead and George Fox. From his Fox's Journal:
As I went towards Nottingham on a First-day in the morning, with Friends to a meeting there, when I came on the top of a hill in sight of the town, I saw the great steeple-house: and the Lord said unto me, ‘You must go cry against that distant great idol, and against the worshippers inside.’ I said nothing of this to the Friends, but went with them to the meeting, where the mighty power of the Lord God was among us; in which I left Friends sitting in the meeting, and went to the steeple-house. When I came there all the people looked like fallow ground, and the priest, like a great lump of earth, stood in his pulpit above: he took for his text these words of Peter, ' We have also a more sure word of prophecy, which you do well to heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.' He told the people this was the scriptures, by which they were to try all doctrines, religions, and opinions. Now the Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me, that I could not hold; but was made to cry out, 'Oh! no, it is not the scriptures;' and told them what it was, namely, the holy spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions, and judgments were to be tried; for it led into all truth, and so gave the knowledge of all truth. For the Jews had the scriptures, yet resisted the holy ghost, and rejected Christ, the bright morning-star, and persecuted Christ and his apostles, and took upon them to try their doctrines by the scriptures, but erred in judgment, and did not try them aright, because they tried them without the holy ghost.
Until the Light arises in our hearts, we listen to the word as we hear it spoken to it, and we obey it. This is the "sure word of prophecy." Until we hear the word to be commanded by it to repentance, the law is our schoolmaster - giving us knowledge of what God requires in all, indicating our shortcomings, and motivating us to seek the divine Spirit for guidance out or Egypt and Sodom to the promise land - the Kingdom.
- Their case is not to be confounded with that of the
uninstructed heathen, who have never heard the truth. To these, the gospel has been preached; it is written in
the book of God for their instruction, and if they reject it, they do so at their peril.
The gospel is not the books of the Bible. This was clearly stated by Fox, Penington, and Barclay. The gospel is the power of God, not the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Consider Penington's writing:
The gospel, after the apostasy, is thus to be preached, "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his
judgment has come; and worship him that made heaven,
and earth," Rev 14:7. If you know the
Preacher that preached this, if you have heard this
preached in your own heart, if you have met with that
fear there, which God's Spirit teaches and gives, if
you have known the hour of God's judgment, and had
the axe laid to the root of the tree; and if you have
been taught by the Son to worship the Father in Spirit
and truth; you have, without doubt, met with the gospel,
the everlasting gospel.
- In reference to
regeneration, Gurney writes: In effecting this blessed
change in the affections of fallen man, the Holy
Spirit makes use of the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ, as his grand appointed instrument. The
gospel written in the Holy Scriptures, and preached by
the Lord's messengers, is a spiritual weapon of
heavenly mould, and when wielded by a divine hand,
it penetrates the heart and becomes the power of
God unto salvation.
Now the Bible, when preached is the power of God?
- Scriptures teach us that the moral condition of Adam
was transmitted to his descendants of all generations. We are by nature the children of
wrath. Prone to iniquity, and transgressors from the
womb, we are alienated from God who is the source of
all happiness; and in the world to come, eternal separation from Him, and therefore eternal misery is the appointed consequence of our evil doings.
[Therefore infants are sinners and go to Hell? Transgressors, even before we are born?]
- Regarding the Light: he calls it a ray in men. But to say that this ray is itself the Sun - that this
divine principle or influence is itself the Christ, to
allege that Jesus was divine, only because this influence dwelled in the temple of his body, even as it dwells
in the righteous of all generations; to apply to it the
common terms of an orthodox faith, - to call it the
Son of God, the Saviour, Immanuel, God with us, the
Son and sent of the Father-the Lamb of God, - to
ascribe to it the attributes and offices of the Messiah,
- is a practice, as I believe, utterly opposed to the
testimony of Scripture, and fraught with the deepest
danger to the souls of men."
[So now, the Light is not Christ? I will dwell in them, And walk in them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people. , I am the Light of the World. . The true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. , In Him was life, and the life was the light of men, John 1:4.
- Regarding Scripture: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Col 1:27 Joseph
John Gurney refers to it as follows: "The words,
' Christ in you, ' are often recited by mistake as 'Christ
within,' and these expressions are sometimes used
among us as a synonym for the light of the spirit
of Christ in the heart, a view which some have imagined to be supported by the apostle's treating the whole
subject as a 'mystery.'"
[Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that these writings reflect great evil - a subtle serpent, twisting the truth - a true minister of Satan! Christ has to be resurrected in us, his return in glory with his Kingdom, him revealed in our hearts, the end result of salvation.]
- When, therefore, we read that the righteousness of
Jesus Christ is imputed to the believer, we may reasonably
understand such a doctrine to import that we
are not only saved through the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ, but rewarded through his merits. We are regarded as if like him, we were
absolutely guiltless, and are therefore delivered from everlasting punishment. We are graciously accepted,
as if like him we had meritoriously fulfilled the whole
law of God, and are therefore rewarded with never ending
felicity. Thus it is, that, in consequence with union through faith with Jesus, the Head of the Church, the Christian is not only protected from the pains of Hell, but is in possession of a well-grounded claim on the joys of heaven.
In agreement with many others, here is what William Penn said:
You will say, perhaps, that though you are sinners, and live in the daily commission of sin, and are not sanctified, as I have been speaking, yet you have faith in Christ, who has borne the curse for you, and in him you are complete by faith; his righteousness being imputed to you.
If you have true faith in Christ, your faith will make you clean, it will sanctify you; for the saints' faith was their victory of old; by faith they overcame sin within themselves and sinful men without. And if you are really in Christ, you walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit; whose fruits are clearly seen. Yes, you are a new creature, new made, new fashioned, after God's will and spiritual image. Old things are done away, and behold all things have become new: new love, desires, will, affections, and practices. It is not any longer the disobedient, carnal, and worldly you that lives; but it is Christ that lives in you instead. And to live is Christ, and to die is your eternal gain; because you are assured, ‘that your corruptible shall put on incorruption, and your mortal immortality;' and that you have a glorious house, eternal in the heavens, that will never wax old or pass away. All this follows being in Christ, as heat follows fire, and light the sun.
Therefore, have a care how you presume to rely upon such a opinion, that you are in Christ while still sinning in your old fallen nature. For 'what communion has light with darkness, or Christ with Belial?' Hear what the beloved disciple tells you: 'If we say we have fellowship with God, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.' That is, if we go on in a sinful way, are captivated by our carnal affections, and are not converted to God, we walk in darkness, and in that state cannot possibly have any fellowship with God. Christ clothes them with his righteousness, who receive his grace in their hearts, and deny themselves, and take up their cross daily, and follow him. Christ's righteousness makes men inwardly holy, of holy minds, wills, and practices. Although we have righteousness, it is Christ's; for it is ours, not by nature, but by faith and adoption. It is the gift of God. But still, it is not ours as from ourselves, for it is Christ's, being of and from him. Yet it is ours, and must be ours in possession, power, and enjoyment, to do us any good; or Christ's righteousness will profit us nothing. In this way was he made righteousness, sanctification, justification, and redemption to the primitive Christians; and if ever you will have the comfort, kernel, and marrow of the Christian religion, in like manner you must come to learn and obtain it.
Francis Howgill, a martyred minister of Christ, states the same:
Many have been talkers of grace in this professing
age, who have neither known of what they
spoke, nor have informed the minds of men
where grace was to be waited for, nor how grace might
be known, nor how, nor what the operation of grace
was; but have cried up, in their own imaginations:
"We are justified by His free grace from all sin,
past, present, and to come;" and, in this conceit,
thousands have been led into the pit of darkness;
imagining that they were justified by the free
grace of Christ, while they were out of the fear
of God, which it would have taught them; and
while they heeded not this grace, but got into
conceit, carelessness, and presumption; and
so pretended justification while they were the servants of sin and bond-slaves to corruption - that is, all
of you who have been preaching free grace in words.
Your covenant with death will be annulled,
and your agreement with hell will not stand.
8
I don't think it serves any further purpose to continue to detail these blatant misrepresentations of an Episcopalian, surreptitiously deceiving the hearts of the simple, but mysteriously gullible, Quakers.
- The Hicksite Separation in America - 1827
I am not going to quote the volumes of charges, counter-charges, appeals, letters, etc., that are cited by Janney in this separation. Using a few quotations, I am going to net out my conclusions and observations in this regrettable separation. From the above we already know of the Gurney apostasy.
Regarding the other party: Elias Hicks, the American Quaker minister, had been schooled by the Light; but only up to a certain point, which was significantly less than the perfection attained by the early Quakers. He had some serious doctrinal misunderstandings, but they were relatively minor in compared to Gurney's apostasy. Nevertheless, Hicks preachings left him open to violent criticism.
The British Quakers with the Gurney party in control, continued to send several visiting ministers to America. When they, or their adherents, heard or read of Hicks' doctrinal errors, they attacked full bore. Since the attackers' doctrinal positions were far less sound than Hicks', they were easily exposed in the ensuing discussion or exchange of documentation. This led to a widening gulf of doctrinal differences between those loyal to the Episcopalian doctrines of Gurney vs. Hicks' more traditional Quaker doctrines.
This gulf became so disputed and bitter, that a separation occurred. The separation process was painfully repeated in the Annual Meetings of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Baltimore. The available statistics are:
| |
Followers of Hicks |
Followers of Gurney |
Undeclared |
| Pennsylvania |
18,485 |
7344 |
439 |
| New York |
12,582 |
5,913 |
857 |
| Ohio |
Not Available |
Not Available |
Not Available |
| Indiana |
Not Available |
Not Available |
Not Available |
| Baltimore |
3500 est |
135 |
Not Available |
| North Carolina |
No Separation |
No Separation |
|
| Total Estimate |
50,000 |
20,000 |
2,000 |
Lawsuits regarding property and assets, particularly funds set aside for suffering, had to be settled in the civil courts. Several of these suits drug on for many years, with at least one reaching the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Regarding Hicks, he was a champion of the inner Light of Christ being the necessary means to salvation, by the cross slaying the old man of the flesh. But he was obsessed with the slavery issue, refusing a cotton blanket in sickness, believing it to be the product of slave labor. Hicks' doctrinal errors centered upon the contribution of Jesus's death on the cross; discounting it a sacrifice, for any but the Jews. He could not believe that God held him[Hicks] responsible for the sins of Adam, therefore he saw no benefit of Christ's death for his gentile self, believing the Light's operations of salvation totally sufficient. He was intransigent in these view, and this led to other flaws in his doctrine regarding Christ.
Quoting Hicks: As to the doctrine of original sin, according to the acceptation of some professors of Christianity, that we are under the curse for the transgression of our first parents, I abhor the idea, as it casts a great indignity on the divine character to think that a gracious and merciful God should condemn us for an act that was wholly out of our power to avoid! I consider it very little short, if any, of blasphemy against God. For I have never felt myself under condemnation for any sin but my own.
Paul contradicts Hicks' conclusion: Well then, as one man's trespass to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness to acquittal and right standing with God and life for all men. Hicks had obviously not entered the Kingdom of God, for if he had, there would be no doubt in his mind that he was born into a world that is miserable, compared to paradise; therefore, this dimension of earth (the place of banishment from the garden) would easily be understood to be a place of dwelling for the condemned. Once you start quarreling with the scriptures' accuracy, you open yourself to all manner of disbelief and heresy.
Hicks again: But
what is this Jesus Christ? He came to be a Savior
to that nation, [Israel] and was limited to that nation. He came to gather up and look up the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [Notice, his reference to this Jesus Christ is almost with disdain as an inanimate thing!]
Paul contradicts this writing to the gentile Romans: Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed. And Paul writing to the Greek gentiles in 1 Cor 15:3, Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.
Hicks again:
And what was it that was a saviour? Not that which was outward; it was not flesh and blood: for 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven:' it must go down into the earth from which it was taken. It was that life, the same life I have already mentioned, that was in him and which is the light of and life of men, which lights every man, and consequently every woman that comes into the world.
So Hicks was wrong in this basic error. Christ's sacrifice in his outward body was an act of a savior in flesh and blood, and of benefit to us all: Jew and Greek, (gentile), male and female. He has twisted scripture of and unholy man being unable to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, and used it to prove the most holy man who ever lived must go down into the earth - which he most certainly did not - he was resurrected and ascended into heaven.
Hicks had evidently not faced the accuser, (Satan), throwing up his past sins in his face, to see his Advocate, (Christ), point to the ordinances nailed to His cross as sufficient to cover whatever grievous sins we have committed. To come before God, is to become acutely aware of your past failures; and without the comfort of Jesus' unquestionable payment for those sins, you are panicked to flee in horror of yourself, like Adam and Eve who fled to hide from God, aware of their nakedness. But Christ's sacrifice gives us a white robe wedding garment, washed pure in the blood of the Lamb, to cover our spiritual nakedness, thus allowing us to remain in God's presence. Those without a robe washed in his blood, flee in horror of themselves.
Hicks was greatly over-reacting to the classic Protestant presumption that Christ's sacrifice in his flesh and blood provided salvation to all who believed; he diminished the outward sacrifice of Christ far too much.
Hicks also dismissed the Bible as causing more harm than good to Christianity, citing the many sects that were fond of huddling around select subsets of the scriptures to suit their rationalization of proper duty and worship of God, bypassing the death of self on the cross; which is true, but he failed to recognize the value of scripture offsetting its abuse.
Further, he diminished Christ's flesh virgin birth by classing it as just another miraculous conception: like from John the Baptist's aged, barren mother and Isaac's very aged mother; while emphasizing his spiritual second birth after baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Him. In Hicks' passion to keep everyone focused on the inward operations of the Holy Spirit, he grievously discounted the contribution of Christ's physical life. This was explosive to some, enough to motivate his enemies' charges of heresy against him, which eventually led to the separation.
In his Prose Works, Walt Whitman describes Hicks' final blasphemy, which sealed the split:
It [the split] had been preparing some time. One who was present has since described to me the climax, at a meeting of Friends in Philadelphia crowded by a great attendance of both sexes, with Elias [Hicks] as principal speaker. In the course of his utterance or argument he made use of these words: The blood of Christ—the blood of Christ—why, my friends, the actual blood of Christ in itself was no more effectual than the blood of bulls and goats—not a bit more—not a bit. At these words, after a momentary hush, commenced a great tumult. Hundreds rose to their feet.… Canes were thumped upon the floor. From all parts of the house angry mutterings. Some left the place, but more remain’d, with exclamations, flushed faces and eyes. This was the definite utterance, the overt act, which led to the separation. Families diverged—even husbands and wives, parents and children, were separated.
Contrast Hicks' above statement with a true prophet's words below; from Ambrose Rigge's letter on True Christianity:
Thirdly, they who plead for the continuance of sin all a man's days, have made the blood of Christ of no more value than the blood of bulls and goats, offered in the first covenant, sprinkling them that were unclean, and which sanctifies as touching the purifying of the flesh. But how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God? Heb 9:13-14. Here was an inward purging of the conscience from death and dead works, by virtue of the blood of Jesus. Here is the antitype of Moses, sprinkling the people under the law, with water and the blood of calves and goats, with purple wool and hysop; who sprinkled the tabernacle with blood, and all the ministering vessels, saying, “This is the blood of the Testament which God has appointed unto you," Heb 9:19-21.
For if the blood of bulls and goats could have taken away sin, there had been no need of another sacrifice: but finding fault with them, he said, “Behold, the days come, said the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Because they continued not in my covenant, I regarded them not, said the Lord."
Hicks' outlandish statement, (along with many others), betrays his fondness of fostering incendiary controversy, the tool of the enemy, used successfully in this sad chapter of Quaker history. Such divisiveness is the sign of an ambitious man; as Walt Whitman says of Hicks: he was seeking power and prestige by fostering a split that would leave him the unquestioned head of a movement, on which he could place his lasting stamp for posterity. William Penn spoke of divisiveness, in his letter of treasure in his advice to his children, thusly: Abhor divisiveness, the sin of fallen angels, and the worst of fallen men.
The attacks against Hicks were so virulent, many people sided with Hicks out of sympathy. It was also the rich Philadelphia Quakers against the poor country Quakers supporting Hicks. Never mentioned, but undoubtedly a contributor to the polarization of opinion, was the British attack on their poor American cousin; the British having burned Washington DC only thirteen years previously. It is sad, for had Hicks not prematurely entered teaching and preaching, but instead waited for the Lord's understanding, he would have been reconciled to the scriptures' statements; and instead of fostering a division, perhaps he could have righted the Gurney apostasy to the benefit of Quakers throughout the world. But alas! Like most eloquent men, he fell to the admiration of men and relied on the power of the flesh, rather than remaining low to permit the Spirit to rule and speak.
And if all, who have reservations about the Scriptures, would simply put them aside, trusting God to resolve them when they need to know, they will receive the necessary understanding. As they await this understanding, they must not preach, teach, or argue their conflicting opinions, thus avoiding the condemnation of misleading others; which condemnation includes a halt of teaching grace. While waiting, they would of necessity abide in the Light - the place where they would receive additional teachings, and grace of change, until perfected and authorized by Christ.
The Quaker founders, [Fox, Penington, Penn, Howgill, Whitehead, et. al.), correctly attributed Christ's blood sacrifice and outward death on the cross to be of great benefit. After the Law and before Christ, the only people who received the favor of God were those who walked close to conforming to the Law's requirements; those who ignored his Law, were disregarded by Him, Because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, with only a belief in His name, with humble sorrow for the past, we can approach God and receive the operations of his changing grace to purify our hearts and consciences; whatever our burden of past sins may be.
With faith in the name of Jesus, by grace and the cross, He can now make you perfect in every good work to do his will, ; a forever cleansing and perfection with resulting union is now available to all who go to him for change. Hicks received the benefit of this sacrifice, even if he didn't understand it - he believed in the name of Jesus, the belief of which is sufficient to allow one to become [not be] a son of God. For further detail on the significant value of Christ's outward life's sacrifice, see Why Light?
The Quaker pendulum had now swung too far in the opposite direction; from all Bible, to all Light - with no understanding of Christ's death and sacrifice, and an eventual abandoning of the Bible's cautions of what is sin and displeasing to God. As distasteful as they were, Hicks' errors were swallowing gnats, compared to the camels that Gurney's doctrine forced people to swallow. The underlying differences between the two parties, ( the real issues of contention), were identical to the same great controversy between the early Quakers and others sects of Christianity: what the blood of Jesus purchased for the believer? To quote from True Faith vs. False Faith:
The other sects , (and the Gurney Quakers), said that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross imputed any believer righteous and justified, with nothing else required on their part.
The early Quakers said his blood purchased forgiveness with sincere repentance for past sins and imputed a righteousness that allowed them to approach the throne of God, requesting his powerful grace to remove sin, and the desire to sin, from their hearts; and that justification and lasting righteousness only came after the workings of grace to convince them of sin and remove sin from their hearts; thus the early Quakers said Christ's blood could cleanse them from all sin and the desire to sin, not just forgive them for sins.
In reply the other sects screamed in outrage: the blood of Jesus did it all - I am saved by belief! You Quakers are blasphemers by denying the power of the blood and sacrifice of Jesus. Since Jesus did it all, there is nothing left for me to do!
While the early Quakers said: your belief has saved from what? If you are still sinning, you are not saved; and the blood of Jesus is more powerful than to justify your presumption of being saved. The blood of Jesus is powerful enough to cleanse your heart of even the desire to sin, providing you abide in his Spirit and Light to receive cleansing through the process of convincement and repentance - by carrying the inward cross of self denial. The saving grace of Christ is to be experienced, not just presumed. This blood of Jesus Christ, the heavenly man,
is to be felt and witnessed in the hearts and consciences of people;
by which blood they are sanctified and are cleansed from all their dead works. Such experience righteousness, justification, and sanctification by possession of Christ to be their Lord and King, controlling their every thought, word, and deed.
The fact that both parties were wrong in this dispute, leads to several important conclusions:
- The Quaker Society had already suffered a massive departure from the true faith.
- Quaker ministers in England and America were obviously unqualified, still without having reached sufficient purity for the Spirit of God to speak through them, controlling their thoughts, words, and deeds.
- Leaving the Holy Spirit unable to repair the rift with truth. Everyone was so intent on defending their incorrect position and attacking their opponent's position, that they could not hear the gentle, quiet voice of the Spirit of God to correct them both. For anyone teaching error, looses their ability to hear from God; he will not further a false prophet's ministry.
The two principal accusers of Hicks later admitted in writing that the doctrines of Gurney were totally anti-Quaker and were unsupportable; just before one of them died, he hurriedly made his confession in writing. The British Quaker Society also later quietly moderated the extreme positions of Episcopalian doctrine that Gurney had somehow interlaced into their beliefs; however, they still retained the basic doctrines, against which the Quaker founders had long-suffered and died opposing.
Gurney's apostasy, continued and created yet another separation in America.
- The Wilburite Separation - 1845
(Janney's History had no information on this separation, so the following is from Wikipedia)
Wilbur was born to Quaker parents in Hopkinton, Rhode Island. Wilbur was recognized as an Elder in 1802 and acknowledged as a minister in 1812. Always intellectually inclined, Wilbur was the teacher of the local Friends school for many years. In 1822, Wilbur was appointed to an important committee of New England Friends to investigate the "new light" movement in Lynn, Massachusetts. He made a handful of travels in the ministry, for which he became known as an exponent of traditional Quakerism.
In 1831, Wilbur went on his first trip to England and encountered a growing Evangelical thrust among the Friends there, which made him uneasy. Friends had already come through a schism a few years earlier involving Elias Hicks, who was disowned and started a new branch of Quakerism. Hicks had been teaching doctrines that are regarded as heretical by mainstream Christianity, basing his views on personal revelations from God.
The main body of Friends were called Orthodox because they had remained orthodox in terms of Christianity. But now Wilbur believed that some Orthodox Friends, especially those in England, were so alarmed about Hicks's perceived heterodoxy that they had gone too far in the other direction. He saw that this group of Friends was abandoning the traditional Friends practice of following God’s immediate, inward guidance in favor of using their own reason to interpret and follow the Bible. They were stressing a cold intellectual acceptance of the Bible instead of a vital, direct experience of the Holy Spirit in one's heart. Wilbur quoted early Friends, such as Robert Barclay, William Penn, and George Fox to make his case that the traditional view of Friends was that the inward light takes priority over the text of the Bible.* At the same time, he agreed that the Bible was inspired by God and was useful as a guide, as had the early Friends.
*Site Editor's Comments: You can obtain salvation from the Spirit's (or Grace, or Light, or Truth) operation on your heart without the Bible; but you cannot obtain salvation from the Bible, leaving out the operation of the Spirit on your heart. The best course is to use the Bible to identify what God disapproves of (sin), and for the hope of purity, union, and the kingdom; while spending the vast majority of your time, daily, waiting on the Lord in silence, listening for his Word, and watching for his Light. The Spirit will never conflict with the Bible, and if it does, it is not the Spirit of God to whom one is listening. By throwing out the Bible, the Quakers became susceptible to every deceiving spirit around, pretending to be the Spirit of God; one must rightly divide the word of truth, and the Bible is a tremendous aid to keep from falling into error.
Wilbur returned to the United States in 1833. He became embroiled in a dispute with Joseph John Gurney, a Quaker minister from England who was speaking throughout the United States. Gurney had been heavily involved in the drafting of the London Yearly Meeting's epistle in 1836. In that epistle Friends in England officially voiced their adoption of the more Evangelical views,* that Wilbur had encountered and disapproved. During Gurney's sojourn in the United States, Wilbur made private comments against Gurney's views to some of his associates in New England Yearly Meeting (which encompassed Friends in the eastern 80% of New England) and acquaintances in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
*Other accounts state that Wilbur's primary quarrel with Gurney was the same issue: instant righteousness and salvation by belief in Christ vs. salvation by death on the cross, through conviction and change of heart by the Light's grace over time. Keeping out of social causes and civilian affairs, with a reluctance to vote has also been credited to the Wilburites.
In 1838 some members of New England Yearly Meeting accused Wilbur of making derogatory statements against Gurney in violation of the principle of handling conflicts by going through the proper channels. They ordered South Kingston Monthly Meeting (local body he belonged to) to discipline him, but the local Friends supported Wilbur. Then the Rhode Island Quarterly Meeting (an intermediary group) laid down (dissolved) the South Kingston Monthly Meeting and attached its members to the Greenwich Monthly Meeting. The latter meeting disowned Wilbur in 1843. This disownment was confirmed by his quarterly meeting and then by the yearly meeting as well.
Wilbur continued in the Friends movement with the support of many like-minded members. In 1845, a division took place in New England over the unusual treatment of Wilbur and his supporters. The smaller body, comprising about five hundred members, came to be called the "Wilburites" for their support of John Wilbur. The larger body came to be called the "Gurneyites" for their support of Joseph J. Gurney. In succeeding years, other yearly meetings divided: New York in 1846 and Ohio, Indiana, and Baltimore in 1854. The Wilburite Friends later entered into fellowship with a branch called the Conservative Friends.
Certainly the Conservative Friends are today the closest group to the original faith of the early Quakers, but even they have fallen into a form of dress and speech, with unfinished leaders and teachers, substituting outward practices for death of the selfish spirit on the inward cross of self-denial.
Today's Quakers
The Gurney Apostasy created the lasting splits in the Society.
The Hicksites, with the pendulum swinging away from any role in the Scriptures, to total reliance on the light, the momentum eventually caused them to deny the scriptures, the miracles within, and the divinity of Jesus. Obsessed with eliminating the evils of slavery, their focus narrowed from the guidance and conversion of the Light, to social issues. Now, even a belief in God is optional, with many assemblies giving no homage to Christ or God. They have totally lost any understanding of sin and righteousness.
The Wilburites became the conservative Quakers, many dressing in 17th Century clothing, still saying their thee's and thou's, Biblically oriented, but confused about the Kingdom, the return of Christ, the Day of the Lord, purity, and the cross of Christ. They are in a form of the original.
In 1723 the last year of his life, George Whitehead, the great Quaker Statesman who personally lobbied four kings and all the Parliaments of his day, wrote his last known letter to the Quakers. By 1850 Quaker writers described his writings as controversial, apparently because he wrote so clearly in un-mistakable language exactly what was required by each individual to be a true follower of Christ; his wonderfully, instructive Journal was ignored for 150 years afterwards. In this letter of warning and plea, he precisely describes the two major departures which the Quakers were beginning, even then:
- forgetting the necessity of self-denial, the necessity suffering, and the necessary death of self on the cross,
- rejecting the Divinity of Jesus, reducing him to just a man. He reminds us of many of the Old Testament prophecies of coming of Christ to the earth in an earthly body, which attest to his godhood and divinity.
The mainstream Protestant sects faintly resemble their founders' faith, having been diluted, one step at a time until they are just a thin shell of their former profession and beliefs. The same happened to the Quakers. But the Protestants were always short of the Truth. Sadly, the Quakers, once having reestablished the glory of the true Church of Christ, just as it was in the early Church before the apostasy, are today without any substance of Truth.
Much has already been said. Many sects exist. Some in traditional Protestant theology. Most without a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Some with a form only of waiting on the Light; within which are those who sincerely believe in Christ, and those who don't even believe in God. There is no unity of the Spirit, with many spirits, and no one of spiritual maturity in Christ, controlled in word and deed by the Holy Spirit. There is confusion about the Kingdom of God, some assuming it is already achieved, some waiting on a physical return of Christ to the earth, some waiting to go to heaven when they die, some thinking a touch with the Light or Word is the return of Christ. Some with sermons preached, some without. Some wear 17th Century clothing, still speaking their thee's and thou's. There are many variations of Quakers Universalists, who believe Christ is not necessary. Most Quaker sects have totally lost sight of sin: drunkenness, covetousness, sexual immorality, greed, rage, envy, selfish ambitions, revelry, jealousy, contentions, etc. - restricting their definition of evil to war, nuclear power, etc. All is Babylon; just different outbuildings.
The everlasting gospel, which the Quaker founders so admirably uncovered from the countless lies burying it, was forgotten; to be buried again, even in the Quaker Society of Friends. Per Isaac Penington:
"Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his
judgment has come; and worship him that made heaven,
and earth," Rev 14:7.
- If you know the
Preacher that preached this,
- if you have heard this
preached in your own heart,
- if you have met with that
fear there, which God's Spirit teaches and gives,
- if
you have known the hour of God's judgment, and had
the axe laid to the root of the tree; and
- if you have
been taught by the Son to worship the Father in Spirit
and truth;
you have, without doubt, met with the gospel,
the everlasting gospel.
From the Voice of the Lord:
"Who have become Quakers
are an anathema.
They blot my efforts.
They cumber the ground."
This web site's purpose is to show how to become
free from sin
by benefiting from the changing power of God through the cross,
which leads to union with God in his Kingdom.
|
