Groaning is Justified

Alternatively, "Was mid-seventeenth-century opinion in England justified in seeing Quakerism as threatening social revolution?"

I will say right up front that this post is my final paper for Tudor and Stuart England, and if you don't want to read 2,776 words on the topic, feel free to not bother ;)

Introduction

In the interregnum instability of mid-seventeenth-century England, the Quakers’ individualistic, inward-looking theology, egalitarian beliefs, and political doctrine combined to form a social radicalism that, regardless of motive, was enough of a threat to justify suspicion and distrust among those not in the movement. The prejudices against the Quakers were confirmed by actual Quaker practice, but were also derived from the reputation of the people who converted to Quaker belief. The diverse dissenters and dissenting churches who converted brought their own backgrounds and practices into the Quaker meeting, and their influence strongly colored Quaker practice. This similarity caused the Quakers to be viewed with many of the same prejudices as those with which the Baptists, Ranters, and Seekers who were joining (comprising?) them had been viewed. The doctrines set out by the Quaker founder, George Fox, generated additional suspicion – particularly that the movement would break down social structure and create more social revolution in an already unstable England. In 1660, when Charles II took back the English throne in the Restoration, these suspicions were proved grounded.

People of the Quaker movement

The Quaker movement brought together people who “were for the most part ordinary men and women who had spurned the wishes of their betters and who had already rejected much of the ideology and organization of orthodox Puritanism”.[1] From the very beginning, the Quakers were different than other separatist groups, since they united protesters. This was the first thing that made them appear dangerous to the social order of Interregnum England. Instead of being just one more radical group to dissent from the Church of England (which was adopting Presbyterian viewpoints at the time), the Quakers converted large numbers of these dissenters to their own doctrine, thus creating a group ‘as numerous as Catholics’[2] and very noticeable in society. Quaker doctrine did not focus solely on theology, but “was a movement of political and social as well as religious protest”.[3] As a result, the Quakers did not only threaten the Church of England as purely religious protesters, but also spread the tentacles of their influence into the very structure of society. The reason they were so influential and therefore so dangerous is that they were able to bring together many people (thought to be as many as sixty thousand within fifteen years)[4] who were already practiced in dissent and social unrest and unite them under a common belief.   

The groups from which the Quakers derived the majority of their constituency were a part of the reason that the English people (and more specifically the Anglican Church and Cromwell’s government) feared that they would bring about social revolution. Instead of having a clear reputation from the first, the Quakers drew from dissenting groups that had previously established negative reputations of their own. Having incorporated into their midst names, congregations, and theology that were already viewed with suspicion (if not outright hostility), Quaker views would have had to strongly break away from the past of these groups in order to even hope for a completely separate identity. Instead, they incorporated considerable amounts of doctrine and practice from those who joined them, and the influence of these groups – notably the Baptists, Seekers, and Ranters – can be seen in later Quaker doctrine.

Since the early 1640’s, the Baptists had developed a reputation for being a part of a “separatists tradition which saw little prospect of Christian reformation in a national church tainted with relics of popery and too lax in its admission of the ungodly to communion”.[5] The Quaker emphasis on being led by an inner light or spirit surfaced and received criticisms not unlike the description by Daniel Featley, a moderate Anglican, who in 1645 described the Baptists “as a pack of ‘mechanick’ artisans”, further calling them “‘Russet Rabbies, and Mechanick Enthusiasts, and profound Watermen, and Sublime Coachmen, and illuminated Tradesmen’”.[6]  The very name Quaker, coming from a physical quaking when being moved in spirit during meetings, was nothing new either: Thomas Lambe, the Baptist’s “most celebrated evangelist” was to employ “theatrical methods” in his attempt to win converts.[7]

Perhaps the most important (at least the most influential) factor in the pre-conceived notions about the Quakers was the converts themselves – Samuel Fisher, who started his career as a Presbyterian clergyman, converted to Baptist views and became an outspoken Baptist debater and pamphleteer before converting to Quakerism and being an equally vocal proponent of Quaker doctrine.[8] With individuals who were well known becoming a part of the Society of Friends (as the Quakers called themselves), the connection between dissenters such as the Baptists and the Quakers was only reinforced.

The Seekers were “defectors from the Puritan churches”, as were the Quakers, and the later theme of clerical disestablishment seen in Quakerism can be found in the Seeker position of being “an opponent of all [the Puritan church’s] claims to be the true church”.[9] The Seekers were not so much a sect as a “personification of a point of religious debate”,[10] which makes sense in the context of their later conversions to Quakerism. The Seekers who had similar beliefs (thus causing them to be categorized together under the name of one sect) did not identify themselves with a dissenting church as much as with dissenting points. Therefore, when George Fox began preaching Quaker doctrine that was a part of an organized dissent from the established church, conversion was not leaving the Seeker church but joining a church from not having one. ‘Autobiographies and testimonials’ written by such converts describe themselves as having “a period of fruitless seeking after true religion before a final submission to the light within”.[11] Furthermore, “the first Quaker recruits are generally described in such terms as ‘a people that was then seeking after ye Lord’.”[12] None of this gives any evidence that there was an organized Seeker movement; rather there were people who were seeking for something different in their spiritual life and were ready to join a group that was offering what they thought they were looking for – the same as conversions happen today. The difficulty with having these people who were self-identified Seekers joining the Quakers was that they shared the belief in a very ‘personal Christianity’ and in Puritan churches, the “typical Seeker position” was “that there was no absolute divine truth, no true visible church, no confidence of sainthood”.[13] When Seekers converted to Quakerism and Quaker doctrine also emphasized an inward-looking, private Christianity, the plausible connection to a heretical Seeker position could not be ignored.

Ranters, the third common association with Quaker conversions, brought in the thread of the mystic. Ranter prophets were “mystical in their claim to have become one with God; antinomian in denying the reality of sin to the believer”.[14] The Quaker doctrine of an Inward Millennium and a theoretical Heaven, Judgment, and Hell went along the same lines, if they didn’t go so far as to agree that “the spiritual man’s freedom from the carnal world extended to a moral indifference to his behavior since all human acts were inspired by God”.[15] Quakers instead tended to view the physical reality as highly symbolic of the spiritual reality, an example being George Emmot, who “tore off his fine clothes and ribbons and dressed himself in plain garb and a hat with a piece of string in place of a hatband” to show himself “not worldly, but all spiritual”.[16] Despite these differences, however, Quakers did venture into symbolic actions that were ‘clearly intended to shock’ and the connection between the mystic antinomianism of the Ranters and the symbolism of the Quakers along the same lines was not missed by those in the church and government.

These three religious groups had commonalities; the doctrine of enthusiasm, alluded to in the Baptist minister’s evangelism above, was embraced by Baptists, Seekers, Ranters, and Quakers.[17] Quaker enthusiasm was a key component of the ‘doctrine of the indwelling light’, which was one of the primary doctrines the Quaker founder George Fox propounded and became an issue of much suspicion as the Quaker movement spread and this idea became more known.

The Dangerous Inner Light

            One of the most disconcerting beliefs of the Quakers was their doctrine of the Inward Millennium – that the second coming of Christ was happening, and happened inside the individual. “‘The coming of Christ in the flesh … was one coming … and his appearance in Spirit to save his people from sin; is another coming’”,[18] George Whitehead, a prominent Quaker explained. This emphasis on the inner transformation, completely separate by nature from the Church of England, was seen – with reason – to be dangerous. By breaking away from the established church, the Quakers threatened social order and the established hierarchy. What is not so facially obvious is the reason for this perceived threat. However, in the context of the unrest and civil wars of the mid-seventeenth-century, a group claiming that the second coming of Christ was happening within them at the moment was, ipso facto, saying that the Church of England was wrong by not saying the same and therefore dangerous to keeping order through undermining the church.

The rejection of the Church of England continued past the belief of an Inner Millennium with the Quakers’ insistence that the guidance of the spirit – the Holy Spirit moving directly to their spirit – was more authoritative than the Scriptures, and certainly over whatever the clergy and learned elite might say.[19] This rejection of the standard structure of religious order was deeply disconcerting. Not only did the Quakers defy religious order, they were also a threat to the social order that was currently in power, Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan government.

            The Quaker movement brought together multiple sectarian groups, which unification (as seen above) was dangerous to social order. However, there was another thing that made them dangerous, more so than sheer numbers of dissenters. The belief that the Church of England should be overthrown as a state church and that mandatory tithes should be discontinued made them more than just religiously out of order, but a threat to society. The idea that the church would be overthrown wasn’t simply an issue to the church leaders, but to everyone. Since the Church of England was a state church, its disestablishment would mean the denial of a part of the government’s authority – a concession that Cromwell’s England could ill-afford. The goal was to move from a ‘university-bred, privileged clergy towards a ministry of simple men and women’.[20] In addition to pushing for the clergy to be replaced, “during the Revolution the Quakers became a pressure group campaigning for the overthrow of tithes … supporting parliamentary candidates who were likely to be sympathetic to their cause, and, above all, refusing to pay tithes and inciting others to resist”.[21] This attitude towards the government was, unsurprisingly, not looked upon with favor by those in authority. The payment of tithes was not only an acknowledgment of the church as a religious authority; it also stretched into the structure of society as a whole through fund support of the property system. Therefore, the “Quaker denunciation of tithes … marked them out as subversives”[22] in an already-unstable political situation. This perceived threat to the structure of society was more than even the tolerance of Oliver Cromwell’s government could handle, and consequently the Quakers were persecuted even when those in authority were attempting to usher in a new religious tolerance.

Threat of Egalitarianism

The threat that the Quakers presented to Parliament and the other authorities was not simply a religious one; they also had a non-pacifist social agenda that gave pause to those with whom they disagreed. Anyone listed in the categories of ‘lawyers, trial by jury, Anglicization and codification of the law’ might reasonably be concerned by the proclamation: “let all be drawn up in a little short Volumn, and all the rest burnt’.[23] A group with such beliefs could scarcely reassure those whom they were talking about. They additionally “told those in power in 1659 that if they would ‘establish Righteousnesse’ they were assured of Quaker support: ‘Oh then we should rejoyce, and our lives would not bee Deare to lay downe’”.[24] If this was calculated to make friends and convey a position of cooperation, it could not have been imagined to be successful. The Quaker sect was not primarily a militaristic or political one, but it is important to realize that before the Restoration of the monarchy it also was not pacifist.[25] Rather, it stressed “the peaceful nature of the movement rather than the sect’s opposition to the use of force under any circumstances”.[26]

The motives and intentions of the Quakers, however, appear to have been of less concern to those not in the movement than the way it actually looked. The threat of military action was not one of the main Quaker tenets, and therefore not a primary concern. Instead, “it was probably fear of ideological contamination rather than a few sporadic outbursts of disorder”[27] that caused the primary concern. The potential social consequences of Quaker philosophy were so dangerous to the established social order that tolerance was not a very popular path. Whether or not the Quakers were being disruptive was not the issue – it was the potential social fallout of having them as a part of society, and neither their beliefs nor their practices encouraged trust from those around them.

Cromwell’s government must not be mistaken to be an egalitarian government. Elimination of the monarchy should not be equated with equality for all. One of the reasons the Quakers were so feared was their egalitarian practices among themselves. This was the social disturbance that was so feared. Going so far as to allow women to have active participation in their worship services,[28] men refusing to remove their hats in the presence of their superiors,[29] and general usage of the informal personal pronouns ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ instead of the more formal ‘you’ “caused great anger and offense to non-Quakers”.[30] Without proper respect for social status, the very hierarchy of society was at risk and it caused great concern among the social elite. Making the social elite happy was not, however, the goal of the Quakers, who “rejected the hegemony of the elite”.[31] Instead, “They questioned the primacy of the Scriptures, rejected the need for an established church or ministry and challenged the rigid hierarchical structure of society”[32] – all of which caused substantial alarm.

Conclusion

In the end, the Quakers really were a threat to the seventeenth-century social order – not only the order of classes through their egalitarian policies, but Cromwell’s government as a whole. By 1659, “hostility towards Quakerism led many to look to the monarchy as the only salvation from social and religious anarchy”[33]– directly in contradiction to the Puritan government in power. Since “hostility towards Quakers contributed to the restoration of the Stuarts”,[34] fears that the Quakers would bring about social revolution were entirely justified.

The Quaker movement in mid-seventeenth-century England was a serious threat to the social revolution; see the Restoration of Charles II, which was in part a product of the nervousness and suspicion with which non-Quakers viewed their Quaker counterparts. Larger revolution aside, to which the Quakers only presented a threat as a secondary source, Quaker doctrine and practice also presented the threat of a primary social revolution. Regardless of what kind of revolution was feared, the fear was justified by those outside the sect. Even if the revolution that was the more obvious threat under Cromwell’s government – breakdown of the social order – was not a result of Quaker practice, the return of the monarchy can be traced in part to fear of the Quakers. The consequent completion of an entire revolution – bringing the political situation full circle back to a monarchy – therefore is the reality of history and looking back, the threat of the Quakers felt by mid-seventeenth-century English is justified. 

Bibliography:

Braithwaiter, W.C. (1912). The Beginnings of Quakerism. London: MacMillan and Co.

McGregor, J.F. and Reay, B. (1984). Radical Religion in the English Revolution. Oxford: University Press.

Pearse, M.T. (1998). The Great Restoration. Cumbria: Paternoster Press.

Poole, K. (2000). Radical Religion from Shakespeare to Milton. Cambridge: University Press.

Reay, B. (1985). The Quakers and the English Revolution. London: Temple Smith.

---

[1] J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, Radical Religion in the English Revolution, p. 141.

[2] ibid..

[3] ibid..

[4] M.T. Pearse, The Great Restoration, p. 259.

[5] K. Poole, Radical Religion from Shakespeare to Milton, p. 26.

[6] ibid., p. 36.

[7] ibid., p. 30.

[8] ibid., p. 38.

[9] ibid., p. 123.

[10] ibid..

[11] ibid., p. 128.

[12] qtd. ibid..

[13] ibid. p. 126.

[14] ibid. p. 129.

[15] ibid., p. 129.

[16] B. Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution, p. 36.

[17] K. Poole, p. 58.

[18] J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, p. 146.

[19] ibid., p. 146.

[20] ibid., p. 149.

[21] ibid., p. 150.

[22] M.T. Pearse, p. 273.

[23] J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, p. 150.

[24] ibid., p. 152.

[25] M.T. Pearse, p. 272.

[26] J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, p. 152.

[27] ibid., p. 155.

[28] W.C. Braithwaiter, The Beginnings of Quakerism, p. 12.

[29] M.T. Pearse, p. 271.

[30] ibid..

[31] J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, p. 162.

[32] ibid..

[33] ibid., p. 163.

[34] ibid..