« PrécédentContinuer »
commands us, lift them up every where, at all times, and make every place a church, every day a sabbath-day, every hour canonical. As you go to the market, as you stand in the streets, as you walk in the fields,-in all these places, you may pray as well, and with as good acceptance, as in the church; for
you yourselves are temples of the Holy Ghost, if the Grace of God be in you, more precious than
of those which are made with hands.”
Though, however, the Quakers believe no one day in the sight of God to be holier than another, and no one capable of being rendered so by human authority, yet they think that Christians ought to assemble for the public worship of God. They think they ought to bear an outward and public testimony for God; and this can only be done by becoming members of a visible church, where they may be seen to acknowledge him publicly in the face of men. They think also, that the public worship of God increases, as it were, the fire of devotion, and enlarges the sphere of spiritual life in the souls of men. “God causes the inward life,” says Barclay, “ the more to abound, when his children assemble themselves diligently together to wait upon him ; so that, as iron sharpeneth iron, the seeing of the faces of one another, when both are inwardly gathered unto the Life, giveth occasion for the Life secretly to rise, and to pass from vessel to vessel. And as many
And as many candles lighted, and put in one place, do greatly augment the light, and make it more to shine forth; so, when inany are gathered together into the same Life, there is more of the glory of God, and his power appears to the refreshment of each individual; for that he partakes not only of the Light and Life raised in himself, but in all the rest. And therefore Christ hath particularly promised a blessing to such as assemble in his name, seeing he will be in the midst of them.” For these and other reasons, the Quakers think it proper that men should be drawn together to the public worship of God. But if so, they must be drawn together at certain times. Now as one day has never been in the eyes of the Quakers more desirable for such an object than another, their ancestors chose the first day in the week, because the Apostles had chosen it for the re
ligious ligious assembling of themselves and their followers. And, in addition to this, that more frequent opportunities might be afforded them of bearing their outward testimony publicly for God, and of enlarging the sphere of their spiritual life, they appointed a meeting on one other day in the week in most places, and two in some others, for the same purpose.
Miscellaneous particularities — Quakers careful about the use of such words as relate to religion
-never use the words 66 Original Sin”-nor “the Word of God” for the Scriptures—nor the word “ Trinity”-never pry into the latter mystery-believe in the manhood and divinity of Jesus Christ—also in a resurrection, but never attempt to fathom that subject—Make little difference between sanctification and justification —their ideas concerning the latter.
He Quakers are remarkably careful, both in their conversation and their writings on religious subjects, as to the terms which they use. They express scriptural images or ideas, as much as may be, by scriptural terms. By means of this particular caution they avoid much of the perplexity and many
of the difficulties which arise to others, and escape the theological disputes, which disturb the rest of the Christian world. The Quakers scarcely ever utter the words
“ Original “Original Sin,” because they never find them in use in the Sacred Writings.
The Scriptures are usually denominated by Christians,“ the Word of God." Though the Quakers believe them to have been given by divine inspiration, yet they reject this term. They apprehend that Christ is the Word of God. They cannot therefore consistently give to the Scriptures, however they reverence them, that name which St. John the Evangelist gives exclusively to the Son of God.
Neither do they often make use of the word“ Trinity.” This expression they can no where find in the Sacred Writings. This to them is a sufficient warrant for rejecting it. They consider it as a term of mere hu
man invention, and of too late a date to · claim a place among the expressions of pri
mitive Christianity. For they find it neither in Justin Martyr, nor in Irenæus, nor in Tertullian, nor in Origen, nor in the Fathers of the three first centuries of the Church.
And as they seldom use the term, so they seldom or never try, when it offers itself to them, either in conversation or in books, to