I AM NOT HERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY SECT

Our President announced me as a representative of the Quaker Sect, or the Society of Friends. I must do our friends at home the justice to say that I am not here as a representative of any sect. I am not delegated by any portion, or by any conference or consultation of Friends in any way. I am here, as some say, "on my own hook."

And if I can be heard, in my feebleness, it will not be to present to your view, as our first speaker has done for Universalism, the various phases of the Society of Friends —the Orthodox portion, the Hicksite portion, the Progressive Friends, or any of these —because I think people generally are more interested in these divisions of their own denominations than outsiders, or than the other sects are. And I do not know whether it is so profitable a use of the time to enter into the little differences which have caused divisions among religious denominations, as to take a more general view of the advantages and disadvantages of religious organizations.

I had not understood, in coming here, the precise nature of the meeting; I did not know how Radical the Convention was expected to be. One speaker, who has just sat down, has deprecated the idea of dissent from all congregational association; but it seems to me that a convention on so broad a basis as I had understood this to be, should learn better than to deprecate any religious dissent or "come-outer-ism" from organization, and that there should be understood among us the charity, the toleration (if I may use that "proud, self—sufficient word," as some one has called it) , to bear all things, and to recognize the march of the religious sentiment in all ages.

And I have regretted, since I sat here, that our friend, known to so many, and probably to all of you here —William Lloyd Garrison —who is not in the country, is not able to be here. He is the representative of no religious (as such) or sectarian organization, although the Anti-slavery Society, by its advancement of right and justice, has found itself eminently a religious organization, I think.

The movements of the present age are striking and deeply interesting. The fact of a Jew being called to a Unitarian pulpit in Cincinnati recently, and the fact of a Jewish sermon being published in one of the papers in Philadelphia, and being commented upon with favor since that time—these facts, as well as other evidences, go to show the enlarged ideas and enlarged spirit of the religious world — or at least of Christendom —in this country, and in England.

Look at the divisions and subdivisions, and the free inquiries now in the Church of England. First a few individuals here and there came out, and then there came others, and great scholars among them. And this was also noticeable among the Unitarians; and these were so liberal that for years, I believe, no Unitarian association in this country has ventured to reprint their Radical works. Following these, there were the seven essays, with their products startling the church, and an examination was made on a charge of excommunication. Following these, was Bishop Colenso, going still further, and making the others almost admitted to be Orthodox, since he went so much further than they.

Thus I see in the English church great confusion, from the dissenting spirit. The various dissenting churches in England and in this country (I will not take the time to enumerate them), have been coming forward in recognition of the religious ideas that are implanted in all human hearts, the universal religious elements of our constitution. As culture, and education, and civilization advance, these associations are gradually coming out of the old superstitious, traditional ideas in which they have been educated. And although the articles of faith remain the same; although the articles of the church, or the various creeds, in their verbal standing, may remain untouched, and it would appear that they were indeed the same; some of them Orthodox, as they are termed (we all claim to be Orthodox, I suppose) , and some of them old and very strange notions, yet if you hear them explained now —though people admit that they believe what the creed really says —they put very different interpretations upon it.

Still although these persons do shorten the creeds every time, each still remains Orthodox just as much after the shortening as before. And we have now had movements through the Unitarians and Universalists, and, more especially perhaps, through the Spiritualist; for although I have never attended their meetings, and know but little of them, except what other persons have told, yet I understand that they have effected more against the dogmas of the time than other congregational organizations have as yet done.

I know our Friends are very jealous of any association with Unitarians or Universalists, or even with the Progressive Friends. And therefore I say that I am here representing myself, and not the Friends, although I am much attached to the organizations to which I belong. And I shall hope that in the discussion which may follow, there may be the broadest recognition of existing sects and denominations; that there shall not be a consociation and continuance with existing denominations; but on the other hand that there shall be such a recognition of the come-outer element, if I may so call it (I do not know what to call it), a dissent from organization.

I believe, as fully as that the command was given to Abraham, that the command is now to many, "Leave now the kindred of thy father’s house, and go into the land that I shall show thee." As George Fox was drawn away from all organizations of his time, and had to retire alone, and there be instructed from a higher power than himself, from the divine word; and claim that as the highest authority for action; no Bibles, no human authorities, no ministers, no pulpits, no anything that should take the place of this divine, inward, everyday teacher, so simple in its instruction —as he, I say, was thus called out from all his kindred, and from his father’s house, and brought unto the land that was therefore shown unto him; so I say there is an increased number now of this description. I remember especially one whose book I have read with very great interest, who even from Spain, came out in advance of the friends of progress and of the most liberal Unitarians in England and in this country —Blanco White.

I regret that those who were called to the reformation in the land were not satisfied with being destructives. Immediately they went to again constructing. Our friend, I think, before me, deprecated the idea of the destruction of religious organization. I do not know that it is to be deprecated. I know that there can not be any movement, any fellowship of anybody together without some form or some rules of government. But in a republic like this, if I understand self-government aright (I wish there was some better nomenclature; we have the term self-government, and we have the same term to represent self-government in a republic), we have yet to learn something that shall recognize independence of the mind, and the truth that maketh free, and that by which if we are made free we are free indeed.

I have as full faith in the religious experience and devotion of those who have withdrawn from all religious association going occasionally to hear the liberal preaching

around them. Now I cannot say that these are not just as religious in their devotion as the most sectarian observer of forms. Many of these believe it to be better to come out more openly in the matter of prayer. They believe it a very wise recommendation of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, that divine Son of God, "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, there pray in secret, and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly."

I say I represent myself. I am a kind of outlaw in my own society. It is a universal custom for us to rise in time of prayer. It is considered out of order for any to keep their seats. I have not felt free to do this for many years, and have been subjected to reproach and contumely by those with whom I have been associated. It is very difficult for us to be non—conformists with those with whom we associate. It seems to me that we show this infidelity (if I may so speak), this denial, in our indisposition to follow in some of the acts of conformity more than in any other way.

It is of little matter to me what the creed shall be as regards trinity and unity, as regards what has been explained here as Universalism, or in a more limited way. We know so very little of the after life, that I am glad that the intelligence of the age is leading us to apply our religion more to this life, and to every day practice and everyday necessity, and uprightness and goodness, and to enter into our heaven here.

I was interested a few weeks ago, at the opening of a new Unitarian house of worship in Germantown. One of the speakers said that they had got a "regular built church." It had a font, and table, and pulpit, &c., and he did not like the idea that churches should be converted into lecture rooms. Now it seems to me that it is a great progress, that a church may be used sometimes for lectures. I want our friends to be liberal enough; and I should be glad to see a more general disposition to have a church or place of worship a freer place of gathering.

And when our friend was speaking in Germantown, a large portion of the people present were Friends, and large numbers that had been admitted into that society were unaccustomed to the baptismal font; and it seemed to me that he was behind the age in speaking in the way he did. But I notice that the father of the young Mr. Neal who was to be ordained, in turning over the pages of his Bible, chanced to open to the passage in the last of John the divine, that had always been rather a favorite one, where it speaks of the new Jerusalem that cometh down from God out of heaven, and he read that in that new Jerusalem there was no temple found.

Now if that be the case, why may we not suppose that some of these regular radical supporter[s] have entered this new Jerusalem. But how are we to judge of them, and how are we to judge whether these persons who love their baptismal font and communion table, love the Lord Jesus Christ? How are we to judge whether they do or do not, except by their everyday practice and good works? We must hold these up, and with this view.

I do not wish, as a single individual, to commit the society to which I belong, in any wise. But I would desire that the convention may result in so enlarged a charity and so enlarged an idea of religion, and of the proper cultivation of the religious nature and element in man, as to be able to bear all things, and to be able to have that extended charity that is not offended, and does not deprecate going on before, and to have charity for those who are behind, and also for those who go on before.

May we then in thus coming together learn charity, and if we want an organization, let us not suppose that it must necessarily be an organization similar to any in existence, that are recognized as churches. I do not mean the Quakers; but we can have an organization, and have it understood that there shall not be a regular minister who shall be obliged every appointed day to have a sermon prepared, and a prayer, perhaps, whether in the spirit or not. I often pity your ministers who have to come forth with their prepared sermons every Sunday. Why not carry out the precept that when anything shall be revealed to him that standeth by, let the first hold his peace?

I remember some thirty years ago, that on being introduced to Dr. Bunleigh (we do not like to say ‘Reverend’ among Quakers), by Dr. Channing, I asked him why there should be a monopoly in excluding woman from the pulpit.

He said, "It is something that never entered my mind." I believe a large portion of the people never thought of the thing. But believe me, my friends, when I tell you that this monopoly will have to be broken up, and that there will be a ministry among us of a freer character than that which has been known heretofore.

Now, I do not know how far I have presented what was required by the platform this morning, but these are the thoughts which were in my mind, and which I have attempted to give forth, without any preparation.

                  Boston: Adams and Co., 1867.]

 - - - - - - -

<< Back