“Orthodox” Friends

A reader of this blog suggested that I investigate the origins of the term Orthodox, for those Friends who took the anti-Hicks side in the schism of 1827–8 and their successors.  There are some interesting questions connected with this term: Was it first applied by Hicksites to their opponents, with pejorative connotations — or was it something that Orthodox Friends chose for themselves?  Was it intended as implying that the Orthodox Friends held close to traditional Quaker doctrine — or rather that they were orthodox by mainstream Protestant standards? I am sorry to report that I have not been very successful in finding definite answers to these questions, but I thought it might at least be worth reporting what I did find.  If any readers know more, I hope they will fill in the gaps by commenting on this post.

The earliest occurrence of the word orthodox for opponents of Elias Hicks that I have come across is in the anonymous 1824 pro-Hicks pamphlet ‘The Misrepresentations of Anna Braithwait’ [sic]:

Among these for some time stood conspicuous ____ ____, who in a letter to a friend in this city, denounces Elias Hicks as preaching doctrines that tend to destroy the Christian Religion, merely on account of the testimony he bore, in common with many of his Brethren against Bible Societies, and some other similar associations, and to so great a height did he carry his malice that by the cry of heresy, he raised the standard of dissention for all the disaffected; accused Elias Hicks of preaching unsound doctrines and inculcating pernicious principles. Many of the weak members of his Society have been deceived, and the cry of ignorance and infidelity extended across the Atlantic. The sympathy of their wise and orthodox Brethren was excited into lively existence, and the poor, the savage, the unlearned society of Friends beyond the water has claimed their tender commiseration. Hence puffed up with high notions of superior understanding and cultivated mind, raised still higher by ideas of grovelling America, A. Braithwait left the soil of her native England, armed with full documentary evidence of her unity with the society at home, gifted by nature with unbounded assurance of mind and a countenance undaunted in what she considered the service of the Lord. She it was before whom the monster of infidelity was to wither and to die, who was to bring the American people into all the glorious consistency of the Mother Church.

This very early Hicksite application of orthodox comes across as contemptuous and sarcastic — but is really too early, I think, to be functioning as the name of a definite party in the controversy.  Rather, it seems merely to be an ironic description of the perceived self-righteousness and condescending attitude of British Friends. A clearer use of the term Orthodox to refer to an identifiable side in the impending schism appears in the New York religious newspaper The Telescope, April 1, 1826 (almost exactly a year before the actual separation took place in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting):

There is now a general commotion and overturning among the once peaceful people called Quakers.— Within a short period two rival parties have arisen in the society. The division seems mostly to have originated in a difference of sentiment, maintained and strenuously enforced by two noted preachers of that order, viz.: Elias Hicks, and Anna Braithwaite. The old party adhere to the tenets of the latter, and are denominated “Orthodox,” while the new party adhere to the sentiments of the former and are denominated “Reformers,” or “Hicksites.” The Orthodox side maintain that they themselves hold the principles of the founders of the society, and that the other party are rank Socinians, and no better than deists. On the other hand the Reformers accuse them of intolerance, bigotry, and desire “to lord it over God’s heritage;” and thus a constant warfare is maintained; each trying to gain the ascendancy.

Here, the word Orthodox appears to be an expression of the anti-Hicks party’s claim to represent traditional Quakerism, with no hint that it may have been interpreted as pejorative or sarcastic.

(A brief digression: It is interesting to note that this very early description of the controversy portrays the Orthodox side as conservative and the Hicksites as “Reformers.”  Many Friends today look back to Elias Hicks as the father of liberal Quakerism, a perspective that is reinforced in works like Bliss Forbush’s biography Elias Hicks: Quaker Liberal.  But it has been more popular among recent historians to paint Hicks as a conservative, attempting to maintain traditional Quietism against a rising trend of innovative Evangelicalism — see Larry Ingle’s Quakers in Conflict, for example.  It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that Friends on both sides of the schism took their positions for a variety of different reasons, and Hicks’ personal motivations may not have been representative of Hicksite Friends’ more generally.)

The only explicit explanation of the origin of the term Orthodox that I know of by a Friend of this era is offered by Hicksite James Cockburn, who in 1829 wrote:

The application of the term orthodox to a party in the society of Friends, appears to have arisen from the similarity of their assumptions and measures with those of the various sects who, at different periods of the church, have laid claim to this distinction, and on this ground have proscribed and persecuted others who have differed from them in opinion.

A Review of the General and Particular Causes which have Produced the Late Disorders and Divisions in the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in Philadelphia, p. vi

But Cockburn is highly partisan and his explanation should be considered in that light.

(A single) standard of truth

A frequently offered explanation of the Quaker testimony against swearing oaths is that Friends are committed to “a single standard of truth.”  This phrase is understood as implying that our speech should be uniformly truthful, not more so when under oath and less so otherwise.

Friends have stood against oath-taking since the very early days of the Quaker movement.  But the phrase “a single standard of truth” is much more recent.  The earliest occurrence of this exact phrase I have found is in an address by William C. Braithwaite to Five Years Meeting in 1912, entitled “The Essentials of Quakerism,” and published in his book The Message and Mission of Quakerism the same year:

We witness against oaths, because we uphold a single standard of truth speaking, and against distinctions of dress and address, because all men are equal in the sight of God; we oppose war because the armor of the children of light is the armor of righteousness, and disuse the outward form of baptism because the all-important thing is not the form but the inward repentance and cleansing by the blood of Christ.

p. 25

Variants of this phrase can be found a little earlier.  The earliest I know of is in an address by Richard H. Thomas at the Manchester Conference of 1895 and published in the proceedings:

Accepting the words of our great Master, “Swear not at all,” we desire to be found speaking the truth one to another with but one standard of truth.

Report of the Proceedings of the Conference of Members of the Society of Friends in Manchester, p. 385

It is interesting to note that the phrase ‘standard of truth’ is one which occurs with some frequency in earlier Friends literature — but in an entirely different sense, unconnected with the testimony against oaths.  In this earlier literature the phrase is understood figuratively in the sense of a flag or banner, as in an 1842 letter from Nathan Hunt to J.J. Gurney:

I mention England, because there this remarkable people first raised the standard of truth with the Star of Bethlehem upon it, and may it never be lowered by their descendants in that nation in any respect.

Memoirs of William and Nathan Hunt (1858), p. 152

The following is another representative quote, from Thomas Shillitoe:

Third-day had a meeting: fears were excited in my mind the standard of truth was suffered almost, if not wholly, to fall to the ground by those who were in membership with our religious Society here.

Journal of the Life, Labours, and Travels of Thomas Shillitoe in the Service of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1839), vol. 1, p. 107

The phrase was especially common in the contentious period around the Hicksite separation. It appears, for example, in the epistle issued by the meeting at which the Hicksite branch of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was originally organized in 1827:

We therefore, under a solemn and weighty sense of the importance of this concern, and with ardent desires that all our movements may be  under the guidance of Him, who only can lead us in safety, have agreed to propose for your consideration, the propriety and expediency of holding a Yearly Meeting for Friends in unity with us, residing within the limits of those Quarterly Meetings, heretofore represented in the Yearly Meeting held in Philadelphia; for which purpose, it is recommended that Quarterly and Monthly Meetings, which may be prepared for such a measure, should appoint representatives to meet in Philadelphia, on the third second day in the tenth month next, at ten o’clock in the morning, in company with other members favourable to our views, there to hold a Yearly Meeting of men and women Friends, upon the principles of the early professors of our name, and for the same purposes that brought them together in a religious capacity—to exalt the standard of truth—promote righteousness and peace in the earth—edify the churches—and generally to attend to all such concerns as relate to the welfare of religious society, and the cause of our holy Redeemer, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Quoted in James Cockburn, A Review of the General and Particular Causes which have Caused the Late Disorders and Divisions in the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in Philadelphia (1829), p. 220

This phrase was widely used by both Hicksite and Orthodox Friends.  Here are a couple more illustrative quotes:

The power of Truth broke in upon them in a wonderful manner; they seemed melted like wax— some wept aloud, and the Lord was pleased to exalt the standard of Truth, and magnify His power in the eyes of the people. Blessed be His Name for evermore!

Journal of the Life and Gospel Labors of Joseph Hoag (1860), p. 122

I think there is cause for us to magnify the name of Him who has dealt so bountifully with thee!—who, from time to time, (after having brought thee through the deeps,) has raised thee up to bear testimony to his goodness, and enabled thee to exalt the standard of Truth and Righteousness, to his praise, and much, very much, to the satisfaction of thy friends.

Frances Thompson, quoted in Journal of the Life of John Wilbur (1859), p. 89.

Note that in several of these quotes, the phrase appears as part of the longer expression ‘exalt the standard of truth’. This phrase dates back much earlier, long before the Hicksite schism, though it does not appear to have come into widespread use among Friends until then. The earliest occurrence I have found is in a 1666 epistle of Stephen Crisp’s:

But when they shall say, come join with us in this or that, remember you are joined to the Lord by his pure spirit, to walk with him in peace and in righteousness; and you feeling this, this gathers out of all bustlings, and noises, and parties, and tumults, and leads you to exalt the standard of Truth and righteousness, in an innocent conversation, to see who will flow unto that.

The Christian Experiences, Gospel Labours and Writings,
of  that Ancient Servant of Christ, Stephen Crisp (1822), p. 113.

It is natural to suspect that this phrase originates in the Bible; but an electronic search through several translations did not produce any hits.  Do any readers know more?