David B. Updegraff
Clark, Dougan and Smith, Joseph H. David B. Updegraff And His Work. Cincinnati: Published
for Joseph H. Smith, by M.W. Knapp, Revivalist Office, 1895, pages 123-136.
This Document is on The Quaker Writings Home Page.
This, then, is our present thesis, proven from several stand-points, but, first, and in this paper,
because it is a .necessity in the interests of the truth itself, of which the church is the custodian by
divine appointment. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a "trust," committed to His church for the
declared purpose of accomplishing certain results. It was put into the hands of the early church as
a completed system. It was as perfect, both in substance and form, when Peter and Paul preached
it, as it ever was, or ever will be. It was nothing less than the wisdom of God and the power of
God unto salvation then, and it is just that to-day. Every real improvement in theology takes us
back into the "old paths." There is no gospel for our age that was not enjoyed by the first gospel
age. No additions have come from God, and those proposed by man are only subtractions in
disguise. An emasculated gospel, or a gospel of private interpretation, or amalgamated with
human discoveries, is not the Gospel of Cod. It can never germinate, but is a barren and fruitless
thing, because the power of the Holy Ghost is not granted to accompany it. And the Holy Spirit
always gathers to a person and not to a system, or a name, or a creed, or a sect. And thus it is that
all evangelical Christianity has crystallized about the person of our Lord Jesus Christ who is "the
truth" incarnated, and the principle of absolute obedience to Him is the central principle of that
new life which is begotten in the individual Christian. But this is a uniting, gathering principle, and
so it came to pass that we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of
another.' And this oneness in Jesus Christ. or the invisible unity of His mystical body, is the
foundation of the visible unity of the outward and militant body known as church organization.
When this organization was first completed on the day of Pentecost, this unity was perfect, both
within and without, in the church, and for a brief day there was indeed the supreme headship of
her risen Lord. But when thousands came to be added, there existed at once a wide variation in
experience, and consequently in conscience, and in apprehending the will of God. The treasure
was committed to earthen vessels, and "contentions" resulted in the formation of differing seem.
We will here assume that each sect has been formed with a view of reforming the existing church,
either as to its interior or exterior life, or both. And in every such case there was the endeavor to
return, as nearly as possible, to the apostolic church, both in doctrine and practice. Any other
standard would be a false standard, and wholly inadmissible. All of the evangelical sects have
found common standing ground upon the essentials of the Christian religion, but besides these
holding views more or less peculiar to themselves. The search for the truth made by successive
reformers, age after age, has been graciously rewarded by its repeated rescue from the rubbish and
captivity of error. To put it mildly, this has not been accomplished without the clash of
conscientious convictions, and a free use of every weapon known to legitimate controversy. This
was especially true in the early days of our own church. Its founders encountered the most skillful
and strenuous opposition, aud their conflict with an intolerant and persecutiug spirit was
prolonged, sharp, and wearisome, but resulted in good. There was in a good degree a restoration
of primitive Christianity and true, spiritual worship. Now let us inquire if their discoveries of
hidden truth were complete? Did they comprehend all of the truth? Were they so wise as to
exclude all error? Was theirs a finished and a fixed theology, incapable of improvement? Were
they called to formulate a faith for their posterity, as well as for themselves? And is every loyal
Quaker to be born with an irresistible penchant to subscribe to the creed they built? Were they the
last persons to receive new light on old truths? And did they receive all the light in certain
directions that God has to shed? Were the principles of our fathers living things, to bring forth
buds, and leaves, and fruits, or merely a species of sarcophagi for the safe-keeping of sacred
relics and sainted dead? And if they are true expression of life, is it not possible that they may
mean something more or something different to us than they meant to them? Or if we are capable
of receiving new light, are we capable of walking in that which was given to them, though it be
withdrawn from us? We ask these questions well knowing that true Quakerism gives an emphatic
negative to every one of them, and my readers know it, too. But we know, also, that there is a
practical adherence to the idea of the infallibility of "Early Friends," and this idea has been
asserted and defended, though in indirect ways, for nearly two hundred years. Occasionally it has
been in unequivocal language, as, for example, a leading elder said, fifty years ago, "the writings
of Early Friends are something that have risen up between us and the Scriptures, and we must not
go beyond them." And quite recently another one publicly declared, "the Lord did lead our
ancestors into an interpretation of Scripture that has stood us for two hundred years!" The
venerable Benjamin Seebohm warned the church against this tendency to "claim a kind of
infallibility on the part of Early Friends," which was "undermining the very foundation of all true
Quakerism," and "falls little short of absolute Popery." No doubt many devout and godly men
have quietly acquiesced in this state of things, perfectly satisfied with their unquestioning
confidence in the religious views of their ancestors. With these good people we have no
controversy. But there are those, also, who are led in spite of themselves to question their
inherited opinions, and to bring once more both doctrine and practice to the direct test of the
Scriptures.
Now we proclaim that it is in the interests of truth itself for the church to exercise true Christian
tolerance, or the fullest liberty of investigation and expression in all such cases! In all seriousness,
we challenge the assent of reasonable men to this postulate. Who does not know that in every age
of the church the converse of this proposition has been the fortification of error; and of the
enemies of the truth as it is in Jesus?
Let us quote from some Catholic authorities. Bishop O'Conner says: "Religious liberty is merely
endured until the opposite call be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world." The
Catholic Review says: "Protestantism of every form has not, and never can have, any right where
Catholicity is triumphant." The Boston Pilot says "There can be no religion without an
Inquisition, which is wisely designed for the protection and promotion of the true faith." Pope
Pins IX. said: "The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience
are a most pestilential error." The same sentiments are found in an editorial of "The Star and
Crown," which is not Catholic authority, but it says (italics are ours): "Toleration in conscientious
religious eccentricities, when coming under the seal of genuine loyalty, is often to be indulged and
commended; but since it is certain that a conscience which finds its natural pabulum outside the
boundaries of wholesome and preservative church law, can never assimilate itself to the spirit of
the church, it seems neither safe nor politic to consent to its propagation within the organized
lines."
Need we add, that the errors of the school-men, so constantly exposed by early Friends, were
entrenched behind the bigotry that compelled an exact agreement of thought with the dogmas of
the church? And when we are met in this day of grace by this newly-recruited regiment of the
devotees of the revived gospel of the Inquisition, we wonder if it is not the vanguard of that army
that shall one day come from the Vatican demanding "of every human creature subjection to the.
Roman pontiff!" Some of these recruits are young in the cause, but their present zeal atones
largely for the time lost while foraging in other fields, and they may easily be distinguished by the
freshness of their war-paint, and by the reckless vigor with which they flourish their weapons of
invective, misrepresentation, and that reliable old war-club, the odium theologicum. Socrates is
reported to have said to his judges: "In another world they do not put a men to death for asking
questions." Of course, we must be clearly and always understood as claiming this tolerance of
which we speak, within the limits of what may be termed a general creed or consensus of the
church. In fact, just such an one as our fathers left us, and not such a particular and narrow creed
as the distortions of tradition and custom would fasten upon us, "descending to minute details as
to interpretations and applications of particular texts of Scripture," etc., as fitly described by B.
Seebohm. He denounced such an imposition as Popery, and so it is; yet it is sought "to be made
the Shibboleth of Quakerism today." We most solemnly and lovingly admonish brethren to wash
their hands of this enormity. A persecuting bishop once advised the king of France to put all who
refused to think as they did into iron cages, in which they could neither lie clown nor stand up. It
was an awful torture, but the bishop himself spent fourteen years of retribution in one of them,
apparently because he had offended the king, but really because he offended God.
Bishop Ryan has lately said: "We hate heretics with a perfect hatred, and when the Catholics get
the majority in this country, as they will, there will be an end of religious liberty in the United
States." Let men beware of that "Mischief that shall return upon their own heads, and a violent
dealing that shall come down upon their own pates" (Ps. 7). Let us beware of that which is
inimical to moral and mental freedom; of that which degrades reason, stifles conscience, and
resists the Holy Ghost. And for a looking-glass, we may paraphrase the teaching of Cardinal
Bellarmine: "If the church should err by enjoining vices or forbidding virtues, the members would
be obliged to believe vices to be good and virtues bad, unless they would sin against the church's
conscience! Away, forever away, from every Protestant heart, be such blasphemy against the
ever-living God and His eternal truth! "But what is that general creed, within whose limits the
tolerance of which we speak is not only safe but necessary ? For undisputed authority we quote
William Penn (Works, Vol. II, 1726): "It is generally thought that we do not hold the common
doctrines of Christianity, but have introduced new and erroneous ones in lieu thereof; whereas we
plainly and entirely believe the truths contained in the creed, that is commonly called The
Apostles', which is very comprehensive as well as ancient." Again he says: "For, setting aside
some school terms, we hold the substance of those doctrines believed by the Church of England,
as to God, Christ, Spirit, Scripture, repentance, sanctification, remission of sin, holy living, and
the resurrection of the just and unjust to eternal rewards and punishments." He then declares that
"we differ most about worship and the inward qualification of the soul by the work of God's Spirit
thereon, in pursuance of these good and generally received doctrines." Here is a full statement of
the grounds of a common religion, and also those of dissent.
Within such fundamental and universally well-established lines there is ample scope for
independent thought and brotherly condescension. A past, if not a present mistake, has been to
condone an assault upon these lines, while severe in our exactions of the tithe of mint, anise, and
cummin. We have no sympathy with that idea of Christianity that looks upon it as a loose-jointed
thing, lacking polarity, and falling abroa4 in an embrace of liberalism, philosophies, or so-called
"modern thought." Certainly not. Nor yet is it all ecclesiastical strait-jacket, so exquisitely stitched
and starched that it can only fit a few precious souls of fastidious form and cultured taste! The
religion of Jesus cannot be reduced to a fine art, whose real beauties are only to be discerned and
appreciated by such as have been especially trained to behold them through glasses of a rare and
costly make! No! the church, if it will make any true advance, must turn backwards towards the
old "faith once delivered to the saints," and not toward the "new theology." But diversities of
opinion are the inevitable result of all progress in knowledge, and in important respects religious
knowledge is no exception to the rule. It is also true that an advance in the divine life always
promotes unity of the spirit. Now these great facts, apparently contradictory, can be perfectly
adjusted by that catholicity which is peculiar to the highway of scriptural charity, or the 'more
excellent way,' of which Paul speaks, and in no other way. This promotes fraternal unity, candor,
and integrity, and it is a genuine conservator of all the truths of orthodoxy, while an enforced
ecclesiastical unity pays a premium on envy and dissimulation, and is the very hotbed of error.
Having now shown that intolerance is the inveterate foe of the truth, it remains for us to prove
that it is equally the destroyer of true unity in the church. That Christian tolerance is an absolute
necessity to the unity of the denomination, is then the proposition now claiming our attention.
That when it ceases to prevail, Christian unity and communion comes to an end, is so manifestly
true that it seems strange that it needs to be proven. But there is all evident misapprehension of
what tolerance means, as well as what true unity is, and also concerning the proper limitations of
the church's authority. Webster, Worcester, ind others have no disagreement about the meaning of
toleration, and there can be none with those who care to know what that meaning is. "Toleration:
the allowance of that which is not wholly approved:--where no power exists, or none is assumed,
to establish a creed and a mode of worship there can be no toleration, for one religious
denomination has as good a right as another to the free enjoyment of its creed and worship." Of
course such definition is clear and self-evident. But we are told by an editor ("Review") that
"toleration is a much abused term," and in the light of his illustrations we fully agree that it is
abused. He says: "We tolerate Romanists, Jews, and even Agnostics; that is, we do not attempt to
punish them or compel them to accept our convictions of truth." Now it would simply be
grotesque to speak of "our society" with its less than 100,000 members, as "not attempting to
punish or compel," etc., the 7,000,000 Romanists of our land "to accept," etc. He must, therefore,
speak of the nation where he says, "we" and "our." And if so, who can tell what "our
[government's] convictions of truth" are? It has never assumed nor possessed the power to
establish a state religion of any kind,(1) and consequently "Romanists, Jews, and Agnostics" have
precisely the same rights that other denominations have, and the government cannot be said to
tolerate Romanists one whit more than Methodists or Quakers, and such an "abuse of the term
toleration," is most obvious. And yet another quasi editor, and also a "superintendent of
education," instructs his readers that if they would only inspect the premises of a certain
"publishing company," they would get a "practical demonstration of toleration." Now we saw in
a moment how it might be correct to use that word in connection with a business office. For
example, if a creditor who had a dishonest debtor in his power, should kindly forbear to enforce
the law, and allow him to pursue a questionable business that might be "toleration." But when our
editor came to explain his "illustration of toleration," it was both amusing and pitiful. That half a
dozen different business men with different interests should get along together without "an
attempt made to trespass upon or invade each other's economy," and that "individual rights are
held sacred," ought not to be a remarkable thing. In Ohio we would not think of "toleration," in
such a connection; we would call it simple honesty or common decency. We suppose if these
brethren were charged with "tolerating" rum selling and licentiousness in Indianapolis they would
speedily exonerate themselves by disclaiming both the power and the legal right to interfere. And
without these "toleration is a much abused term" indeed. But "tolerance" does not mean
indifference toward an opinion or custom supposed to be wrong. It does not even presuppose any
change of conviction favorable to such opinion. It does not imply indifference to a supposed
error, or a perfect willingness that it should continue. Not at all. It does imply conviction on the
part of the "tolerant," and such conviction of the truth as to deplore error, and seek by all
legitimate means for its extirpation. Now these legitimate means are not the same for the church
as for the state. Legislation is the logic of the state, and the argument of kings. The weapons of
the church are not thus carnal, and for it to "take the sword is to perish with the sword." God's
ordained weapons for the destruction of error and the unification of believers in the truth are love,
faith, patience, and mutual forbearance or "tolerance," and "the word of God." To abandon these
for legislation, however great the emergency, is to "rely on the King of Syria, and not upon the
Lord thy God--therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars." And this has been most fully
verified in our history. All must agree that not only "unity of the Spirit" but unity of opinion, if it
be in the truth, is a most desirable and blessed thing. And it is because we so fully appreciate this
that we insist upon Christian tolerance, since that is the only possible way bring to bring it about.
Love that is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, beareth all things, endureth all things, is the
only platform upon which the Spirit can work as the unifier of God s people. And from this
stand-point we affirm intolerance to be absolutely and forever inimical to, and incompatible with
true Christian unity. Excision is not unity, nor can the real thing ever be reached on that line. A
physician is not to secure the uniform health of a family by killing off the sick members of it, and
burying them out of sight, but by restoring the sick to health. The first might be much the shorter
and least expensive method, but the state would deal with the doctor for manslaughter. And he
might plead in vain that he only helped his patient off to another country that was better adapted
to him than this. How many homes have been hospitals for a score of years, where mothers
patiently wait and pray for the recovery of their sick? They are tenacious of their loved one's lives,
and anything else would be monstrous. And can it be any less monstrous for our mother the
church to be less tenacious of her children than of her own ease and comfort or even of the truth
itself? A man may have great tenacity of the truth in its outward formula, and not be himself
inwardly transformed by it at all, and so be untrue to himself and all others, indeed be no more
than a "whited sepulcher." But to be made free by the truth, is to hold it firmly and bring it to bear
upon brethren that are held with equal tenacity. To relax this hold is to let them get beyond our
reach for good. In fact it is not the errors of opinion held by our brother toward which we are
required to exercise tolerance, but it is toward our brother himself. Between us there is a diversity
of opinion. This of itself is not a good, but an evil. One of us is in the wrong. Neither party can
claim infallibility. Possibly we may both be wrong. Christian love and mutual tolerance may
conduct us to a middle ground that is right. Every consideration then points to this as most
reasonable and right, while to turn from it is a forfeiture of all chances both for benefitting
ourselves and our brother. Now this is not a tolerance that is to put a Christian on the same level
as an "infidel," or a "scoffer," or a "fornicator," or an "idolator," or a "railer," or an "extortioner."
It is not to invade that domain of fundamental truth which constitutes what all Christendom are
agreed upon as the "Gospel of Jesus Christ." It is not to open a door for Liberalism, or
Agnosticism, or any other ism that cuts the nerves of Christian life and work.
It is not to disparage church organization, and the proper and faithful exercise of its discipline under the direction and authority of its Holy Head. It is not to screen offenders who may have denied Christ, or the faith, or good morals, and from whom the church of Christ is commanded to separate itself. But it is to put the rights of Christian brethren parri passu, and upon the same level on all matters touching the non-essential or theoretical matters of the church. It is to preserve and guard a platform where individual responsibility to God, freed from the intimidations of tradition and ecclesiasticism, shall be at liberty to make a personal application of the general principles of the Gospel already accepted. It has been the glory of our church to insist upon this personal responsibility to God, and to set forth the sin and danger of shifting it on to a priest, or a church, or a council. Theoretically we .have claimed to be Spirit-directed, Spirit-controlled, but often with such mental reservation as to practically dictate the action of the Holy Ghost, and thus prevent it. The "immediate guidance of the Spirit" can be freely conceded to such as speak according to the "traditions," and whose interpretations of most Scripture passages can be as accurately foretold a month before they preach as after they have finished, while an intolerant spirit is quick to doubt and darkly insinuate against the fact of Divine guidance in case of a deviation from inherited opinions. Not only so, it is bold in its resolute purpose to destroy ministerial usefulness and character, and to invoke the anathemas of a church "decree!" Yet unkind and unchristian treatment from those who differ must not be resented, or murmured at, or even complained of by those who suffer; "but let them glorify God on this behalf." It therefore is in the interests of the church itself that we are constrained to insist upon it that true conservatism as well as true "unity" is best promoted by full liberty of investigation and utterance, aud. not by smiting honest men in the mouth, even though we obtain a priestly authority to do so.
__________
1.