power within the man to enable him to live in accordance with the will of God; the direct communication of this will to every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. His labors were from first to last a comment on the text, "If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk."1

Fox does not seem to have preached, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, until late in the year 1647. And then, Sewel says, his preaching chiefly consisted of some few but powerful and piercing words, to those whose hearts were in some measure prepared to be capable of receiving this doctrine." Later, he became, perhaps, the most powerful preacher of his day. He spoke with a force and earnestness which were hard to withstand. He was truly inspired, speaking in a remarkable manner to the condition of those who heard him. "To hear Fox preach once in the churchyard as he passed through the town, or to spend an evening with him by the fireside, often was enough to change a persecutor into an enthusiast, to emancipate a man from the intellectual habits and social customs of a lifetime.' "He had," said William Penn (Preface to Fox's Journal), "an extraordinary gift in opening the Scriptures. But above all he excelled in prayer. . .

1 Compare W. James "Varieties of Religious Experience," New York, 1902, pp. 7, 8.

2" Journal," p. 13; Sewel, p. 13; "First Publishers of Truth," London, 1904, pp. 47, 48.

8 G. M. Trevelyan, "England under the Stuarts," London, 1904, pp. 312, 313.

The most awful living frame I ever beheld, I must say, was his in prayer."

There seems little doubt that, as Sewel says, many if not most of the early converts of Fox were those who, like himself, were believers in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but, like him also, dissatisfied with the teachings and practices of the day, were longing for a higher and more spiritual life.' The meetings, which were at that time frequently held for discussion of points of doctrine, afforded Fox admirable opportunities for spreading his views. He speaks of a "meeting of priests and professors at a justice's house," "a great meeting at Leicester for a dispute wherein both Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Common-Prayer men were said to be all concerned." "This meeting was in a steeple-house," and as it is the first record of Fox entering one of those buildings to speak, it will be well to say a few words respecting the practice the early Friends had of entering places of worship, and, as is so often charged, of interrupting public worship. It is true that there are instances of Friends disturbing public worship, but the number of cases has been greatly exaggerated. It was usually after the "priest" had finished that the Friend

" 2

2" Journal," pp. 14, 15.

1 Trevelyan, as above, p. 313. The phrase "steeple-house" is not peculiar to Friends, nor did they originate it; it is found, for instance, in Edwards's "Gangræna," the third edition of which was published before Fox began to preach. And other cases might be cited. ("Gangræna," etc., Thomas Edwards, 3d ed., London, 1646, part ii.,

spoke, and then it was on account of the unpalatable doctrine, rather than for the interruption, that he suffered. The places of worship he entered were usually those belonging to the Independents, and this body allowed discussion after the sermon. Fox frequently speaks of waiting until the minister had finished, and once at least he was invited up into the pulpit. A striking instance occurred at Ulverstone, where Margaret Fell, who, when he was interrupted as he was speaking after the "priest," called out, "Why may not he speak as well as any other?"

Had it not been for his strong common sense, Fox might have gone through an experience somewhat similar to that of his adherent, James Nayler, or have become a second Ludowick Muggleton.

Though one of the most mystical of modern reformers, Fox was at the same time one of the

1" After all this is done [praying, preaching by the pastor, etc.] they [the Independents] have yet another exercise, wherein by way of conference, questioning, and disputation every one of the congregation may propound publicly and press their scruples, doubts, and objections against anything which that day they have heard." ("A Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time," etc., Robert Baylie, London, 1645, p. 30. This book also was published before George Fox began to preach.

2 « 'Journal," pp. 56, 57, 61, 78, 109; see also R. Barclay, "Inner Life," pp. 274–293., "First Publishers of Truth," London, 1904, p. 33; Bowden, vol. 1, pp. 73-81.

3 Nayler is often quoted as an example to prove the wild enthusiasm of the early Friends; even so careful a writer as H. Weingarten being deceived as to the true character of the Nayler episode. ("Die Revolutionskirchen Englands," Leipzig, 1868, p. 271.) Nayler's actions were disavowed by Friends at the time, and he recanted, confessed his error, and was restored. (Sewel, Pp. 147-155.) T. E. Harvey, "Rise of the Quakers," London, 1905, pp. 101-III.

most practical; all his spiritual teaching, from the very first, was accompanied not only by desires, but by efforts for the moral, political, and social welfare of his hearers; his Journal is full of practical suggestions. He "was the first who raised his voice against the evils of West Indian slavery. He claimed freedom of opinion in things pertaining to God. . . . He could not conceive of religion and morality apart." "Instead of the military spirit he proclaimed the wickedness of all war. Instead of the reliance on force, he enjoined martyrdom. Instead of the suppression of vice, the influence of example. In place of the religion of gloom and reprobation he opened the inner wellsprings of constant joy. In place of the hell waiting the sinner in the next world, he taught men to unfold the heaven that each carried hidden within himself on earth.” 2

No man was more absolutely truthful than he, no one could be more desirous to get at the very roots of things. It was this sincerity of character and purpose which led him to reject almost with scorn all language and manners which appeared to convey any impression other than the truth."

It does not seem to have been the intention at first to establish a new branch of the church. Fox and his early adherents felt that their message was

1 B. F. Westcott, "Social Aspects of Christianity," London, 1887, pp. 129, 130.

2 G. M. Trevelyan, "England under the Stuarts," London, 1904, p. 314; for Fox's views on "War" see "Journal," pp. 275, 630. 8" Journal," p. 24.

to the church at large, but their testimony against "steeple-houses " and " priests" necessarily caused them to meet by themselves for worship, and probably before he or they realized it meetings for worship were actually established. Fox, however, soon recognized this fact, and wherever opportunity offered set up meetings. He tells us "that the truth sprang up first (to us, as to be a people to the Lord) in Leicestershire in 1644." This probably refers to his own personal experience. He goes on to describe how the movement spread first to the neighboring counties, then, by 1654, over England, Scotland, and Ireland. 1655 many went beyond seas," and "in 1656 truth brake forth in America."1

"In

The number of his adherents rapidly increased, and they, like Fox, were filled with zeal to spread what was to them glad tidings to all people. The

1"Epistles," London, 1698, p. 2.

66

2 Fox's illiteracy has often been spoken of. If "illiteracy means erratic spelling, and small knowledge of books, Fox was certainly "illiterate." (See Friends Historical Journal, vol. 1, p. 6, 1903.) But it must be remembered that spelling in Fox's day was largely phonetic, (J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, in "New Lamps or Old," gives an instance where in a single entry of a Parish Kegister written, at the same time by the same man the same name in the same family is spelled three different ways.) On the other hand, if "illiterate " means ignorant," Fox's Journal, Epistles, Tracts, the unanimous testimony of those who knew him best, and the manner in which he discomfited his accusers amply disprove the charge. See Sewel, p. 25. The fact remains that he influenced and retained the esteem and affection of men like Robert Barclay, William Penn, Thomas Ellwood, and many others-highly educated men. (See Sewel, p. 25, and Penn's Fox's preface to 'Journal," Ellwood's "Autobiography,") While, as has been almost always the case in great religious revivals, his adherents were primarily drawn from the lower middle class, it was by no means exclusively so, and he was also joined

66