rss^:

;?«

¦1 fc.^nn ¦¦fulfil fc.Miii ¦ ..b-.- .>^^_  .  _ ^ ¦

ffiKBrfinJiltea^'HW'Taii**'*^^**^

^*IgCvetkefi BidkS:
1 fiiT^Piefcmfi^^<if_ji;-CtlJigtth:iMi: Colony'

Gift of im

A STUDY IN
DOCTRINE AND
DISCIPLINE Henry W. Wilbur

Philadelphia, Pa.
Friends' Book Association
1908

INTRODUCTION.

The object of the study upon ¦which we herein
enter, is not to discover or formulate fixed and
infallible doctrine to control thinking, and curb
the individual conscience. Our purpose is rather
to condense and codify, and possibly interpret,
certain beliefs which have been held by Friends
since the foundation of our Society, and particu
larly the doctrines held during the Society's form
ative period. In addition, to present such a view
of the discipline as will lead to wider and more
thorough understanding of our principles and tes
timonies, the manner of our worship, and the
method of conducting our business, on the part
of our membership.
In considering the doctrinal deliverances of Fox,
Barclay, Penn and their associates of the seven
teenth century, it is important that we keep cer
tain facts in mind. These highly favored and
undoubtedly inspired persons, were limited by the
general knowledge of their time, touching many
if not most of the matters which they treated.
They were not able to rise entirely above the cur
rent superstitions of the age in which they lived.
The findings of modern science, and the devel-
3

opment of the critical method touching both sa
cred and profane history, have modified many of
the contentions, and qualified all of the deliver
ances of the seventeenth century writers. If the
great Presbyterian Church were to attempt today
to formulate a declaration of the fundamental
faith of Calvinism, it is almost certain that the
statement would not be couched in the terms of
the Westminster Confession. If the Anglican
Church, either in its English or American
branches, should undertake to restate the grounds
of religious faith, it is not at all likely that the
language of the Thirty-nine Articles would be
employed. So today. Friends, in an attempt to
state the spiritual truths of their faith, must use
the seventeeth century material inherited from
the fathers, not so much as the last word of the
Society to the world, as a statement of general
fundamental truth, vital in its essentials, but sub
ject to varying interpretation and progressive
application to human conditions. This rational
view of even fundamental doctrine, will appear
more plainly as this study proceeds.

THE INNER LIGHT.

We presume that all classes of Friends will sub
stantially agree that the particularly distinguish
ing doctrine of the Society is its claim and con
ception regarding the Inner Light. Without this
doctrine, and possibly our peculiar theory of wor
ship and the ministry, the Society would have had
little reason for existence in the beginning, and
still less for continuance since. Going with this
doctrine, and an essential part of it, is the belief
in Immediate Revelation, elaborately set forth in
the second proposition of "Barclay's Apology."
No other affirmation that could be classified as
doctrine, caused early Friends to be more misun
derstood or involved them in more trouble with
Prelacy in England, and Puritanism in America,
than this. The first of the persecuting statutes
against Quakers passed in Massachusetts, denom
inated them "a cursed sect of hereticks," "who
take upon them to be immediately sent of God."
As a matter of right and necessity, we should
go for the initial consideration of this doctrine to
George Fox himself. While statements regarding
the Inner Light are much more clear as to where
the Light is to be found, than as to what it really
5

is, every reference regarding this doctrine is less
involved in mystery, and less cumbered by ob
scure verbiage, than other statements regarding
the beliefs of early Friends. There seems to have
been a common agreement among seventeenth
century Friends, that this Light is in all men. It
will be well to keep carefully in mind these two
little words, "in" and "all," for in them largely
rests the meaning which differentiates the
Friendly doctrine from the popular notions about
the nature and function of the Holy Spirit,
whether considered as the third person in the
trinity, or a mere manifestation or emanation of
the Divine Spirit.
At a great meeting of "professors and people"
at Mansfield in 1648, George Fox said, "I was
moved to go after them, and bid them mind the
Lord's teaching in their inward parts." At the
Vale of Bevor during the same year he declared,
"Now the Lord God opened to me by his invisible
power that every man was enlightened by the
divine light of Christ." About 1652, he was at
Firbank Chapel on a certain First-day. He tells
us that he preached about three hours, and direct
ed all to the spirit of God in themselves." At a
street meeting in Lancaster, he "directed them
to the Light of Christ, the heavenly man, and to
the Spirit of God in their own hearts. " In 1655
or 1656 George Fox was in the parish of Menher-
iot, in Cornwall, and had a meeting at the house
6

of a Friend. On this occasion he called them
"to the Spirit of God in themselves by which they
might know the Scriptures, and be led into all
truth ; and by the Spirit might know God, and in
it have unity one with another."
In 1663 George Fox was a prisoner in Lancaster
Castle. One of his companions in durance vile
was Major Wiggan, a Baptist preacher. It seems
that Wiggan challenged Friends to a debate, and
th'i details may be told in the language of the
Founder himself. He says:
"¦Whereupon I got leave of the gaoler to go up to them.
And entering into discourse ¦with him, he affirmed, 'That
some men never had the Spirit of God, and that the true
light which enlighteneth every one that cometh into the
v7orld, is natural. ' For proof of his assertion, he in
stanced Baalam, affirming, 'Baalam had not the Spirit of
God. ' I affirmed and proved, that Baalam had the Spirit
of God, and that ¦wicked men have the Spirit of God, else
how could they quench it, vex it, grieve it, and resist the
Holy Ghost, like the stiff-necked Jews? To his second
assertion I answered, that the true light, which enlighten
eth every man that cometh into the vyorld, was the life in
the world, and that was divine and eternal and not natural.
And he might as well say, the word was natural as that
the life in the word was natural. And wicked men were
enlightened by this light, else how could they hate it? It
IS expressly said they did hate it ; and the reason given
why, was, 'because their deeds were evil;' and they
would not come to it because it reproved them ; and that
must needs be in them which reproved them. Besides that
light could not be the Scriptures of the New Testament ;
for it was testified of before any part of the New Testa-
7

ment was written ; so it must be the Divine Light, which
is the life of Christ, the Word, before the Scriptures
were. ' '
We here find George Fox doing what was com
mon in his time, making arbitrary distinctions
between what was considered divine and what
was considered natural. Yet there is nothing in
the early conception of the Inner Light which
does not harmonize with modern thought regard
ing the solidarity of the universe, and the divine
order of its government. One Lord and one law
mark the development and destiny of things ma
terial and things spiritual. It may be now asserted
that the divine light in the soul of man is as natural
as the blood that courses in his veins, or the vital
ity that pulses in his nervous system. May we
not conclude that Quakerism, interpreted by the
internal witness in the twentieth century, consid
ers that the normal man is he who feels the Di
vine Light and seeks to follow it, while the abnor
mal man is he who hates the light, and seeks the
cover of darkness to do deeds that are evil?
TESTIMONY OP PENN AND BARCLAY.
There is a passage in William Penn's "Reply to
an Unknown Author," which rationally and
clearly deals with this matter of naturalism. The
"unknown" charges that the Inner Light of
Friends is simply a natural manifestation. Penn
replies as follows: "Yet, if by natural may be
meant, that every man that is born into the world
8

has a portion of this Light, or illuminating prin
ciple, to direct him in the way to blessedness,
I should not very much quarrel at the word; it
being, in fact, natural to all men to have it;
because all men that are born (from which the
word nature springs) as certainly have it, as that
they are born into the world."
This assertion simply acknowledges that Divin
ity is resident and universally operative; the
author of all things internal and external, visible
and invisible.
It is the affirmation of the universality of the
Light, and that it is in men, not outside of them,
that gives the doctrine its distinctive quality.
This was well, if quaintly stated, by Isaac Pen-
ington, in these words: "In what sorts of earth
is the heavenly seed found? In all sorts; in
thorny ground, stony ground, highway ground,
and good ground. God's inward lightenings en
lighten the inward world throughout, so that God
hath not left any man without a witness in his
conscience against sin."
Early Friends were not a little troubled by the
charge of infallibility which this doctrine brought
them, and later Friends have not always made it
clear that infallibility is not consistent with
limited and finite insight. Penn's "unknown
author" or critic made what might seem this
troublesome query: "Why did not all men know
the light, if they had it?" Penn made this crisp
9

rejoinder, which cannot well be improved: "All
have reason, but all are not reasonable, all do not
see it. So all have the light, but all do not obey
it. It is not the light's insufficiency, but man's
disobedience, that renders him incapable of the
knowledge of divine truth."
Touching the matter of infallibility, Penn makes
this further statement, speaking of men gener
ally: "They are perfect only as they completely
follow the light, and no farther. For it is not
opinion, or speculation, or notions of what is true,
or assent to, or the subscription of articles or
propositions, though never so soundly worded,
that according to their sense, make a man a true
believer, or a true Christian, but it is conformity
of mind and practice to the will of God."
"Barclay's Apology" is a severely theological
and philosophical treatment of what he consid
ered Quaker doctrine, although the disposition to
consider this book an absolute authority is un
doubtedly decreasing. But Barclay makes the
basis of the revelation internal and not external.
He declares in his Second Proposition, that "the
testimony of the Spirit is that alone by which the
true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be
only revealed. " He claimed, however, that the
inward revelation could not "contradict the out
ward revelation of the Scriptures, or right and
sound reason." It is further declared by Barclay:
"Yet from hence it will not follow, that these
10

divine revelations are to be subject to Tthe test,
either of the outward testimony of the Scriptures,
or of the natural reason of man." Penn more
clearly and vigorously stated the independent
character of the inward revelation when he de
clared that the Scriptures "cannot savingly reveal
Christ to a soul ; neither can they give us the soul
and substance of those things that are hereby de
clared. They are an exact map or picture of
things, but not the things themselves." In his
estimation, "it is the office of the divine light
within man, or light within, or witness of God,"
to work an apprehension and acceptance of spirit
ual truth.
The inference from all this is, that instead of
man measuring his conception of truth by the
authority of the Scriptures, he must test the
truth, and also the Scriptures, by the divine wit
ness in his own soul. In other words, truth can
only be apprehended by the spirit of truth, and
revelation is only understood by the spirit which
brings forth revelation.
It is easy to see how this doctrine became a
"hard saying," to the generation which conceived
that the spirit of revelation ceased with the wri
ters who gave us the last book of the New Testa
ment canon. It is not so easy for the traditional
Friend, who likes to lean on the authority of the
"first spreaders of truth," in the seventeenth
century, to see that the logic of the doctrine of
11

immediate revelation has projected itself into the
twentieth century, and will be a live issue while
human life and human thinking continue in the
world. If the revelation of Scripture must pass
in review before the searching eye of the Divine
Spirit in man, then the deliverances of the found
ers of our Society, and the whole collection of
"ancient" Friends, must be brought face to face
with the spirit of truth in the souls of men to-day.
Immediate revelation is not simply a doctrine for
favored men and women, and for particular times
and climes, but a law of the human spirit for all
men and all time. The temptation is to consider
the inward revealings as fixed and final. But
we shall have occasion further on to deal with
inspiration as a progressive rather than a plenary
matter. THE DOCTRINE'S ANCIENT ORIGIN.
There was no claim to originality made by the
early Friends touching the theory of the Inner
Light. George Fox believed that he was dealing
with a distinct doctrine of primitive Christianity.
Barclay made numerous citations from such
worthies as Augustine, Clement, Tertullian, and
even Athanasius and Gregory the Great, to prove
that they, at least, believed in immediate revela
tion. In his Third Proposition, Barclay says, "So
we distinguish betwixt a revelation of a new gos
pel, and new doctrines, and a new revelation of
the good old gospel and doctrines; the last we plead
12

for, but the first we utterly deny." It may well
be admitted that there are many old truths that
need to be re-stated if not re-discovered, but to
infer that there are not laws, even for the ma
terial universe, to say nothing about the spiritual
world, which may yet be revealed to men, is to
unduly magnify the little that we know, against
the infinite extent of what we do not know. To
still more arbitrarily assume that there is not a
world of truth beyond anything that we can now
think or dream, in store for men, is to limit the
divine purpose toward the universe.
Barclay took a wide range in considering the
universality and extent of the existence and oper
ation of the Divine Light. He even insists that
the "heathen" of the ancient world were par
takers of this bounty, and asserts that "they had
knowledge and discovery of Jesus Christ inwardly,
as a remedy in them, to deliver them from the
evil seed, and the evil inclinations in their own
hearts." Seneca said, "There is a Holy Spirit in
us, that treateth us as we treat hira." Cicero
called it an "innate light," and Clement of Alex
andria declared that "The Divine Power hath
filled the universe with the seed of salvation."
Barclay says, "Hence Justin Martyr stuck not to
call Socrates a Christian, saying, that 'all such as
lived according to the divine word in them, which
was in all men, were Christians, such as Socrates
and Heraclitus, and others among the Greeks.' "
13

We are told of a book translated from the Arabic,
which gives an account of one Hai Eben Yokdan,
a lonely dweller on a desert island. From this
book Barclay quotes: "That the best and most
certain knowledge of God is not that which is
attained by premises premised, and conclusions
deduced ; but that which is enjoyed by conjunc
tion of the mind of man with the supreme intel
lect, after the mind is purified from its corrup
tions, and is separated from all bodily images, and
is gathered into a profound stillness." This leads
Barclay to affirm with great positiveness, that the
Divine Indwelling, "is that universal evangelical
principle, in and by which salvation is exhibited
to all men, both Jew and Gentile, Scythian and
Barbarian, of whatsoever kindred or country he
may be." To know "Christ in them," is, from
Barclay's standpoint, the supreme knowledge for
all men. HISTORIC PERSON OR INNER PRINCIPLE.
This brings us logically to consider whether or
not the early Friends distinguished between the
person of Jesus and the Spirit of Christ. It has
to be admitted that the theological language of
the seventeenth century did not leave nice dis
tinctions regarding this matter always clear, and
the terms we now use do not so very much better
present the claims of an internal, spiritual saving
principle, as distinct from popular ideas about
vicarious salvation, based upon the death of Jesus.
14

We are forced in this connection to admit that the
proneness of men to higgle about words and defi
nitions, has caused most of the trouble, the mis
understandings, and the petty divisions, to say
nothing about the painful persecutions that have
taken place in the history of the world, in the
name of religion.
Barclay makes an effort to sustain a distinct
affirmation that the Light was not identical with
the person of Christ. He says, the words, "Walk
while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon
you," "could not be understood as Christ's per
son." The new spiritual birth, Barclay declares,
"cometh not by the outward preaching of the
gospel, or knowledge of Christ, or historical faith
in him." In his estimation it is possible for men
to have wide knowledge of the historic Christ,
without the Spirit of Christ possessing the heart
and ruling the purpose.
William Penn in his "Reply to a Nameless
Author," says, "I distinguish between an histor
ical and a spiritual discovery of Jesus of Naza
reth." Again, "If by Jesus of Nazareth he only
means what he took of the Virgin Mary, and will
not consider him as the Eternal Word, but as
man, like to us in all things, sin excepted, he is
not the light within that we declare of and wor
ship." George Fox himself made the freest possible
use of all the terms applied to Jesus, using them
16

in that semi-mystical sense, which, while not
always definite, leaves little warrant for believing
that he went no deeper into the spiritual verities
than belonged to the popular conception of Jesus.
LATER TESTIMONY OF THE LIGHT.
Job Scott was born at Providence, Rhode Island,
Tenth month 18, 1751, and died on the 22nd of
Eleventh month, 1793, at Balleton, Ireland. He
was not a birthright member of the Society, but
joined by convincement about 1770, and began
speaking in meeting in 1774. He taught a
Friends' school the larger part of his adult life,
and was evidently a more than ordinarily intelli
gent exponent of what he considered Friendly
doctrine. Coming midway between the primitive
and modern period in the history of the Society,
what he said is of a more than ordinarily represen
tative character. His ministry was performed
before the period of intolerant unsettlement came
to the Society, so that his soundness or unsound
ness cannot be a matter of dispute. His Journal
abounds in what would even now be considered
trite and strong sayings in dealing with the mat
ters that impressed him. That he exalted the
office of the Inner Spirit is abundantly evidenced
in all his writings, yet his language is quite un
like that employed by other representative Friends,
either of his own or an earlier period. We make
a few extracts as samples of the sentiments he
held, and of the literary style employed in ex-
16

pressing them. He says, "Thou may est think
Christ can do something for thee, without the
Spirit. If thou dost think so, thou hast not yet
learned the A, B, C, of religion." "Some may
be surprised and query, "Were the heathen under
the new covenant?' I answer, that so far as the
law was written in the heart, and conformed
unto, among the heathen, Jews, Mohametans,
Negroes, Indians, or any other race of men what
ever, they were so far under the new covenant."
Again, he says. "Men were ever prone to idolatry
— speculative faith, speculative salvation, and an
outside knowledge and opinion respecting Christ,
now pass current for gospel faith and salvation.
The only real salvation of souls, was always the
spirit of man united to God, the fountain of
divine life." The necessity of internal spiritual
communion and experience is strongly set forth
in this quotation: "The death of Christ is nothing
at all to thee, savingly, further than thou hast the
living, saving efficacy of it sealed to thee. . . .
Thou mayest imagine and dream a thousand
things about faith, regeneration, and imputation;
but unless the Holy Spirit change, and give thee
to feel and know salvation, in and for thy own
soul, thou would be just as much benefited by
imagining that Joseph of Arimathea, or any other
person had purchased thy salvation, and by impu
tation of what he had done, God would at some
future time save thee." We close the extracts
17

from this eighteenth century preacher, as follows:
"The gospel is no upstart thing of only about
eighteen hundred years standing." "The Chris
tian religion did not then first commence when
Christ first appeared in that prepared body that
was born of the virgin Mary. . . . The union
of God and man in the one spirit, has ever been,
and ever will be, the alone, full rest and complete
satisfaction and enjoyment of souls."
LATER TESTIMONY OF THB LIGHT.
Elias Hicks and Job Scott were cotemporaries,
except that the former lived to be eighty-two,
and the latter died at forty-two; the one having
been born in 1743 and the other in 1751. A study
of doctrine could hardly be comprehensive, which
did not include a consideration of the views of
Elias Hicks, touching the vital doctrines and tes
timonies of the Society, not to say religious doc
trine in general. What he thought and said about
the Inner Light, is of special interest and import
ance in connection with the deliverances of the
early Friends on the same subject.
In a sermon preached in the North Meeting
House, Philadelphia, Eleventh month 16th, 1824,
we find the following: "There is no outward
comforter, no outward teacher, that can do the
work for us in any way, or give us a knowledge
of what the will of the father is ; for nothing else
can do it but the divine teacher within, the light
18

and spirit of God." In the Trenton Meeting
House, Twelfth month 12th, 1824, Elias Hicks
among other things said: "A saving belief in
God, is based on internal evidence. Therefore
everyone of us has the same light and life, accord
ing to his necessity, as Jesus Christ had according
to his proportion. And there is nothing that ever
saved any one under heaven, but the light; and
this is God in the soul, revealing himself by his
own nature and essence." In Hester Street
Meeting House, New York, Fifth month 22nd,
1825, his reported sermons make him say: "Well,
then, we see that every rational, obedient soul
under heaven, is a son of God, But nothing else
can answer to make them so, but being led by the
spirit of God." In Wilmington, Delaware,
Eleventh month 19th, 1826, he gave utterance to
these words: "Moses, the prophets, Jesus Christ,
and all of his apostles and faithful disciples,
never did and never could go any farther than to
recommend to the light within, the spirit, of God,
which Jesus said should teach them all things,
and bring all things to their remembrance, what
soever he had said unto them, or all that was nec
essary for them to know."
It by no means follows that all or any Friends
in any branch of the Society, unqualifiedly endorse
the utterances made by Elias Hicks on this or
other subjects which he treated. Still, it would
seem that there is substantial unity of thought on
19

the part of all of the Friends quoted in dealing
with the fundamental doctrine of the Society.
This leads us to remark, that the differences which
have diverted and divided the Society did. not
hinge on this primary doctrine, nor upon any
interpretation of it, but arose over doctrines re
garding which there had been wide diversity of
opinion, and often real indifference, from the first
appearance of Friends in the seventeenth century
down to date. INNER LIGHT OR HOLY SPIRIT.
The question is not infrequently asked, "What
is the difference between the Friendly theory of
the Inner Light, or Christ within, or the Spirit,
and the evangelical doctrine of the Holy Ghost,
the third person in the trinity?" The main
sources of information touching the Holy Ghost,
are to be found in the existing, if not the accepted
creeds of Christendom. The Nicene, the Athana-
sian, and the Apostles' Creed, furnish the frame
work for that dogma, which human ingenuity has
elaborated into a voluminous doctrinal literature,
seldom read or studied, except by theologians,
and students of religious history.
It is hardly possible to consider the office and
function of the Holy Ghost, without examining
the doctrine of the trinity. The Athanasian
Creed declares: "And the Catholic faith is this:
That we worship one God in trinity, and trinity
20

in unity. Neither confounding the persons, nor
dividing the substance. For there is one person
of the Father, another of the Son, and another of
the Holy Ghost." The first of the Thirty-nine
Articles of Religion of the Church of England,
and the Protestant Episcopal Church in America,
makes this affirmation: "And in unity of the God
head, there be three persons of one substance,
power and eternity, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost." Touching the third person in the
trinity, the fifth of the Articles of Religion says:
"The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father
and the Son, is of one substance, majesty and
glory with the Father and the Son, very and
eternal God." The articles from which these
quotations were made were formulated and adopt
ed by a convocation which met in London in 1562,
What is commonly called the Westminster Confes
sion, the creed of the Presbyterian Church, was
the work of the Westminster Assembly, more or
less continuously in session from 1643 to 1649; a
time contemporary with the most fruitful period of
the ministry of George Fox. In regard to the
trinity the Westminster Confession says: "In the
Unity of the Godhead there be three persons of
one substance, power and eternity; God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
The Father is of none, neither begotten not proceed
ing; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;
the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the
Father and the Son." 21

These extracts may not be very clear in their
meaning, and the literature elaborating these
doctrines is not of the most enlightening sort, yet
out of it, it is possible to get enough definite in
formation to show that between the theory of the
Holy Ghost and the doctrine of the Inner Light
or the Spirit of God in the soul of man, there is a
wide distinction which amounts to a very great
difference, A few sentences from Philip Schaff's
voluminous "History of the Christian Church,"
will help to intensify and make plain this differ
ence. The evangelical position regarding the
Holy Ghost largely rests on the theory of the
"procession;" this theory being one of the things
which divided the Greek and Roman churches.
The Greek Church held the Holy Ghost proceeded
from the Father alone, while the Church of Rome,
with equal tenacity and pertinacity, affirmed that
the "procession" was from both the Father and
the Son, It will be seen that evangelical Protes
tantism took over the Roman rather than the
Greek theory.
As to how the Spirit proceeds, and what he
does, we quote from Schaff. "The Spirit proceeds
when he is sent on his divine mission to glorify
the Son, and to apply the redemption to man."
Again quoting from Schaff: "The temporal mis
sion of the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the
Son, beginning with the day of Pentecost, and
continuing ever since," Schaff further says;
22

"The Saviour speaks of the office and work of the
Spirit rather than his being and essence. Never
theless, there is a difference which must not be
overlooked. In the procession the Spirit is ac
tive; in the mission he is passive," This is an
admission that the needs of theology are such,
that a step beyond the statement of Jesus has to
be taken, to sustain the doctrine under discussion.
It will not be hard for the reader to gather from
the foregoing testimony, that the Holy Ghost of
the creeds is a person; that he exists outside the
individual soul ; that he may or may not come into
the soul to perform a mystical office, in accord
ance with his relation and function as the third
person in the trinity, and as part of the elaborate
plan of salvation, beginning with the dogma
touching the fall of man, and passing on to the
vicarious sacrifice in the death of the historic
Jesus on the cross outside of the gates of Jerusa
lem. A reference to the utterances of the early and
later Friends, from Fox, Barclay and Penn, to the
later deliverances of Scott and Hicks, will
show that the Spirit to which they referred, is
an internal, vitalizing, saving principle, which
does not have to be brought in from the outside;
that however it may be defined, and in what
terms it may be described, it is the saving Spirit
which was in the world before Jesus was born,
and has appeared unto all men. The Friend is not
23

tempted to unravel the mystery of the trinity, to
understand how distinct substance and personality
may be one personality. There is nothing in the
Friendly theory of the Light Within, inconsistent
with holding any of the varying beliefs about the
nature of Jesus, or the divinity of Christ, and
hence the spiritual unity about which Friends
talk, and which they to a certain degree experi
ence, consists in each individual acknowledging
and relying upon his apprehension of the Indwell
ing Spirit, and carries with it no requirement as
to uniformity of doctrine or conformity to creed.
One might believe in the trinity in its extremest
sense, and still be in touch with the Friendly fun
damental, although it may be said more or less
advisedly, that it is doubtful if any consider
able number of Friends during the first hundred
and fifty years of the history of the Society,
believed in the personal and mathematical trinity.
AS TO PERSONS AND SUBSTANCE.
In the famous Chancery trial in New Jersey,
between the two branches of the Society, follow
ing the misnamed "separation," as recorded in
"Foster's Reports,"* we find a considerable state
ment of doctrine, Thomas Evans was an impor
tant witness for the so-called Orthodox party, and
underwent a searching examination and cross-
examination touching doctrine in general and
?Foster's Reports, Vol. 1, page 292.
24

that of the trinity in particular. The questions
asked had to do with the existence of "distinct
persons" in the Godhead, and the question pro
pounded to Thomas Evans was finally answered
by him in this manner; "I have already stated
that the Society of Friends do not believe that
there are distinct and separate persons in the
Godhead." He had previously said: "We have
always denied that the Deity consisted of distinct
and separate persons; and while we have believed
that there were three, have as uniformly main
tained that those three are one." This is simply a
statement of an impersonal trinity, and involves
an apprehension of manifestation rather than
substance. The language of Thomas Evans undoubtedly
conforms to that generally used by seventeenth
century Friends, when referring to the trinity at
all. It was not an unusual thing for them to refer
to "the three that bear witness in heaven," but
their conception of the trinity was always in the
mystical and not the mathematical sense, although
it need by no means be inferred that there is no
mystery about the mathematical trinity. It should
also be remembered that it was much more com
mon to use severely theological terms two hun
dred and fifty years ago than it is now. William
Penn, who wrote "The Sandy Foundations
Shaken," in 1663, which was an ingenious and
elaborate refutation of the commonly accepted
25

doctrine of the trinity, later in his life referred to
the mystical trinity in words of apparent approval.
In "The Key," written in 1692, in speaking of
the charge of Unitarianism made against Friends,
he said: "But they are very tender of quitting
scripture terms and phrases for schoolmen's, such
as 'distinct and separate substances,' from which
people are apt to entertain gross ideas and notions
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." It was evi
dently his desire to avoid such a reference to these
matters as would leave room for considering a
material body and parts in the conception of the
Infinite, This led to the charge often made
against the early Friends that they were opposed
to the trinity. This fact places Friends in our
day who are similarly accused in very good com
pany. It seems practically conclusive that if there was
ever any thing like a trinitarian controversy really
inside the Society of Friends, it was not during
the first century of its existence; and that is not
saying that Friends in those days thought exactly
alike regarding this doctrine. What controversy
of moment hinged on this subject did not
receive its principal intensification from the
preaching of Elias Hicks, but rather from the
position held by Joseph John Gurney, This force
ful English Friend evidently entertained notions
regarding the trinity in substantial accord with
the articles of Episcopacy and the confession of
26

Presbyterianism, At various points in his "Es
says," he took pains to affirm the "personality of
the Holy Spirit," His acceptance of the "proces
sional" theory, heretofore referred to, was identi
cal with that of the creeds, as the following will
show, "The Father is the first; the Son is the
second; the Holy Spirit is the third. The Son is
subordinate to the Father, because he is of the
Father— the only begotten son of God. The Holy
Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son,
because he is the Father's and the Son's, The
Father sends the Son. The Father and the Son
send the Holy Spirit." *
Many Friends of different shades of thought
both in England and this country, would un
doubtedly have much unity in this rather mystical
statement made by Whittier: "God is One; just,
holy, merciful, eternal and almighty Creator,
Father of all things. Christ the same eternal
One, manifested in our humanity and in Time;
and the Holy Spirit, the same Christ, manifested
within us, the Divine Teacher, the Living Word,
the Light that lighteth every man that cometh
into the world,"
This is in line with the utterances of Penn and
Evans already quoted. In the main it appears
that Friends have always preferred to think of
the trinity, when it vitally concerned them at all,
as standing for different manifestations of the
*Gurney's Essays, pages 112, 113.
27

Divine Spirit, rather than a combination of dis
tinct persons in one being.
It is true that in his letter to the Governor of
Barbadoes, George Fox apparently used pro
nounced trinitarian terms, in a way that amounted
to a paraphrase of the Apostles Creed, if not an
endorsement of it. Yet it is hardly thinkable,
and surely not warranted, to suppose that Fox
considered this letter in any sense a creed, speci
fying what Friends must or should believe. This
view is held by Rufus M. Jones, who says: "The
letter took the form of a declaration of faith, and
is often referred to as an authoritative statement
of the belief of Friends. It was, however, not
written for that purpose, and is not by any means
a full statement of their belief. It does not even
mention the principle which held the leading
place in Fox's teaching and preaching."*
There should never have been any bitter contro
versy inside the Society of Friends over the
trinity, or any of the other speculative doctrines
of the Christian sects. These matters were not.
made a test of fellowship in the formative and
forceful period of the Society, and are not any
where essentials of real spiritual unity.
The fundamental Friendly doctrine of the pres
ence of the Spirit of God in all men, and the con-
*George Pox; An Autobiography, vol. 2, note on page
492. 28

sequent conception of a resident, rather than a
non-resident divinity in the universe, with all of
the large hopeful views of life and destiny which
go with this conception, is having wide confirma
tion in our time. The reverent apostles and ex
ponents of tliat type of modern science which
does not indulge in materialistic dogmatism, and
who are furnishing a more rational basis for reli
gious faith, are simply restating and adapting the
principles set forth by Fox, Penn, Barclay, and
their associates. Sir Oliver Lodge, in his little
book, "The Substance of Faith," sums up the find
ings of the real student in the domain of both
nature and religion, in these words: "The Chris
tian God is revealed as the incarnate spirit of hu
manity; or, rather, the incarnate spirit is recog
nized as a real intrinsic part of God, 'The king
dom of heaven is within you,' " These words,
having in them the ring of genuine Friendly
truth, may well close our study of the doctrine of
the Inner Light,

29

CONCERNING THE MINISTRY.
The Friendly theory of the ministry and wor
ship logically grew out of the fundamental doc
trine of the Society, which we have been specific
ally considering up to this point. It was impos
sible to graft the doctrine of the Inner Light on
to the organic stock of any branch of the seven
teenth century church. Because of this fact what
was known as the "good order of Society," began
its course of development, resulting in the pecu
liar form of worship and the unique type of min
istry characteristic of the Society,
The primary theory of the ministry was that
spiritual truth could only be made manifest to the
soul of man by the revealing and quickening of
the Spirit of Truth in him. In the somewhat
elaborate exhortation "To Friends in the Minis
try," issued by George Fox in 1654, very little
detailed advice is given. He exhorts them to
receive their power from the Father. "All
Friends that speak in public, see that it is in the
life of God," he says. There is some good advice
about "waiting to receive the power," Reliance
upon the Light was a repeated exhortation. The
reason for this was obvious, and was expressed
by Fox in one of the clearest sentences to be
found in his entire writings. He says: "With
this light you come to reach the light in every
30

man, which Christ enlighteneth every man that
cometh into the world withal ; and here the things
of Christ come to be known." More simply
stated, the inspired best in the speaker is always
able to reach the best in the listener. This is a
concise and helpful course in homiletics for all
persons who speak the truth to men.
The Tenth Proposition of Barclay deals with
the ministry. The following question and answer
sums up his whole argument: "What maketh and
how cometh a man to be a minister, pastor or
teacher in the Church of Christ? We answer, by
the inward power and virtue of the Spirit of
God," It is held in the Tenth Proposition, and
confirmed by the authority of Luther, that for any
class of men to assume an authoritative and arbi
trary ministerial function, was a form of wicked
ness. On the contrary, every good Christian
(woman as well as man) is a preacher. It is
affirmed that there is no distinction of laity and
clergy in the Scriptures. While all are preachers
who are endowed with the gift, there may be
differences of power and efficiency in the service.
There seems to have been a well-defined deter
mination on the part of early Friends to avoid the
creation of any thing that would savor of a priest
ly class, CONCERNING THE MINISTRY.
Two motives seem to have influenced the
Friendly position regarding the ministry, in addi-
31

tion to its claimed spiritual qualification. One
was the feeling against creating a professional
class, and the other the revolt against pay for
ministerial service. The first position grew
naturally out of the theory of spiritual leading
which was the minister's essential qualification.
Objection to the monetary consideration was
partly a matter of principle, and partly a matter
of polity. If the primary qualification was volun
tary and spiritual, intellectual ability and training
were at the best only incidents of the gift. The
gift itself cost nothing, and called for no mone
tary reward. Spiritual insight being freely re
ceived, it should be freely exercised.
In the seventeenth century the clerical scramble
for "holdings" in the English Established Church
had become repulsive if not scandalous to a cer
tain type of Christian conscience. To avoid the
possibility of creating a separate priestly class,
and that the minister might not be bound even
indirectly, by obligations to those to whom he
ministered, seem to have been the operating
causes which developed the Quaker theory of a
"free gospel ministry," It would appear, how
ever, that those who consider the word "free" as
referring to the absence of pay, have grasped
only a part of the real Friendly theory. In fact,
there are reasons for believing that the chief
objection of George Fox to a professional ministry
was not the monetary consideration. During his
32

American visit, when he was about closing his
labors in Rhode Island, he says: "John Burneyate
and John Cartwright, being come out of New
England into Rhode Island before I was gone, I
laid this place (Shelter Island) before them, and
they felt drawings thither, and went to visit
them. " At another place, I heard some of the
magistrates said among themselves, 'If they had
money enough, they would hire me to be their
minister.'*- This was where they did notwell un
derstand us and our principles ; but when I heard
of it, I said, 'It was time for me to be gone; for
if their eye was so much to me, or any of us, they
would not come to their own teacher. ' For this
thing (hiring ministers) had spoiled many, by
hindering them from improving their own talents;
whereas our labor is, to bring every one to their
own teacher in themselves. 'V There are several
important points in this mosr suggestive extract.
It will be noted that Fox says nothing in condem
nation of the proposal to "hire" him, so far as the
pay part of it was concerned. His keen insight
went deeper than that. Hiring a minister had its
principal danger in that it tempted people to de
pend on him; to let him do all of the public ser
vice, while they neglected their own spiritual
obligations and forgot that their real teacher was
the spirit in them, and not the minister set over
them. His gentle hint that a talent in the minis
try may be improved by exercise, is as rational as
33

it is true. The history of our Society, however,
has demonstrated very clearly that depending on
the minister to make a meeting, is not an evil
entirely confined to cases where the ministry is
paid and professional. Not a few of our meetings
have been pauperized as to a vocal ministry, be
cause the members leaned too heavily on the
preacher, instead of ' improving their own talents. ' '
It is interesting and suggestive to note what
George Fox says regarding John Burneyate and
John Cartwright. He helped them develop a con
cern to visit the Friends on Shelter Island. Feel
ing that these ministers could help the islanders,
he was not above suggesting the need, and the
way to meet it. This illustration of the fact that
the call for service may come indirectly as well as
directly, by inspired suggestion as well as by
individual call; that in fact, it may originate in a
meeting desiring to be served, as well as in a
minister desiring to serve, is a Friendly moving
which deserves recognition and sympathy in our
time, CHARACTER OP INSPIRATION.
A tendency gradually crept into the Society to
localize inspiration, the acknowledged original
basis for the ministry. This led to the feeling
that inspiration was arbitrarily poured into the
recipient from the outside, and that it was con
fined to the time and place where the ministry
was immediately performed. In short, that the
34

inspiration of the preacher was plenary, which
resulted in an assumption of approximate if not
actual infallibility and authority made on behalf
of the minister, and sometimes inferred by him.
This conception was not in entire accord with the
spirit of the Quaker theory.
The office of the quickening spirit is to inten
sify the message, and give it carrying power; to
put fervor and freshness into dry words; to clarify
and sanctify the gifts and endowments of the
individual, and the acquired wisdom which he
may possess. It does not seem to be the function
of inspiration to furnish words or phrases, or to
take the place of that equipment for service which
under the divine plan, has to do with the educa
tion of the faculties, and the schooling of all the
powers with which men and women find them
selves endowed. These are matters which the
individual must do for himself, as surely as he
must feed and clothe his body.
Real inspiration may come anywhere, and at
any time; it may keep from the hour of its first
inception, until the time for it to perform its office
work has fully come. It is an error, bordering on
superstition, to assume that the inspiration which
comes between meetings, if kept for the meeting
when it comes, is a type of preparation too un
friendly to be tolerated. There may be as much
reason and necessity for trying inspiration, as for
trying the spirits to find out whether they are of God,
35

Individual inspiration may not be for every
individual that hears it, neither is it the last
word of the Spirit to men. Others will receive
further light, while the continued inspiration will
come short of a full deliverance of eternal truth.
All will be more fully benefited and blessed,
when all in sincerity and with sympathy for
human need, give the message which comes to
them, which is simply their contribution to the life
of a meeting in which all are in some way minis
ters.

36

CONCERNING WORSHIP.

The Friendly theory of worship is entirely in
harmony with the fundamental conception of the
divine relationship, and the call and qualification
for the ministry. Its basis is communion with
the infinite Spirit, and its initial movement always
individual. From the standpoint of the Friend,
listening to preaching, to the singing of hymns,
or to vocal and formal prayer, does not constitute
worship. Any or all of these exercises may be
incidents of worship, but they are not the thing
itself. The whole matter is thus summed up by George
Fox in a paper issued in 1661; "Christ's worship
is free in the Spirit to all men, and such as wor
ship in the Spirit and the truth are those that
God seeks to worship him; for he is the God of
truth, and is a Spirit, and the God of the spirits
of all flesh. He hath given to all nations of men
and women breath and life, to live, move and
have their being in him, and hath put into them
an immortal soul. So all nations of men and
women are to be temples for him to dwell in ; and
they that defile his temple will he destroy." In
37

regard to public worship, he insisted that meet
ings "should be held in the power of God," and
that they "should be set up in wisdom."
Barclay, in his Eleventh Proposition, lays do'wn
the following theory of worship: "All true and
acceptable worship of God is offered in the inward
and immediate moving and drawing of his own
Spirit, which is neither limited to places, times or
persons. For though we are to worship him
always, and continually fear before him, yet as to
the outward signification thereof, in prayers,
praises, or preachings, we ought not to do it in
our own will ; but when and where we are moved
thereunto by the stirring and secret inspiration of
the Spirit of God in our hearts."
It is evident that the early Friends believed that
they were restoring the simple form of public
worship which obtained in the apostolic church.
The Friendly theory, therefore, neither forces
nor forbids forms of expression in meetings for
worship. The worship itself is personal and in
ternal; an attitude of the human spirit towards
the Divine Spirit; resulting in an atmosphere
emanating from the life, that makes for spiritual
strength and unity.
Barclay discourses at considerable length upon
the theory of silence, but in no sense claiming
that silence is in itself a virtue. Rather it is a
means to an end ; the end being conscious internal
communion with the Spirit of God. It was a
38

preparation for the divine illumination, and what
ever expression in the shape of the spoken word
might come. Out of this theory and practice of
silence have grown certain notions regarding men
tal emptiness, which are no real part of the fun
damental Friendly conception. To stop thinking
is an impossibility; but to so direct and govern
thinking, that the soul may be at one with the
Divine, is possible, and is the central purpose of
silence, whether in. the meeting for worship, or
the larger daily experience of life. There are
few cases on record of our meetings in the early
days being entirely silent. There were periods of
silence so prolonged, as would, in our time be
wearisome, and these were often followed by a
period of preaching so extended, as would now be
more tiresome than the silence. The thing for us
to consider to-day is not an imitation of detailed
methods as to time or manner of silence or ser
monizing, but a live, present-day adaptation of
the Friendly spirit of worship.
The records do not enable us to state definitely
how much singing the early Friends had in their
assemblies, but that it was not infrequent, is
quite certain. Barclay treats the matter quite
fully, and rather rationally. He says: "As to the
singing of psalms there will not be need of any
long discourse; for that the case is just the same
as in the two former of preaching and prayer.
We confess this to be a part of God's worship, and
39

very sweet and refreshing, when it proceeds from
a true sense of God's love in the heart, and arises
from the divine influence of the Spirit, which
leads souls to breathe forth either a sweet har
mony, or words suitable to present condition."
This statement probably represents the positive
testimony of early Friends regarding singing. It
was accompanied by much vigorous condemnation
of formal singing, and machine-made music of all
sorts. George Fox tells us that on a certain occa
sion, when he and John Lancaster were under
arrest, the latter "was moved to sing with ii melo
dious sound in the power of God," while Fox on
the same occasion was moved to preach, the one
exercise being considered as much inspired as the
other. John Wilhelm Rowntree, in his "Essays
and Addresses" (page 98) tells us, that "a min
ute of 1665 in the manuscript Book of Discipline
bids Friends not to quench or discourage 'Rever
ent singing, breathing forth an Heavenly sound of
Joy with Grace, with the Spirit and with the Un-
dertsanding.' " In view of all this, there does
not appear to be any well-founded reason for the
sweeping hostility to all music, which finally
characterized the Society.

40

THE DISCIPLINE.

One of the first attempts at making anything
that looked like a discipline for the Society, or
any part of it, consisted of the rules formulated
by Edward Burrough for the government of the
gatherings of Friends in London. This was in
1662. A few years later, about 1668, George Fox
prepared the nineteen articles, erroneously called
"Canons and Institutes." There is practically no
doctrine in any of the articles, the matters treated
relating almost entirely to individual conduct, and
the government of the Society's activities. The
evolution of the Discipline of the London Yearly
Meeting began its slow growth about this time.
The minutes and epistles approved by the meet
ings in annual session, formed the nucleus from
which was developed the two volume edition used
by our English Friends, and published in 1906.
In this way the discipline began to take on the
deliverances which were more or less doctrinal,
and became the model for similar writings among
the Yearly Meetings, as they were established in
America. From 1672 until 1782, the London Discipline
existed in manuscript form only. In the latter
41

year, a large committee appointed by the Yearly
Meeting collected and codified the various authori
tative utterances put forth by the Society. Since
then the rule seems to have been to take nothing
from this book, but to make frequent additions to
it, until statements regarding many phases of doc
trine, practice and polity, are now bound up in its
pages. It is interesting to note that while there
are seventeen separate citations in the London
Discipline under the general head of "Christian
Doctrine," there are but three of them that had
their origin during the seventeenth century. But
one of these citations is credited to the eighteenth
century, while thirteen of the doctrinal deliver
ances found utterance in the nineteenth century.
The seventeenth century extracts include Fox's
Letter to the Governor of Barbadoes, a "Declara
tion of Christian Doctrine Given Forth on Behalf
of the Society" in 1693, after the death of Fox,
and a quotation from his Journal, bearing date,
1645. It is worth noting that the "Declaration of
Christian Doctrine," set forth in 1693, contains
no clear or adequate statement regarding the fun
damental theory of the Society. Whether the
promulgation of this "Declaration" las a creed,
which must be accepted by all Friends, was re
sponsible for the trouble which culminated in the
so-called "separation" in this country, we are
unable to say. That it is in some way responsible
for the remnant of speculative theology which still
42

remains in one of our disciplines, is more than
likely. In this country the disciplines in all of our
Yearly Meetings existed in manuscript only until
about the beginning of the nineteenth century.
But the first printed editions were not for general
distribution and use in the Society. This is par
ticularly true of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
An edition of this discipline was issued in 1825,
apparently by private subscription. A preface to
this edition, in the form of an "Address to the
Reader," contains the following statement:
"Hitherto the Books of which the following pages are
an exact transcript, have been kept in the different meet
ing houses of our society, under the charge of the over
seers and clerks ; and how deeply soever we, as individuals
of the same community may be interested in their con
tents, they have for the most part been kept as secret and
as sacred as the books of the Hindoos.
"'We have always been of the opinion that what is In
itself good, cannot be too widely diffused, or too exten
sively known. 'We believe that the Rules of our Disci
pline, have this tendency; and so believing, we have taken
the usual means of making them public by printing them ;
and we earnestly hope, that all our good intentions may
be realized."
What persons constituted the "we" referred to
in this "Address" we know not. The publisher,
according to the imprint, was J. Mortimer, and
his address, 74 South Second Street, Philadelphia.
Most of the provisions of the disciplines of the
seven Yearly Meetings of our branch of the Soci-
43

ety are similar. They vary somewhat in phrase
ology, and especially in the use of theological
terms, and in statements of what is at least an
approach to doctrine. Entire harmony charac
terizes the deliverances of all of the disciplines
touching a free gospel ministry, and the conduct
and conversation of members. It should be re
membered, however, that even the testimonies
which form such a vital part of the discipline
have been matters of growth and development.
The advice given as to the use of intoxicating
liquor and tobacco has developed step by step, as
more light and an awakened conscience dealt with
these habits. The Philadelphia discipline of 1806,
contained a chapter on "Moderation and Temper
ance." In this particular deliverance the exhor
tation is entirely as to the use of drink, the prac
tice of total abstinence not even being hinted.
There is an advice cautioning Friends against
giving rum and other strong liquors at vendues,
as an inducement to more vigorous bidding.
There was also a caution against importing and
retailing distilled liquors, or being engaged in the
distillation of such liquors. The unnecessary fre
quenting of taverns was discouraged, and Friends
were advised not to engage in the business of
keeping houses of public entertainment, or beer
houses, and to be cautious about signing applica
tions for such places. 44

The Baltimore discipline of the same year con
tained practically the same provisions, except the
statements were more condensed, and less argu
mentative. A chapter on "Distilled Spirituous Liquors," in
the New York discipline of 1810, and the chapter
on "Taverns," in the vital points, did not vary
from the Philadelphia discipline, while in part the
same words were used.
Without doubt the position of the Society at
that time was an advanced one, even for a reli
gious body to take, on the liquor question in the
opening years of the nineteenth century, and
twenty years before the organization of the first
temperance society. Even these testimonies were
based on advices in the older manuscript disci
plines which simply discouraged smoking on the
public highways, drinking to excess, or in public
places. Touching all of the concerns which were not
fundamental testimonies in the early days of the
Society, we see that Friends have merely kept up
with the spirit of progress, or at best have merely
anticipated as a people what individuals have
worked out in life and conduct. This is particu
larly true regarding slavery. There were many
Friendly voices crying in the wilderness before
the Society in its discipline set the seal of its con
demnation on the great iniquity, and practically
45

made slave holding an impossible condition of
membership in the Society.
The point of it all is that our disciplines are not
unalterable documents like the laws of the Medes
and Persians, but represent a manifest develop
ment in full harmony with the growth of things
in the world of life. In studying the discipline it
is absolutely necessary that two view-points be
taken. In the first place we must consider the
conditions of thought and life at the time when
the disciplinary provisions were first formulated.
In the second place, we must look at all our testi
monies and requirements from the standpoint of
the present, in connection with right social stand
ards and general need. While a forced disci
plinary morality may be better than none at all,
the function of the discipline is not to dominate
the conscience in an arbitrary way, but to lead to
that constant self-examination and genuine con
cern, which shall make the individual conduct
right from choice, and not because of fear or com
pulsion. In a comprehensive study of the discipline, its
application in the past should be considered. This
can only be done thoroughly by consulting the
records of monthly meetings.
Such examination will reveal the large place
which disownment occupied at a certain period in
the history of the Society. Unpleasant as some
of these revelations may be, it is not possible to
46

adequately understand present conditions, and the
inherited obstacles which exist in many commu
nities, without a pretty thorough understanding
of what took place during the period when the
internal work of the Society was so largely nega
tive and repressive.
Happily the zeal for disowning members has
nearly disappeared from our meetings, the word
"disown" having been dropped almost entirely
from our disciplines. It is worth considering,
however, whether this reaction from austerity
has not developed carelessness and indifference
regarding certain lines of conduct which are re
quired by the rules of the discipline. Concern
and care regarding these matters were never
more important than now. Dealing with human
frailty and waywardness, in the right spirit, pos
sibly with no thought of disowning the offenders,
but with an eye single to their "preservation and
recovery," is a constant demand upon the patience,
the love and the sympathy of the concerned
Friends in every meeting.
Many of the provisions in our disciplines are
fine samples of splendid idealism. To completely
live up to them would mean practical human per
fection. To be unduly sensitive and exacting re
garding these matters, for self, and especi
ally for others, may mean a condition only a little
less serious in its result, than indifference itself.
As we study the development of what we call
47

doctrine, and the evolution of the discipline, we
must remember that neither represents a finality.
The healthy motive is the controlling desire to
know the truth, and to secure that liberty which
the truth brings. Always remembering that the
discovery of new truth and the fresh apprehension
of the truth which may be old, are essentials of
progress for individuals, institutions, and even
religious organizations.

48

3 9002 08837 9582

iM-i.

.qC^iE> ,v^*«w4*'- 'iw^mWv^