2015 ESR graduate John Connell reviews the recent release, Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723, co-edited by ESR's Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion.
The introduction of this volume, penned
by editors Pink Dandelion and Stephen W. Angell, wastes no time in reminding
readers why this is an important work: “Early Quakerism has always excited
scholars.”[1]
Indeed it has, and for good reason. Despite their fractured state, all groups
of modern Quakers still look back to the early Friends to ground themselves in
their own interpretation of Quakerism. In fact, early Friends have often been
re-interpreted in different ways by subsequent generations in order to
re-assure those later generations in their particular contemporary formulation
of Quaker faith and practice. Thus, studies of early Friends are always sure to
both inform and challenge modern Quakers as to their own interpretations and
incarnations of the Society.
Early Quakers and Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723, is sure to inform and challenge both liberal and
evangelical Friends alike to examine their current incarnations and perhaps
thoughtfully consider the relationship they bear to the founding generation of
this movement. There is much to recommend about this volume. The chapters are
relatively short (under 20 pages), and yet jam-packed with details about each
individual, and most importantly, copious snippets of their own words. There is
no denying that the scholars involved are representative of the finest that
Quaker Studies has to offer. The bibliography alone is worth having for its
collected wealth of primary and secondary sources.
The challenge of any such project is to
allow the subject of each profile to speak their own message clearly, without
being obscured by the interpretive voice of the authors. With few exceptions, this
book succeeds in meeting this challenge. Because the book is a collection of
profiles, written by different authors—each uniquely selected as a qualified
authority on their subject—this review will move through the book chapter by
chapter.
Douglas Gwyn attempts to contextualize the
early Friends in chapter one by utilizing his extensive research concerning the
early religious “seeker” movement that had developed in England during the
mid-seventeenth century. Gwyn argues that Quakerism is best understood through
the interaction of its members’ “epistemological break from the Biblicism” that
was dominant among English Puritans of the period, along with their
“eschatological expectation” that had been fueled by the upheaval of the
English Civil Wars of the 1640’s.[2]
Beginning with the personal epistemic break of George Fox in 1647, Gwyn observes
how Fox and those who gathered around him combined their epistemology of the
immediacy of Christ’s revelation in the human conscience with an eschatological
expectation of the kingdom of God being presently unveiled, both within
individuals and their gathered meetings.
Although Gwyn does mention the radical
social and moral activism that this inspired among early Friends, [3]
a more explicit treatment of the rigorous biblical and puritanical personal
moralism that was the primary aspect of the “Lamb’s War” conducted by these
Quakers might have improved his analysis.[4]
In addition to the interplay of
epistemology and eschatology, Gwyn argues persuasively how the beliefs of
Friends resulted from the close pairing of other classic theological
categories. Hermeneutics and ecclesiology, Christology and pneumatology,
hamartiology and soteriology, and cosmology and ethics all serve as
“dialectical parings” in Gwyn’s view that allowed for a reframing of radical
ideas that had been circulating through the early seeker movement.
While generally handled with skill and
insight, Gwyn might be seen to over-generalize at points. For example his focus
upon “an apocalyptic hermeneutic” among Friends,[5]
while certainly true, should have been balanced with noting their often equally
stubborn, biblical literalism.[6]
Also, Gwyn’s attempt to rightly distinguish the Quaker belief in the
possibility of overcoming sin from the Puritan insistence that such was
impossible,[7]
neglects to note how seriously early Quakers took the depravity of human
nature.[8]
However these minor blemishes do not significantly distract from an otherwise
outstanding contextualizing of the early Quakers.
Betty Hagglund’s second chapter provides
an excellent account of how important the use of the printed word was to the
spread of early Quaker thought. She notes that the Quakers, “more than any
other contemporary group were able to exploit to the full the new printing and
publishing world in which they found themselves.”[9]
Hagglund identifies the most prolific authors among early Friends, and documents
the importance to these authors of the cooperation of successive publishers of radical
material during this period; beginning with “the well-known radical publisher”
Giles Calvert, and his brother-in-law Thomas Simmons.[10]
Hagglund’s research provides informative context to the following chapters as
they unfold some of the thought contained in the printed material that her
chapter mentions.
Given
that he was the central figure around which much of the early Quaker movement
coalesced, each new piece of scholarship regarding George Fox often receives an
increased scrutiny by students of Quakerism. Hilary Hinds’ chapter will hold up
well under such close examination. Hinds focus’ her discussion of George Fox’s
thought upon, “the unifying discourse of Fox’s exposition of the inward light.”[11]
She is clear in positioning Fox’s message of an inward light, which is
accessible to all and brings unity to all who submit to it, in contrast to the
fixed soteriological disunity inherent to “Calvinist Predestinarianism.” In
doing so, Hinds skillfully demonstrates both the challenge and appeal of Fox’s
message that led so many to become convinced of its truth. She goes on to
demonstrate how the natural outgrowth of unity among humans in their access to
the light became manifest in Quaker practices such as the rejection of contemporary
forms of social deference.[12]
Hinds’ notation of Fox’s unified view
of scriptural and experiential revelation—with the latter remaining primary and
illuminating but never eclipsing nor superseding the former—is well done if a
bit briefer than one might desire. However, Hinds’ discussion of the complexity
within Fox’s journal betraying the tension between “chronotic” and “kairotic”
time is more in-depth and proves delightfully penetrating.[13]
Hines might be seen to push her themes
a bit farther than can be sustained however. For example, in her attempt to
rightly emphasize Fox’s insistence on the unity of humanity in the light, she
implies that he was diametrically opposed to the Calvinists’ view regarding the
natural unity of humanity in universal sinfulness.[14]
But Fox more likely acknowledged the reality of the latter while insisting
(unlike the Calvinists) that it was simply no match for the former.[15]
Also, although Hines is careful to note that Fox rejected the notion of
soteriological universalism,[16]
her enthusiasm for Fox’s message of universal access to the light leads her to
interpret him as believing that, “the light shone equally in all, universally
and constantly.”[17] But such
a statement might be seen to fly in the face of Fox’s frequent references to
the light within according to each individual’s different “measure.”[18]
Notwithstanding these minor issues however, Hinds’ work remains an important
and highly insightful contribution to studies of Fox’s theology.
As one of the only rivals to Fox’s overall
leadership within the early society, James Naylor is rightly positioned as the
subject of chapter four. Carole Spencer provides an excellent treatment of
Naylor’s infamous episode in Bristol and its consequences, including his
conflict with Fox, before unfolding the incarnational theology behind it—all in
a remarkably brief space. Spencer’s interpretations are well-supported, and her
arguments are compelling that Naylor’s theology was, “a mystical theology of
incarnational holiness grounded in principles both biblical and orthodox, but
expressed in dramatic, parabolic form of sign as signification.”[19]
Spencer insightfully points out that Naylor’s
theology was in fact grounded in, “His biblical hermeneutic of incarnation,”
and she notes that Naylor follows the Christian mystics of the past in his
embrace of a Quaker doctrine of perfection which in essence is deification, or:
“an intense realization of God within the self that comes through the embrace
of unitive love.”[20]
Spencer makes a good case for the likely
influence of Jacob Boehme’s writings on Naylor, particularly as evidenced in
his confessional writings after the events at Bristol. Well researched, this
profile allows Naylor’s voice to come through clearly. Spencer provides a fair portrait
of Naylor, and her work is sure to lead some—who might have dismissed this simple
“husbandman” from Yorkshire as merely deluded—to take a well-deserved second
look.
Michael Birkel and Stephen Angell team
up to examine the writings and thought of Richard Farnworth. Their chapter
covers Farnworth’s writing topically, addressing his attempts to submit to the
leading of the light on such varied subjects as spirituality, the role of scripture,
women’s ministry, religious toleration, and non-violence. Their discussion of
Farnworth’s interest in church order, his struggle to balance a vision of
spiritual freedom with sustainable structure, and the evidence of his influence
in formulating the important Epistle from
the Elders at Balby, is highly instructive.[21]
However Birkel and Angell’s final section, detailing Farnworth’s central role
in the conflict with John Perrot and the production of the Testimony of the Brethren just before his death in 1666, is the
most revealing and enjoyable. Students of Quaker history who might not fully
appreciate the contributions of this “Prophet of Light, Apostle of Church
Order” in shaping the early Religious Society of Friends will scarcely be able
to finish this chapter without gaining a better measure of his importance.[22]
Historians have long noted the influential
role of Margaret Fell within the nascent Quaker movement. Fell’s wealth and
social connections—in particular the legal and political protections provided
by her first husband—along with her close relationship with and eventual
marriage to George Fox, all combined to make her an important figure among
early Friends. Some have viewed Margaret Fell’s marginalization within the Religious
Society of Friends after George Fox’s death and the loss of much of her wealth
and social standing, as evidence that her influence on Quakerism was chiefly a by-product
of her relationship to Fox.
However, scholar Sally Bruyneel effectively
combats this view in her chapter on Fell. Bruyneel examines Fell as a
theological thinker in her own right, and argues for an elevated estimation of
her importance as a primary articulator and shaper of early Quaker beliefs. She
views Fell’s marginalization as a long-term result of various factors, “primary
among them the intentional reconstruction of the early Friends’ narrative to
favor George Fox.”[23]
Unfortunately, Bruyneel misses the
opportunity to mention Fell as the second of two strong, older, and influential
women whose synergistic partnerships with Fox helped propel the early Religious
Society of Friends forward.[24]
Such a mention might have supported Bruyneel’s discussion regarding what she
considers to be changing views towards female leadership among a younger
generation of Friends that had emerged by the time of Fell’s death.
However Bruyneel does make excellent
use of Fell’s correspondence to support her explication of Fell’s thought and
its impact on Friends. In particular, her analysis of Fell’s emphasis upon the
Light as catalyst for unlocking both scriptural revelation and personal
eschatological realization is well-done.[25]
Bruyneel’s metaphysical analysis of the Light and conscience in Fell’s thought could
have been aided by including the hard distinction that Fell herself makes between
the pure revelation of the supernatural Light, and the natural corruption of
the conscience because of a fallen human nature.[26]
Nonetheless, Bruyneel’s scholarship is a welcomed addition to early Quaker
studies, and will hopefully draw more attention to the influence of Margaret
Fell—the theologian—on early Friends.
Pink Dandelion and Frederick Martin are
to be applauded for the skill they display in distilling the essence of the many
writings of Edward Burrough and Francis Howgill for readers in chapter seven.
Burrough’s apocalyptic call for repentance, directed at heathens and the
apostate Church alike, is described in such a way as to make one imagine what
it must have been like to hear this booming “son of Thunder” preach; even while
considering his later and more “measured” writings on religious toleration.[27]
The message of Howgill is viewed through his own vision of being born again through
the internal apocalypse of judgment against his sinful human nature. Similar to
the other early Friends, Howgill realized that the corrupt seed of human
self-will was only vanquished by its complete denial to make room for the rise
of the good seed of Christ within.[28]
Dandelion and Martin clearly and
succinctly reveal how both of these men made continual use of scriptural
allusions—particularly regarding end-time judgment and destruction—to elucidate
both their internal spiritual rebirth as well as contemporary outward upheavals
in their society.[29] This
chapter is impressive, as its authors deftly weave together the many complex
and technical aspects of Burrough and Howgill’s theology to present a clear
picture to the attentive reader. Their profile of “The Outcasts of Israel” is a
treat to read for those wishing to dip their toes into the deep theological
waters of these important early Friends.
While Burrough and Howgill might have
been outcasts for their perceived lack of formal theological education, Stephen
Angell reminds us in chapter eight that early Friend Samuel Fisher was not
vulnerable to such an accusation. Angell presents this “Renegade Oxonian” as a
brilliant scholar whose theological thought is best understood as “a reaction
to the powerful currents of Reformed Christianity that he saw all around him.”[30]
In particular for Fisher’s influence among Friends, as Angell notes, is his
reactionary response to the widely accepted view of absolute Scriptural
authority and infallibility.[31]
While Fisher did consider the canonical scriptures largely true and reliable
(as well as many non-canonical books), he vigorously defended the traditional Quaker
view that only the Light is an infallible and primary authority, and was the inspiring
source of Scripture.[32]
In following much of Fisher’s line of attack while debating Puritans like John
Owen, Angell reveals Fisher’s desire for a more inclusive canon than what even
other Quakers would have allowed.[33]
However, similar to other Friends, Fisher could at times argue for strongly literalistic
interpretations of scripture in supporting Quaker practices.[34]
Angell’s summation of Fisher’s work is very strong, and well supported by his use
of the primary sources.
One of the most exciting things about
historical study is unearthing forgotten figures whose work has not been widely
known or recognized for centuries. Michele Lise Tarter helps to do just that
with her chapter on Dorothy White, who “espoused Quaker millenarianism and an
embodied spirit theology.”[35]
Tarter introduces readers to White’s prophetic writings, which utilized highly
feminized language and imagery, along with precise claims to a divine call as
prophet. Also noted is White’s melding of her own voice together with God’s in
what Tarter describes as a, “multi-vocal, fluid heteroglosia.”[36]
Tartar’s investigation into the
marginalization of White among Friends is intriguing, however her entire
chapter is overshadowed a bit by an overly sympathetic bias—which occasionally
borders on hagiography—towards her subject. But despite this, studies of early
Friends will only be enhanced by the rediscovery of this “Spiritual Mother” and
the enthusiastic writings which led to her depreciation within the early
Society.
Continuing in the theme of re-examining
a perhaps unfairly marginalized early Friend is Carla Gardina Pestana’s chapter
on John Perrot. Pestana makes excellent use of Perrot’s writings to illustrate his
intermingling themes of loving unity and judgment, as well as reasoned argument
and ecstatic metaphor. Her selection of
quotes from Perrot helps illustrate a tension that many Friends experience,
both then and now. This is the tension between a commitment to the testimony of
the Light in one’s own individual conscience, and the sometimes unrealized
conviction that submission to the Light will unify the hearts and minds of all those
who are faithful to it.[37]
Pestana allows the evidence itself to suggest that it was Perrot’s refusal to
submit to the gathering unity of Friends in the Light on relatively minor
issues which would lead to his eventual censure.[38]
This clash between spiritual
individualism and the collective experience of the light among Friends has (as
students of Quaker history know) not been confined simply to this early
generation. In light of this, Pestana’s discussion of Perrot’s own failure—to
always sufficiently distinguish his own voice from God’s when writing—might
have been aided by considering the impact of this tension on his interpretation
of divine leadings.[39]
Pestana does mention that Perrot may have viewed the Light and the human conscience
as synonymous, but a comparison to other early Friends like Fox—who made such an
emphatic point of distinguishing between the two without separating them
completely—would have been helpful here.[40]
However, these minor flaws do not substantially detract from Pestana’s effort
to highlight Perrot’s general “conventionality” and theological agreement with
the rest of early Friends on the whole.[41]
The writings of Mary and Isaac
Penington are considered together by R. Melvin Keiser. Keiser’s interpretive
reading of Mary’s recorded dreams is thought-provoking, if a bit fraught with
imaginative speculation.[42]
However, his treatment of Isaac’s philosophical thought is very strong. Kaiser is
successful in bringing Isaac’s epistemological paradigm—which was not unlike that
of other early Friends—forward with clarity for the reader.
Kaiser’s highlighting of the
“affectional” and “emergent” nature of truth in Isaac’s thought (over and
against a modern emphasis upon reason) would have been greatly aided however by
acknowledging the negative view of human nature which Penington and the other
early Friends used to ground their epistemological framework.[43]
Nonetheless, Kaiser has provided a very good picture of the “felt reality” that
is central to understanding the thought of Mary and Isaac Penington. His
chapter should only whet the appetite of readers to go deeper into the writings
of this important couple among the early Friends.
In some respects, Hugh Pyper’s chapter
on Robert Barclay shows an exemplary grasp of his philosophically sophisticated
and rationally sound attempts to defend Quaker theology. In particular, Pyper
correctly acknowledges that the use of concepts such as the “vehiculum Dei” and “the day of
visitation,” are specific examples of Barclay’s ingenuity of theological thought.
Barclay uses both of these concepts in his reconciliation of the early Quaker
view of human nature (which in some minds was even darker than the Puritan view),
with the possibility of a perfection that denied many of the implications that
the Puritans had insisted were required by human depravity.[44]
Pyper’s analysis is slightly marred by
failing to clearly note the distinction among Barclay and the other early
Friends between Christ as the Light—which enlightens universally—and Christ as
the seed—or incarnational will of Christ—which indwells only those who do not
resist the Light.[45] This
distinction is crucial in understanding the “two-seed” theology of early and
Quietist Quakerism.[46]
As a result, Pyper chooses to follow the trail blazed by Modernist Quaker
historians who attempted to discount the fundamental need to suppress the
corrupt human self-will, as well as the Quietism that this need would naturally
produce within a mature Quakerism of later generations.[47]
While Pyper is correct in noting that Barclay’s
answers spoke directly to the philosophical and theological questions of his
own time, one needn’t also accept Pyper’s assumption that those answers cannot still
ably answer today’s questions as well. Pyper does however rightly expose the limitations
of the Cartesian epistemological framework which may have prevented Barclay
from addressing “the experience of the communal processes of salvation,” that
he had experienced among the early Friends.[48]
Overall, Pyper does provide a useful summary of Barclay’s thought, and one that
should benefit those readers who are not as familiar with this important early
Friend as they should be.
Relatively recent scholarship has begun
to recover the long-ignored but important writings of early Friend Elizabeth
Bathurst. In doing so, Bathurst is being rediscovered as a brilliant young
apologist for the theology of seventeenth-century Quakerism. Unfortunately,
Mary Van Vleck Garman’s chapter on Bathurst in this volume misses an
opportunity to enhance this trend of rediscovery. Garman’s quotation of
Bathurst proves far too selective and heavily interpreted, while also
insufficient in footnotes. Although sound in highlighting some themes, the
overall picture Garman relates of Bathurst is incomplete. For example, while
Garman rightly notes Bathurst’s “relational approach” as a theologian,[49]
it is a mistake to do so at the cost of downplaying Bathurst’s systematic and
closely reasoned theological arguments.[50]
Considering their accessibility and brevity relative to the writings of some of
her contemporaries, a stronger grasp of Bathurst and her impressive theological
arguments might be found in directly consulting her writings.[51]
Melvin Endy’s chapter on William Penn
is an impressive attempt to grapple with the massive corpus of Penn’s thought
in a small space. Endy rightly notes the importance of a modified dualism to
Penn’s epistemology,[52]
and then focuses on what Penn often referred to as “right reason”: which is a “transcendent,”
“mystical,” and “revelatory” experience of the Light.[53]
Endy is correct that Penn didn’t always define exactly what he meant by ‘right
reason,’ nor did he adequately distinguish it from the fallen, natural reason
of human beings.[54] However,
it would have improved Endy’s analysis to mention that in some places Penn can
be seen to make indelibly clear and sharp distinctions in these matters.[55]
Perhaps the best part of Endy’s analysis is his discussion of Penn’s
evolutionary view of salvation history, and how this informed his view of non-Christians.[56]
Brief mentions by Endy of the movement in Penn’s thought over time might have
benefited from connecting this movement to the evolution in Penn’s views concerning
human nature and human reason. Also, a contextualization of Penn that mentions how
most early Friends were far more distrustful of human reason than he was would
also have strengthened this chapter. But considering the scope of Penn’s
writings, Endy’s treatment remains an excellent primer for those who may wish
to pursue deeper studies of Penn’s voluminous works.
Those
interested in learning more about the complex and controversial
Presbyterian-turned Quaker-turned Anglican, George Keith, will not be
disappointed with Michael Birkel’s chapter regarding him. Birkel covers a wide
swath of theological ground in relating Keith’s exposure to Kabbalistic ideas with
his Quaker experiences, before also detailing Keith’s later repudiation of
those experiences.[57]
In between, Birkel briefly sketches the outline of Keith’s conflict with, and
disownment by, Quakers on both sides of the Atlantic. Although Birkel does not mention it, observant
students of Quaker history might conclude from his portrait of Keith that the
man comes across as possessing the vituperative temperament and personality of an
Elias Hicks or a Lucretia Mott in combination with a theological bent that somewhat
anticipated J.J. Gurney. This is but one of the fascinating details that make
Birkel’s survey of Keith a highly entertaining and engaging addition to this
collection of profiles.
Both chronologically and qualitatively,
the editors of this volume covering early Quaker theology have saved the best
for last in Robynne Rogers Healey’s chapter on the often under-appreciated
early Friend George Whitehead. Although Healey makes no attempt to
“rehabilitate” Whitehead, she does thankfully seek to remedy the damage done
by: “William Braithwaite’s and Rufus Jones’ pessimistic view of Quietism [that]
has cast a historiographical shadow over perceptions of Whitehead and the
theology he superintended.”[58]
Healey expertly details Whitehead’s apologetic
efforts to wage the ‘Lambs War.’ This involved his careful shepherding of the
Society through the troubled waters of persecution while still preserving its
commitment to a mystical theology; a theology centered in subordination to the Light
with the primary concern of maintaining its central goal of a realized holiness
emphasizing Christian and biblically-orthodox practice, rather than belief.[59]
In Whitehead, one finds a personification of the Religious Society of Friends
itself, as both mature through the seventeenth century into the Quietism which
fulfilled the promise that all early Friends had discovered in submitting to the
primary authority of the Light of Christ Within.[60]
Meticulously researched, clearly and concisely written yet still sufficiently
comprehensive for such a long life, Healey impressively caps this volume of
profiles with a tremendous chapter. Her scholarship should encourage all
serious students of early Quakerism to examine the substantial writings of
George Whitehead, and to engage with the thought of this extremely important
and influential early Friend.
The editors included an afterword in
this volume by Rosemary Moore and Richard C. Allen which seeks to interpret and
summarize the entire period of the early Friends which the book covers. While
somewhat adequate to the task, its brevity required a lack of both detail and subtlety
of interpretation which did not provide agreement with much that was contained
in the previous chapters. This unfortunately makes for a slight degree of
disappointment when finishing this last part of the book.
In summary, the editors and authors of Early Quakers and Their Theological Thought
1647-1723 have largely accomplished their task of filling “a large gap in
the literature” regarding early Quaker studies.[61]
The book’s few shortcomings are more than eclipsed by its benefits, and it should
occupy a place in every library of Friends historical and theological works. Its
wealth of research utilizing the primary resources and combined in this
relatively compact book makes for an unmatched resource of study. But this is
not just a book for academics. All Friends, of every tradition, can and should
benefit from this collection. I encourage scholars and laymen alike to read and
ponder the chapters in this volume. There is much to be learned about the roots
of Quakerism from its pages, and perhaps for some, much to be unlearned as
well.
John Connell is a 2015 graduate of ESR's MA program. His thesis, "Subjection to the seed: the natural man and the supernatural light in the epistemology of Friends," is available at Earlham College's Lilly Library.
[1] Stephen W. Angell and Pink
Dandelion, eds., “Introduction,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological
Thought, 1647-1723 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 1.
[2] Douglas Gwyn,
“Seventeenth-Century Context and Quaker Beginnings,” in Early Quakers And
Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink
Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 13.
[3] Ibid., 17–20.
[4]
For more on this moralism among Friends see the excellent work of Carole Dale Spencer, Holiness :
The Soul of Quakerism : An Historical Analysis of the Theology of Holiness in
the Quaker Tradition (Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock ; Milton Keyes, UK, 2007),
2–3, 22 ff.
[5] Gwyn, “Seventeenth-Century Context
and Quaker Beginnings,” 20.
[6]
This has been discussed by scholars such as: Hugh. Barbour, The Quakers
in Puritan England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), 157.
[7] Gwyn, “Seventeenth-Century
Context and Quaker Beginnings,” 25–27.
[8] As
has been noted by such scholars as: Melvin B. Endy Jr., “The Interpretation
of Quakerism: Rufus Jones and His Critics,” Quaker History 70, no. 1
(April 1, 1981): 13–14. See also: Wilmer Cooper, A Living
Faith: An Historical and Comparative Study of Quaker Beliefs (Richmond,
In.: Friends United Press, 1990), 70–75.
[9] Betty Hagglund, “Quakers and
the Printing Press,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought,
1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2015), 35.
[10] Ibid., 37.
[11] Hilary Hinds, “Unity and
Universality in the Theology of George Fox,” in Early Quakers And Their
Theological Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 49.
[12] Ibid., 50–53.
[13] Ibid., 56–58.
[14] Ibid., 52–53.
[15] George Fox, “A Journal Or
Historical Account Of The Life, Travels, Sufferings, &C, Of George Fox,” in
The Works of George Fox, vol. 1 (Philadelphia; New York: Marcus T.C.
Gould; Isaac T. Hopper, 1831), 79–80.
[16] Hinds, “Unity and Universality
in the Theology of George Fox,” 51.
[17] Ibid., 52.
[18]
For just one of many examples see: George Fox, “A Collection Of
Many Select And Christian Epistles, Letters And Testimonies, Written On Sundry
Occasions, By That Ancient, Eminent, Faithful Friend, And Minister Of Jesus
Christ, George Fox, In Two Volumes:,” in The Works of George Fox, vol. 7
& 8 (Philadelphia; New York: Marcus T.C. Gould; Isaac T. Hopper, 1831),
154–155.
[19] Carole Dale Spencer, “The Man
Who ‘Set Himself as a Sign’: James Naylor’s Incarnational Theology,” in Early
Quakers And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and
Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 69.
[20] Ibid., 72,
74.
[21] Michael L. Birkel and Stephen
W. Angell, “The Witness of Richard Farnworth: Prophet of Light, Apostle of
Church Order,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723,
ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2015), 90–92.
[22] Ibid., 96–98.
[23] Sally Bruyneel, “Margaret Fell
and the Second Coming of Christ,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological
Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2015), 104–105.
[24]
For more on the influence of Fell and Elizabeth Hooten on a young George Fox
see: Rosemary Moore,
“Seventeenth-Century Context and Quaker Beginnings,” in The Oxford Handbook
of Quaker Studies, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013), 15–18.
[25] Bruyneel, “Margaret Fell and
the Second Coming of Christ,” 106–109.
[26]
Fell cannot be any more explicit on this point in: Margaret Fell, A Call unto
the Seed of Israel (London: Robert Wilson, 1668), 36–38.
[27] Pink Dandelion and Frederick
Martin, “‘Outcasts of Israel’: The Apocalytptic Theology of Edward Burrough and
Francis Howgill,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723,
ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2015), 119–126.
[28] Ibid., 126–130.
[29] Ibid., 133.
[30] Stephen W. Angell, “Renegade
Oxonian: Samuel Fisher’s Importance in Formulating a Quaker Understanding of
Scripture,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723,
ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2015), 142.
[31] Ibid., 142–145.
[32] Ibid., 144.
[33] Ibid., 146.
[34] Ibid., 150.
[35] Michele Lise Tarter, “‘That You
May Be Perfect in Love’: The Prophecy of Dorothy White,” in Early Quakers
And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink
Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 155.
[36] Ibid., 161.
[37] Ibid., 174, 176–177.
[38] Ibid., 182–183.
[39] Ibid., 180,
183.
[40] Ibid.,
183; For one of many references to this distinction in the thought of Fox see: George Fox, “The Great Mystery
of the Great Whore Unfolded,” in The Works of George Fox, vol. 3
(Philadelphia ; New York: Marcus T.C. Gould; Isaac T. Hopper, 1831), 350–351;
Also see discussion of this distinction in: Rachel Hadley King, George Fox
and the Light Within, 1650-1660, (Philadelphia: Friends Book Store, 1940),
57.
[41] Pestana, “The Conventionality
of the Notorious John Perrot,” 185.
[42] R. Melvin Keiser, “Felt Reality
in Practical Living and Innovative Thinking: Mary and Isaac Penington’s Journey
from Puritan Anguish to Quaker Truth,” in Early Quakers And Their
Theological Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 193–196.
[43]
Penington (like the other early Friends) is particularly fond of the Pauline
metaphor of the “natural man” in describing how depraved human nature corrupts
the natural reason. For a sense of this see: Isaac Penington, “A Short
Catechism For The Sake Of The Simple-Hearted,” in The Works of the Long-Mournful and
Sorely-Distressed Isaac Penington, Whom the Lord, in His Tender Mercy, at
Length Visited and Relieved by the Ministry of That Despised People Called
Quakers, vol. 1 (London: J. Phillips, 1784), 126; Isaac Penington, “A
Warning Of Love, From The Bowels Of Life, To The Several Generations Of
Professors Of This Age,” in The Works
of the Long-Mournful and Sorely-Distressed Isaac Penington, Whom the Lord, in
His Tender Mercy, at Length Visited and Relieved by the Ministry of That
Despised People Called Quakers, vol. 1 (London: J. Phillips, 1784), 479;
Isaac Penington, “Few Experiences, Concerning Some of the Weighty Things
Relating to God’s Everlasting Kingdom,” in The Works of the Long-Mournful and
Sorely-Distressed Isaac Penington, Whom the Lord, in His Tender Mercy, at
Length Visited and Relieved by the Ministry of That Despised People Called
Quakers, vol. 4 (London: J. Phillips, 1784), 265; Isaac Penington,
“Scattered Sheep Sought after,” in The
Works of the Long-Mournful and Sorely-Distressed Isaac Penington, Whom
the Lord, in His Tender Mercy, at Length Visited and Relieved by the Ministry
of That Despised People Called Quakers, vol. 1 (London: J. Phillips, 1784),
116–117.
[44] Hugh S. Pyper, “Robert Barclay:
The Art of Apologetics,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought,
1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2015), 215–217.
[45] Ibid., 214–215.
[46]
For more on the importance of this distinction and the early Friends two-seed
theology see: John Connell, “‘Let the Holy
Seed of Life Reign’: Perfection, Pelagiansim, and the Early Friends,” Quaker
Theology: A Progressive Journal and Forum for Discussion and Study, no. 24
(2014): 10–30.
[47] Pyper, “Robert Barclay: The Art
of Apologetics,” 219.
[48] Ibid., 221.
[49] Mary Van Vleck Garman,
“Elizabeth Bathurst: ‘Tis Not Inky Character Can Make a Saint,’” in Early
Quakers And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and
Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 236.
[50]
For just one example of this, see Bathurst’s skillful defense of the Friends
belief in a dark and fallen state of human nature, while refuting the Puritan
doctrine of original sin which many assumed was a necessary conclusion to be
drawn from this fallen state: Elizabeth Bathurst, Truth
Vindicated by the Faithful Testimony and Writings of the Innocent Servant and
Hand-Maid of the Lord, Elizabeth Bathurst Deceased. (London: J. Sowle,
1731), 36–40.
[52] Melvin B. Endy, “William Penn’s
Contributions to Early Quaker Thought,” in Early Quakers And Their
Theological Thought, 1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 240–241.
[53] Ibid., 241–245.
[54] Ibid., 244–245.
[55] William Penn, “The Spirit of
Truth Vindicated, against that of Error and Envy, Unseasonably Manifested in a
Malicious Libel, Entitled, The Spirit of the Quakers Tried, &c.,” in A
Collection of the Works of William Penn, vol. 2 (London: J. Sowle, 1726),
102–103.
[56] Endy, “William Penn’s
Contributions to Early Quaker Thought,” 248–252.
[57] Michael Birkel, “Immediate
Revelation, Kabbalah, and Magic: The Primacy of Experience in the Theology of
George Keith,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought, 1647-1723,
ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2015), 258–264, 266–270.
[58] Robin Rogers Healey, “From
Apocalyptic Prophecy to Tolerable Faithfulness: George Whitehead and a Theology
for the Eschaton Deferred,” in Early Quakers And Their Theological Thought,
1647-1723, ed. Stephen W. Angell and Pink Dandelion (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2015), 274.
[59] Ibid., 278–284; For an
excellent examination of the centrality of holiness to Quakerism throughout its
history see: Spencer, Holiness.
[60] Healey, “From Apocalyptic
Prophecy to Tolerable Faithfulness: George Whitehead and a Theology for the
Eschaton Deferred,” 284–288.
[61] Angell and Dandelion,
“Introduction,” 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment