Nontheist Friends

Here, after a brief introduction, are excerpts from the writings of the Free Friends of Manchester, England. These are meant to accompany the chapter, “The Making of a Quaker Nontheist Tradition,” in Godless for God’s Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism. The original text will be posted on this website in March 2007, but not before that so as not to interfere with sales as we attempt to recover the costs of publishing the book.

Godless for God’s Sake: Nontheism in Contemporary Quakerism, edited by David Boulton, published in 2006 by Dales Historical Monographs (ISBN 0-9511578-6-8), is available from the publisher (Hobsons Farm, Dent, Cumbria LA10 5RF, UK), and the FGC bookstore (www.QuakerBooks.org), and The Quaker Bookshop (www.quaker.org.uk).

INTRODUCTION:

One hundred and forty years ago, a small group of Friends in Manchester, England, adopted the principle of liberty of expression. They sought unity of spirit amidst diversity of belief. Each individual was expected to interpret the Scriptures and other writings. They looked for and incorporated new knowledge in religion, philosophy, politics, science, and the arts. Most of them were passionately theistic and Christian, while casting aside much of the traditional Christian doctrine of their day. They looked to Early Friends as models for this liberal way of being Quaker.

They saw their group as an experiment to determine whether a Friends meeting, formed along these lines, could survive and thrive. Every week about adults and children, male and female alike, met for worship in a large public hall and in each others homes. They published a journal, THE MANCHESTER FRIEND, with lively articles on their history and their hopes and on the great issues of the day in society and in the Religious Society of Friends. After two years they declared their experiment a resounding success. They laid down the journal and, some years later, the meeting.

They simply called themselves “the Friends at the Memorial Hall, Manchester,” wishing not to set up a separate organization but to help reform the Religious Society of Friends. Others called them “Free Friends.” Their vision of a diverse and tolerant Society eventually flowered at the Manchester Conference in England in 1895 and in the formation of the Friends General Conference in America in 1900.

Nontheist Friends of today serve some of the same function as the Free Friends of Manchester, reminding Friends that we can be diverse and tolerant and united, looking forward to a day when this will be joyfully proclaimed in our meetinghouses and to the world. Over a century ago, this is just what the Free Friends did. Here are excerpts from their writings, organized chronologically under the name of the author, with a reference list at the end.

DAVID DUNCAN:

“Truth itself is greater than any form into which it has been fashioned” (Essays and Reviews, 1861, p. 14, quoted in Scott 1960, p. 78.)

“If the principle were more generally admitted that Christianity is a life rather than a formula, theology would give place to religion…and that peculiarly bitter spirit which actuates religionists would no longer be associated with the profession of religion.” (Ibid., p. 8, quoted in Kennedy 2001, p. 52.)

“John Woolman simply did his duty…(H)e felt a relationship to the ‘Son of Man,’ he had studied the lineaments of the divine beauty manifest in that wondrous life, he felt that it was a real exhibition of what man might, and ought to be. His mind was not engaged with ‘schemes of salvation,’ or problems of theology, but with the concrete facts of life and experience;…he did that which opened before his spirit as right, he trusted in God, and had not ‘the fear of man before his eyes.’ He looked not to others; he kept in his own track; he left consequences to take care of themselves” (John Woolman: A Paper at the Friends’ Institute, Manchester. London: F. Bowyer Kitto and Manchester: W. Hale, 1871, pp. 16-17)

“The great work of life is to live – to live here, to make pleasant the relations of this present time – to live in harmony with the breathing creation, to fulfil the duties of the part assigned to us. Life is the exercise of the faculties in relation to those around us, for their happiness and comfort. Duty knows no partialities, no pretences. Our concern is with this world, and the fulfillment of the duties of citizenship here will be the most fitting education and preparation for the political and social work of another world. John Woolman looked upon this present state with reverent awfulness, and did not dare to deprecate it with the flippant insolence which marks those who look upon man and nature as accursed, and themselves as vessels of grace and mercy.” (Ibid., p. 20)

“John Woolman was an imitation of Christ – not in a book, not in theory – but as a living man.” (Ibid., p. 26)

“There was greatness about him of the true sort, a greatness uncommon; he reminds us of Epictetus, of Marcus Aurelius, but we cannot find a parallel amongst the churches….John Woolman was not a student or a scholar; but he was much more, a man who guided his actions, great and small, by an active intelligence which saw God’s work and will visibly present, and which pressed through the narrow limits of the flesh to communion with all nature.” (Ibid., pp. 34-35)

“You have so continuously represented (Christ) as a Divinity that you seem to have put aside his humanity altogether. For my part, I love to look at him in his life and works, as a Man – speaking, feeling, and acting as we do. True, he is spoken of as the Son of God – but we are all Sons of God!” (David Duncan quoted in The Crisis in Manchester Meeting. With a Review of the Pamphlets of David Duncan and Joseph B. Forster, Frederick Cooper, Manchester: William Irwin, 1869, p. 5)

“The object of the following reflections will be to question whether…the assumption of (the Bible’s) infallibility is not a hopeless obstacle to our understanding its truth and excellence – a veil shutting out God from our spirits.” (Can an Outward Revelation Be Perfect?, 2nd edition, London: F. Bowyer Kitto and Manchester: Hale & Roworth, 1871 (1st edition 1863), p. 2)

“The worship of anything short of God, is idolatry, whether it be a golden calf or a modern Bible.” (Ibid., p. 19)

“The Bible as a whole is a revelation of the Divine will, of spiritual life; the highest and the best the world has had. It is an unveiling of that mystery which has puzzled and distracted the highest minds; and like the unveiling of the laws of the natural world, it has
been adapted to the wants and necessities of men. The revelation has therefore been gradual and progressive.” (Ibid., p. 22)

“The letter is dead and lifeless, an outward thing. The truth which underlies the letter
must be expanded to the altered times and circumstances of the individual spirit. If we are born of the spirit of Truth we shall recognize truth wherever it is to be found; and instead of anathematizing those who may have arrived at the truth by a different path, we shall welcome them at the goal, grateful for the testimony which they leave, to that loving-kindness which shelters every desire for good and conducts the wanderer to the fold, remembering that ‘Christ has sheep which are not of this fold.’” (Ibid., p. 23)

“The authority of the Pope and the Church was substituted by the authority of the Scriptures in the sixteenth century, and the change is designated the Reformation. That change doubtless was a good; but the time has come when a further reformation is required – the abolition of any authority short of God, as He reveals himself to the spirit of the individual. This is the only principle worthy of the name of faith” (Ibid., p. 24)

“The universe is full of real suns, and moons, and stars, and is governed by real laws, not fictitious ones – and faith and righteousness must be realities, not semblances.” (Ibid., p. 28)

“The condition of life is growth; we must go on; and it is not the least cheering sign of the present, that the ordinary man of the world is beginning to take an interest in those great questions of ‘life and immortality,’ which have been in the past too much left to closet students, and professional advocates.” (Ibid., p. 28)

“As an individual, man is simply an animal; it is the relation to another which is the basis of all duty, the ground of knowledge, the incentive to action.” (National Life: A Lecture Read at the Manchester Friends’ Institute on the 22d of Fourth Month, 1870. London: F. Bowyer Kitto, and Manchester: Hale & Roworth, 1870. p. 3)

“The basis of all art, and all religion, and all philosophy, is in the general life – and the highest thing in the world is Humanity; it is above rank or culture, it is the living principle of existence, and for it everything besides exists. It is a living, present inspiration, which opens up the fountains of truth, and with resistless impetus bears each generation onward.” (Ibid., p. 4)

“We are a voluntary association for the promotion of truth, and we acknowledge the spirit of truth in each individual as the highest and ultimate ground of authority…(I)n the meetings for worship of the Society, all prepared reflections, or expositions of doctrine and duty are excluded, and the only recognized teaching is the expression of the individual, supposed to be inspired by the power and wisdom of God….(T)here is the assumption that Scriptures do not possess a vital principal of spiritual life, but are subordinate to the spirit of truth in the individual, and are dependent upon that spirit for their efficacious application in enlightening the mind….The battle of our time must be fought with weapons drawn from the armoury of present culture and knowledge, and the rusty arms, which have been proved in the fights of faith of an older time, will be useless except for recalling the noble deeds of the past.” (“Quakerism Past and Present (A Fragment)”, The Manchester Friend, I/4, 15 March 1872, 57-8) (p. 57)

“The Christian Church, in each of its sections, has a great work before it, and to do that work it must abandon the impracticable and the impossible; it must cease to fight against the truth, and learn to recognize the true servants and prophets of God now; and if so, it will perceive the true principle of unity, in the Isaiah and Jeremiah of the past being succeeded by a Mill or a Mazzini in the present; and in the emancipation of four millions of Negroes in the United States of America, within the last few years, an event of no less instruction for us than the liberation of the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage.” (Ibid, p. 58)

“The Friend (David Duncan) who was separated often publicly expressed himself thus: - God sent Moses at the right time, he sent Christ at the right time, and he sent John Stuart Mill at the right time, thus placing our Saviour on a level with man. He also said on one occasion, when Christ had been pointed out as the Son of God, ‘Yes, we are all sons of God.’ Some of those who resigned their membership have said publicly that the Scriptures are no more inspired than the works of Thomas Carlyle; and one of their number publicly affirmed that ‘God was a God of love, and required no propitiatory sacrifice for the sin of man.’” (letter to the editor from “T.”, British Friend 11th Month, 1st, 1871, pp. 278-279)

JOSEPH BINYON FORSTER:

“Conservative regulations, which have retarded progress by crippling religious thought, have nevertheless not protected the Society of Friends from as great changes in doctrine as any that are likely to take place hereafter, if such restrictions should happily be removed. Changes hitherto have not been made so honestly as they would have been had there been perfect liberty.” (On Liberty. An Address to the Members of the Society of Friends, London: F. Bowyer Kitto and Sutherland: W. H. Hills, 1867, p. 7)

“Light comes only as we are able to attain to it, and so can bear it. That Light which, whatever its source, shines through the inspired lives of men in all ages, is not withheld from us; and every law which fixes a limit to free thought, exists in violation of the very first of all doctrines held by the Early Quakers, - the doctrine of the ‘Inner Light.’” (Ibid., pp. 25-26)

“The most perfect society cannot afford to say who shall be heard, and who shall not. Its individual members cannot lay claim to infallible guidance on any single point….To close discussion in a religious society, in a country, or a family, is to manufacture ignorance and hypocrisy: and to do this is to destroy religion. We cannot preserve opinions; they change in spite of the efforts of men to render them stationary; but we may preserve religion amidst all these inevitable changes.” (Ibid., p. 28)

“Is not the church that body of the faithful which is not confined within the limits of any conventicle? If it is, is there not then something wanting in that religious society whose regulations shut out from communion a single member of that universal church, (the members of which we all believe are to be found everywhere,) who shall desire to join it?” (Ibid., pp. 30-31)

“Vested interests will resist improvement as long as it is possible to do so; but we are a republic, and we may, if we will, again lead, as once we led, not copyists in the letter, but in the spirit children of our religious ancestors.” (Ibid., p. 31)

“In recognizing the importance of this liberty, we shall return to the starting point of the Early Quakers, and from that starting point, we shall progress in the direction their reformation pointed out. If we do this, we shall at every period of the future, be the reconcilers of Religion with the advancement of Man in knowledge of every kind.” (Ibid., p. 32)

“I say, is it possible for the Society of Friends to follow Christ, and yet to drive a single soul from its doors on account of presumed erroneous belief or ‘defects of doubt?’” (The Society of Friends and Freedom of Thought in 1871. London: F. Bowyer Kitto, and Manchester: W. Hale., p. vi)

“A wisely constituted religious society will hold itself responsible only for what it publishes, and will regard that merely as its opinion at the time – it will allow liberty to its members to express, without any limit, their convictions; and will not permit either its present opinions, or those of the past, to be set up over it as unalterable creeds. Its regulations, while designed to promote decency and order, will be expressly framed to promote its freedom from the tyranny of tradition; and thus it will nurse amongst its members the self-reliance of vigorous manhood and weed out for ever the trembling cowardice which thoughtlessness and superstition have ever armed with cruelty in the past. The Society of Friends is not now such a society; indeed it is very far removed from it, when it adds to the narrowness of its Discipline a disregard of the provisions made therein for the protection of its members from the unjust accusations of passion or fanaticism. But a better time is dawning. When most powerful, a delusion is nearest its downfall. The advance of the tide of knowledge and intelligence cannot be dammed with men’s puny flood-gates.” (Ibid., pp. 27-28)

THE MANCHESTER FRIEND:

“The issue of THE MANCHESTER FRIEND is rendered necessary by the increasing desire of many Friends for more liberty of thought and expression amongst each other than at present is possible in the columns either of the British Friend or Friend….For our part we shall be glad when the issue of THE MANCHESTER FRIEND is no longer required; we do not ask ourselves what future length of days is in store for it, it is enough that for the present it demands our energies. We ask for it the support of those who, with widely divergent opinions, are united in the belief that dogma is not religion, and that truth can only be made possible to us where perfect liberty of thought is conceded. We ask for it also the support of those, who, recognizing this, feel that Christianity is a life and not a creed; and that obedience to our knowledge of what is pure and good is the end of all religion.” (editorial, signed “E.” probably referring to the editor, Joseph B. Forster, in first issue of The Manchester Friend I/1 1871, p. 1-2) (p. 1)

“Religion and theories of religion are not one and the same thing, for religion is not confined to Christendom. Yet creed is now made the test for membership among Friends. On account of this, and not on account of agreement in opinion with David Duncan, some have been forced to retire from the Society of Friends.” (Ibid., pp. 1-2)

“For many reasons we are sorry to say to our patient readers ‘Good-bye;’ but there are more reasons which compel us to do so; and the chief of these is that we think that the work of THE MANCHESTER FRIEND is ended so far as its continuance is concerned. We look back to the two years past with many pleasant recollections, and believe that the seed sown will take root, and in due season bear its golden harvest. We have had a good cause to advocate, and that has been our strength; its progress is certain, and perhaps will even benefit by our silence now, in THE MANCHESTER FRIEND….And what is it that THE MANCHESTER FRIEND has attempted to do? Certainly it has not striven to convince the world of any particular opinion, for its writers have advocated the most divergent opinions. The sole object of THE MANCHESTER FRIEND has been to ask men to be perfectly ingenuous in the expression of all they believe or disbelieve, on every question sufficiently interesting to have made them think, and to teach them to listen, and to remember, as they do so, that God has not furnished the world with any infallible Pope, either at Rome, in the shape of a Quaker’s Meeting of Ministers and Elders, or in any other form….We now wait for the harvest, even if we do not live until the harvest time, certain, however, that it will come, and bless the world with abundance not dreamt of now.” (editorial, signed “E.” probably referring to the editor, Joseph B. Forster, in the last issue of The Manchester Friend II/12 1873, p. 189)

FRIENDS AT THE MEMORIAL HALL, MANCHESTER:

“It is now more than two years and a quarter since we sought, outside of the Society of Friends, for the liberty to speak the thoughts and convictions we entertained which was denied to us within its borders, and for the enjoyment of the privilege of companionship in ‘unity of spirit,’ without the limitations imposed upon it by forced identity of opinion on the obscure propositions of theologians. We were told that such unity could not be practically obtained along with diversity of sentiment upon fundamental questions, but we did not see that this need necessarily be true where a principle of cohesion was assented to which involved tolerance to all opinions; and we therefore determined ourselves to try the experiment, and so remove the question, if possible, out of the region of speculation into that of practice….Whatever opinions we might hold, whatever opinions others might entertain, let us, we said, listen and learn something from the many-sided mind of humanity rather than from the one-sided vision of a party; and so, instead of perceiving disorder in variety, we recognized order, and saw that, like as with everything which surrounded us, the forms of men’s minds were also as varied and original as the infinite varieties in nature, and so evolved by the same power which clothes with beauty the flowers of the fields.” (“Address Adopted by the Friends at the Memorial Hall, Manchester, on Sunday, 7th December, 1873”, anonymous but with the note that it was printed “at the wish of the Meeting”, The Manchester Friend II/12 1873, p. 189)

“And now, in the last number of THE MANCHESTER FRIEND, we will record our experience as to the sufficiency of the principle we have recognized as a bond of union amongst men in religion. Nothing would induce us to return again to the old hedged-in ground, and we find ourselves as united a body of men and women as we hoped at the first we should be….It must not be imagined that there has not been diversity of opinion; there has been much at times, but without any approach to unpleasant or unprofitable disputation….We have met thus, with undiminished interest, in meetings we have made no effort to render attractive – in meetings which have been perfectly social, natural and free, and therefore pleasant to young and old, and even liked by our younger children. We have also met monthly at each others houses, or in the country in summer, in not more social converse than at meeting, though with a different kind of sociality; and after this trial we can say to our Friends who are at a loss to make their meetings attractive and agreeable, as well as profitable, we think we have gained by ours all you seek, and without feeling the ennui which we gather from the recent Conference in London oppresses the attenders of many of the meetings of the Society of Friends….In conclusion, we never anticipated great things; but we have had the good fortune, to find better than we expected, to reap many of the advantages we hoped to enjoy, and to be strengthened in our belief in the practicability and desirability of being united solely as ‘seekers after truth together,’ rather than assenters in common to any opinion whatsoever.” (Ibid., pp. 190-191)

GEORGE STEWARDSON BRADY:

“(T)here is in our Society a very wide-spread disinclination to accord a patient hearing, much less a careful examination, to arguments which threaten to undermine long-cherished beliefs and traditions, and it is probable that the relation of such beliefs stand to modern knowledge has received but little attention amongst us. Entertaining great respect for the feelings of those who still cling with affectionate tenacity to beliefs which long usage has taught them to regard as sacred and essential, the writer none the less believes that very much error is mixed up with the articles of faith which most of us have been taught to look upon as orthodox.” (Lumen Siccum: An Essay on the Exercise of the Intellect in Matters of Religious Belief. London: F. Bowyer Kitto, and Manchester: W. Hale., 1868, p. v-vi)

“The thirst for knowledge is one of the purest and noblest instincts with which humanity is endowed; it is perhaps the attribute which most unmistakeably separates the mind of man from that of brutes….And the sphere open to mental exercise, is as wide as the universe itself; it embraces the world of spirit and the world of matter; nothing which is possible to it is unlawful: the recognized round of human knowledge is so only by conquest, and we cannot tell what undiscovered realms yet await the explorer’s eye….In a word there is no possible subject of thought or study, concerning which it can reasonably be said – Stand aside for this is holy ground. The bounds imposed by the Creator in the constitution of the human mind form the only legitimate and indefeasible confines of thought, and any subject which is cognizable by the mind is a lawful one for the exercise of its powers.” (Ibid., p. 7)

“And now that science is becoming so widely popularized, and its study in colleges and schools is taking so strong a hold on men’s minds, it is impossible that theological dogmas or religious beliefs should be accepted, as they were wont to be, in mere deference to authority. It is beginning to be felt that statements pertaining to theology and religion must be capable of verification in the same way as any other truths, that religion and theology are indeed themselves within the range of accurate thought, that their domains may be freely traversed by truth-seekers and men of science, and that the light that shines upon them, though it be religious, needs not to be dim.” (Ibid., p. 9)

“The special gift of God to us is Science; it has already dissipated many errors which were at one time essentially bound up with religious creeds, - there are many left which must ere long disperse like clouds before the rising sun. Let us hope that our hands may not be stretched out to stay the good work or to discourage those who are busy therein.” (Ibid., p. 14)

“We of the Society of Friends enjoy perhaps more freedom of thought and action than the members of most other religious bodies, and our constitution admits more than others, of adaptation to the pressing need of the times, but if we would take any steps towards becoming the ‘Church of the future’ – a consummation perhaps not so utterly visionary or impracticable as may appear to some readers, - if indeed we would prevent fatal dissension and schism in our own ranks, we must be willing to grant unrestricted liberty of thought and opinion; we must even be ready to welcome amongst us those who may differ from us materially in matters of intellectual belief; we must in fact entirely abolish doctrinal standards of conformity, and be willing to join hands with all who feel our discipline and mode of worship suited to their needs.” (Ibid., pp. 26-27)

“(U)nless this Society shows in coming years more capacity to discern the signs of the times than it has recently shown, unless it can be brought to see that religious belief…must advance with…advancing knowledge, it will inevitably fall back, even further than it has already fallen, from its old position in the advanced guard of religious freedom.” (“State of the Society of Friends” The Manchester Friend, II/10, 15 Oct. 1873, 168, quoted in Kennedy, 2001, p. 91)

“(W)hatever may be the final object of the Creator, He works always according to law, and…whatever is beautiful has been made so, not capriciously, but by a process of development.” (The Modern spirit in the Study of Nature”, Friends Quarterly Examiner 20, 1886, pp. 63-84, quoted in Geoffrey Cantor, “Quaker Responses to Darwin” Osiris 2001, 16, p. 335)

LUCRETIA MOTT:

“Your readers will be interested in the following extract from a letter from Lucretia Mott, of Philadelphia, to a friend there, in reference to what has occurred in Manchester amongst Friends. ‘I read, with great interest thy letter from Joseph Forster, giving an account of the little Meeting at Manchester. Thy brother _____ kindly furnished me some numbers of the Manchester Friend and some of David Duncan’s essays and speeches. His death is indeed a great loss to the noble band of outspoken dissenters from the Evangelical or Theological Friends; but if they continue to have truth for authority, and not authority for truth, other labourers will enter their vineyard, for the harvest is great. Some of us have watched for years the progress of free thought and speech in England, and have looked for more daring or moral courage in expression than has yet appeared. The tendency both in England and in this country to engraft the popular creed on our simple Quaker religion requires a firm withstanding, lest we be found preaching an outward rather than an inward salvation; – directing to the letter which killeth and not to the spirit which giveth life – thus building again the things which William Penn and his co-workers destroyed. The cardinal doctrine of our Society, ‘the light within,’ ‘the engrafted word’ is sufficient, if we only have faith in its teachings, and bear a true testimony to its unfoldings. Good works will ever be the standard for righteous judgment. This was the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, who is as yet so little understood. Among the free-thinking Unitarians there is an increasing recognition of ‘the true light which lighteth every man,’ &c., as also among the best English Church members - and indeed Chunder Sen and other heathens, so called, bear testimony to this truth.’” (letter to the editor from “Philadelphia”, The Manchester Friend I/7 June 15, 1872, p. 102)

MARY HODGSON:

“Oh, that our preachers would leave off harping on doctrinal head matters and speak to the heart & soul – I feel no satisfaction in these outward credenda…the best worship seems to be striving after duty, poorly and weakly as one strives, and the best peace a little quiet alone with God where outward things are but hindering ones.” (Letter from Mary Hodgson to Elizabeth Green, 15 Nov. 1871, quoted in Kennedy, 2001, p. 81)
REFERENCES

Brady, George Stewardson Lumen Siccum: An Essay on the Exercise of the Intellect in Matters of Religious Belief. London: F. Bowyer Kitto, and Manchester: W. Hale., 1868

Brady, George Stewardson “State of the Society of Friends” The Manchester Friend, II/10, 15 Oct. 1873, 168

Brady, George Stewardson “The Modern spirit in the Study of Nature”, Friends Quarterly Examiner 20, 1886, pp. 63-84

Cantor, Geoffrey Quakers, Jews, and Science: Religious Responses to Modernity and the Sciences in Britain, 1650-1900. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005

Cantor, Geoffrey “Quaker Responses to Darwin” Osiris 2001, 16, p. 321-342

Duncan, David Can an Outward Revelation Be Perfect?, 2nd edition, London: F. Bowyer Kitto and Manchester: Hale & Roworth, 1871 (1st edition 1863)

Duncan, David Essays and Reviews, 1861

Duncan, David John Woolman: A Paper at the Friends’ Institute, Manchester. London: F. Bowyer Kitto and Manchester: W. Hale, 1871

Duncan, David National Life: A Lecture Read at the Manchester Friends’ Institute on the 22d of Fourth Month, 1870. London: F. Bowyer Kitto, and Manchester: Hale & Roworth, 1870

Duncan, David “Quakerism Past and Present”, The Manchester Friend, I/4, 15 March 1872, 57-8

Forster, Joseph B. “David Duncan and His Reviewer”, British Friend, 2 September 1961, 224-5

Forster, Joseph B. “Dread of Controversy”, British Friend, 2 Dec. 1861, 287-8

Forster, Joseph B. The Society of Friends and Freedom of Thought in 1871. London: F. Bowyer Kitto, and Manchester: W. Hale.

Isichei, Elizabeth Victorian Quakers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970

Kennedy, Thomas C. “An Angry God or a Reasonable Faith: The British Society of Friends, 1873-1888” The Journal of the Friends’ Historical Society 57(2) 1995, 183-188

Kennedy, Thomas C. British Quakerism 1860-1920: The Transformation of a Religious Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001

Scott, Richenda C. “Authority or Experience: John Wilhelm Rowntree and the Dilemma of 19th Century British Quakerism”. Journal of the Friends’ Historical Society, Spring 1960, 49(2), 75-95

Wilson, Roger C. Manchester, Manchester and Manchester Again: from ‘Sound Doctrine’ to ‘A Free Ministry’ – The theological travail of London Yearly Meeting throughout the nineteenth century, Friends Historical Society Occasional Series No. 1, London: FHS, 1990

[Expanded version 3-31-06]

No Comments »

Link to Trackback | Link to RSS Feed for comments on this post