This article is part of one chapter of my doctoral dissertation–a work-in-progress in which I am examining the Nancy Hewitt hypothesis that perhaps the Hicksite schism was a positive event because it led to liberal reform among women. The jury is still very much out on this hypothesis.
At least in the area of abolition where I have done the most research so far, the hypothesis does not seem to fly–I am not finding the Hicksite women were any more involved in abolitionist activity than Orthodox women, or involved in any different kinds of abolitionist reform. I think that in the area of women’s rights the hypothesis may hold better.
But in the meantime what I have found is that when advocating and performing their activist activities, the Hicksite women reformers seemed to enjoy a greater freedom in their argument. They were not forced to work within the context of the Bible as their ultimate authority or as a sacred object that must be reckoned with. If the Bible contained passages supporting slavery or the oppression of women, the Hicksite women had the freedom to point out that the Bible, after all, was merely a book, written by male human beings in a much earlier era. They seemed to have felt freer to argue from the point of view of logic or contemporary social thought. They were not involved in more or deeper reforms than the Orthodox women were, but they did seem to enjoy a freedom that the Orthodox women did not have, to step aside from the Bible and place it, as Elias Hicks and Hannah Barnard did, in greater perspective.
The Hicksite schism involves many complex theological, sociological, and economic factors, which by practical necessity must remain outside the scope of my study. However, one of the most interesting aspects of the schism to me relates to the Hicksites’ treatment of the Bible, particularly the idea that if there is a conflict between the scripture and the “inner light”, that the inner light takes precedence. This was a controversial idea in the 19th century, and it would still be a controversial idea for many contemporary Christians. But of course, this particular idea (and the origins of the Hicksite schism) are originally attributed to Irish Quaker Abraham Shackleton and the female Quaker minister from New York, Hannah Barnard in the late 18th century. 1
Hannah Jenkins Barnard (c.1754-1825) was a “recognized minister” in the Society of Friends. Barnard received recognition prior to 1793, and in 1797 received a certificate to visit England and Ireland, where Barbour and Frost note that she “associated with the so-called New Light, or rationalistic, Friends… who confirmed her doubts about the moral authority of those portions of the Old Testament dealing with war.”2 Barnard’s ideas on the Holy Scripture raised a furor in Europe and as a result, “in 1801 the London Yearly Meeting undertook a full investigation as to whether Hannah Barnard’s beliefs were those of Friends. “3 The investigation which ensued is fascinating, and bears many resemblances to the earlier trial of Anne Hutchinson in New England. We know most of what we do about Barnard and her case because the controversy reached such heights that detailed tracts were published in Europe on both sides of the controversy. These include accounts by Thomas Foster and William Matthews, who defended Barnard and warned of the dangers of this type of inquisition to the Society.
In the course of the inquisition, which took place on more than one day, Barnard insisted first, on attending the meetings at which her case was to be discussed, and later, on bringing in notes she had kept of the previous meetings. One of the ministers involved in the proceedings remarked later on her worthiness as an opponent in debate: “‘We fought Hannah’ (says he) ‘with very simple weapons; for at reasoning, she was quite too many for all of us.’”4 Note, however, that under the circumstances, this could be a questionable compliment. In this instance and at this time in history the role and value of reason in religion were subjects for debate, especially within the Society of Friends.
In relation to the place of God in advocating the wars described in the Old Testament, Barnard asserted her conviction that:
“…war is, in my full belief, a moral evil, which man has created for himself, by the misapplication of his powers, or, in other words, by the abuse of his free agency; and that it will continue to plague mankind, until they view it in the same light, and resist those lusts from whence it originates.”5
One of Barnard’s detractors explained:
“‘…that it was as consistent with the attributes of the Almighty for him to destroy his rational creatures lives in that way, as by an earthquake, or bodily disease; and though it was indeed very shocking to the feelings of the human mind, to contemplate the horrors of war, yet it appeared to him very easy to reconcile it, and justify the ways of God to man, when he considered that He, the great Giver of life, had it fully in his power, to make ample compensation to those, whom he thus subjected to suffering, and death, in this world, by richly rewarding them in the next!”6
To this, Barnard responded:
“I was amazed… at hearing such language, from the mouth of a professed ambassador of the Prince of Peace…but replied….yet his thus permitting it, does by no means prove his positive command, or even approbation of the deed.”7
In another similar exchange, Barnard questioned the integrity of the panel of Friends, alluding to their peace testimony:
“Friends…I am astonished to hear men, professing themselves members of a religious society, marked and admired above any other that has risen up for several years past, for their pointed testimony against war, now warmly pleading for it, and that in a manner which metamorphoses moral agents, into mere machines, passive as an earthquake, or an old tree blown down by the wind, and taking away life. Would my Friend be willing his sentiments, as now expressed, should be published to the world?” 8
In regard to the story of Abraham and Isaac, Barnard declared “that whatever was the ground of Abraham’s belief, it was his duty to make the preparations thus described, he was absolutely forbid by the Almighty, to ‘carry the deed into execution.’” 9
On the place of scriptures to the faith, Barnard noted:
“I told them….with regard to the scriptures, I thought it was fully evident from their printed testimonies, that they [Society of Friends] did not consider them the primary, the infallible rule of faith and life, but that this title belongs only to the holy spirit, inwardly communicated for all sufficient saving instruction, and that the scriptures themselves are subject to, and only rightly understood through its divine illuminations.’ To which they replied, ‘So do we.’”
….”As to myself, I confess, I dare not so far stretch myself beyond my measure, as to pass any thing off for doctrine, among my fellow creatures, that does not appear rationally consistent, and plain to me.”10
At one point Barnard defended herself by comparison to Robert Barclay, “for he made use of learned and logical arguments, that I was not mistress of; and had also laid it down, as a certain maxim, that the Spirit of God never contradicts right reason.”11
Further, on the infallibility of scripture, Barnard warned of :
“…the baneful effects of attaching divine infallibility to that book. And I repeat my belief, that it does not belong to any society, or book, but to the great source of eternal truth only; a sufficient portion whereof, having enlightened every man that comes into the world, it would lead him right, if he attended to it, and out of the spirit of war, and every other immoral action, and disposition.”12
At one point in the dialogue one of the elders suggested that they might have all been better off if Barnard had been less public about her views:
“At length one of them expressed his regret, at my having openly avowed my sentiments; saying ‘Suppose thou had believed them, if thou had only kept them to thyself, it could have made no difficulty and Friends would have remained quiet, but the publishing them had done the mischief, and occasioned much trouble to himself, and many others.”13
In the end, after multiple meetings with Barnard, the elders came to conclusions very close to their original ruling. That was,
“It having been made appear evidently to this meeting, that Hannah Barnard holds sentiments concerning some parts of the Old Testament contrary to the belief of the society, from its first rise to the present time, it is therefore the judgment of this meeting, that she has separated herself from them, and consequently it is highly improper that she should travel in the capacity of a minister among them; and it is this meeting’s advice to her to return home.” 14
Barnard had appealed that decision and pressed the group to be more explicit in their complaints:
“…examine the subject, and either discharge me from the bonds and censure, thus laid upon me, or clearly specify, and furnish me with reasons, for approving, and continuing the same.” 15
In the series of meetings that followed, the group never acceded to her request, and Barnard went home to America with the frustration of having been censored without specific charges. After returning to America, she would find herself disowned by her local meeting.
Great controversy was stirred up by Barnard. William Matthews notes in his 1802 collection of writings on the Barnard case:
“She was enjoined silence as a minister, and the rumour of her heterodoxy spread far and wide: All her former Gospel services by which many had once believed themselves edified, seemed to be willingly buried under a cloud of prejudices…and those of her own sex who could neither fathom her understanding, nor approach to her excellencies, were in the common habit of avoiding her as deluded, as dangerous, and as fallen from almost every thing that was good.!….[and it was] as though some strange monster of unbelief had beset the society, and was attempting to destroy the very ground of all security, present and eternal…. 16
One critic went so far as to imply that Barnard was “an enemy to Christianity, nearly approaching to Deism; he has even insinuated an approximation to Atheism!” 17 Another remarked acerbically about Barnard’s treatment of scripture: “….Not that I expect any argument drawn from the scriptures can convince any, who like Hannah, garble them at pleasure…” 18
But Barnard was not without advocates. Thomas Foster noted:
“Among those who disapproved of these proceedings against Hannah Barnard, was one ancient and justly esteemed Friend [who said] ‘For indeed you have condemned her for saying no more that the society has said for itself a long time ago, and published in print to the world; that the scriptures are a sealed book to every one, only as far as they are revealed to them, by the illumination of the holy spirit in their own hearts.’” 19
Other Quakers in particular recognized that Hannah’s case could set a very dangerous precedent for the Society. In Foster’s concluding section, he noted that while he did not necessarily agree with all of Barnard’s point of view regarding the Bible:
“There is no minute in the Book of Extracts, which authorizes the meeting of ministers and elders, a body, the members of which have collectively, and individually, the greatest weight and influence in our society, to erect themselves, if I may be allowed the expression, into a tribunal of accusation, and present a formal charge to a monthly meeting, against an individual….I should hope the good sense of the society, will perceive the danger of entrusting such extraordinary powers to the select meeting, and the necessity of reprobating with one voice, any further attempt (a circumstance by no means improbable), to exercise a privilege, much less calculated to produce conviction by the weight of evidence, than to crush the opponents by the millstone of authority.” 20
In the Matthews collection, someone who called himself “Theophilus” warned Quakers that the next step in their society’s evolution might include the pressure to create a creedal statement by which every Quaker would be judged as to whether his or her faith was orthodox :
“…it has been thought by many Friends, that great disadvantages have arisen, and may be expected to arise, in the society under our name on account of the want of something like a plain standard, or society-agreement, relative to essential articles of faith…duly defining sundry points, to the end that all which is essential in belief, to the character of a member of the body, may be known:….Or, if not attainable, an explicit declaration may be profitably made, that the society cannot undertake to set up a standard of faith in such matters, whereby to bind or regulate the minds of its members.” 21
The Barnard controversy foreshadows many of the key questions that will be raised later by Long Island minister Elias Hicks. One of the exchanges which became most discussed in the Hicksite controversy were Elias’ letters to Phebe Willis early in the 19th century concerning the proper use of the Bible. Willis was a fellow Long Island Quaker and friend to Elias Hicks, but because of her beliefs concerning scripture and other key theological issues she and her husband would later choose to join the side of the Orthodox minority in their local meeting.
Hicks opened his letter to Willis in 1818 by embracing the very pragmatic view that each person’s faith depended on his/her own experience as revealed to them by God:
“Dear Friend…I have…been led to see the necessity of investigating for myself all customs and doctrines, whether of a moral or of a religious nature, either verbally or historically communicated, by the greatest and best of men or angels, and not to sit down satisfied with any thing but the plain, clear, demonstrative testimony of the spirit and word of life and light in my own heart and conscience….” 22
Hicks made what would later become one of his most controversial observations, that “the book called the Scriptures…appears …to have been the cause of four-fold more harm than good to Christendom, since the apostles’ days….” 23
He accused the “professors of Christianity” of “[holding] the Scriptures, or their interpretations of them, as their chief idol…such was their veneration for them, that for anyone to hold up any thing else as a rule, he was immediately pronounced a heretic or schismatic, and not fit to company or associate with in any way….” 24 ….” For is it possible that men can be guilty of greater idolatry, than to esteem and hold the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice, by which they place them in the very seat of God and worship them as God?” 25 Hicks cited this practice as a direct contradiction to the beliefs of Quaker founder George Fox, who “[bore] testimony to the light and spirit of truth in the hearts and consciences of men and women, as the only sure rule of faith and practice…complete and sufficient, without the aid of books or men….” 26 Hicks concluded his 1818 letter to Phebe Willis:
“….the Lord is graciously willing to reveal himself as fully to the children of men in this day as in any day of the world, without respect of persons, as each is attentive to his inward and spiritual manifestations…we are all, or have been, so bound down by tradition, being taught from the cradle to venerate the Scriptures, and people generally considering them so sacred as not be to investigated…hence we have all been more or less, dupes to tradition and error.” 27
When an Orthodox Quaker critiqued a new volume of Hicks’ sermons in the Orthodox publication The Friend, he characterized Hicks’ objectives as: “To destroy all faith in Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world, to degrade him to the level of a mere man, and totally to lay waste the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures.” 28
The Quaker women reformers who followed Hicks echoed his theology regarding scripture. Hicksite preacher Lucretia Mott, in a sermon to the Cherry Street Meeting in Philadelphia in 1849, redefined scripture itself, saying
“…in Christendom generally it is assumed that the Bible is the word of God, while we from the earliest date of our religious society have declared and believe we have been sustained by scripture testimony in the view that the word of God is a quickening spirit….” 29
Like Elias Hicks, she alluded to the “dangers” of the Bible when not used in conjunction with humanity’s ability to reason: “Is not the Bible sought from beginning to end for its isolated passages wherewith to prove the most absurd dogmas that ever were palmed off upon a credulous people; dogmas doing violence to the divine gift of reason with which man is so beautifully endowed….?” 30 “Let us then my friends cherish a religion which shall be rational and which shall be reasonable in its observances and in its requirements.” 31
In the spirit of Hannah Barnard and Elias Hicks, Mott discussed the injustices that had been visited on society by misuse of Biblical authority: “has there not been an unworthy resort to this volume to prove the rightfulness of war and slavery, and of crushing woman’s powers, the assumption of authority over her, and indeed of all the evils under which the earth, humanity has groaned from age to age?” 32
Mott’s sermon echoed Hicks’ disdain for the reverence of the past for its own sake, and his hopes toward the new revelations of the future:
“We are not thus to use the example or practice of the ancients. It may have been well for them, coming from under the cloud of superstition formerly. They may still have needed their outward school master to bring them to a higher position, a higher sphere…” 33 …”There is one source which is higher than this, and when we come to it we are drawn away, to some extent from all external dependences, from all outward authorities….” 34
Hicksite activist Susan B. Anthony, carried on an interesting set of interchanges with her partner in activism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, considering the use of scripture. When asked whether she wished to be named on Stanton’s committee for the Woman’s Bible, Anthony responded:
“No I don’t want my name on that Bible Committee You fight that battle and leave me to fight the secular….I simply don’t want the enemy to be diverted from my practical ballot fight– to that of scoring me for belief one way or the other about the bible– The religious part has never been mine…” 35
However, when asked by an interviewer what part Anthony had played, if any, in the creation of the Woman’s Bible, she responded:
“No, I did not contribute to it, though I knew of its preparation. My own relations to or ideas of the Bible always have been peculiar, owing to my Quaker training. The Friends consider the book as historical, made up of traditions, but not as a plenary inspiration. Of course people say these women are impious and presumptuous for daring to interpret the Scriptures as they understand them, but I think women have just as good a right to interpret and twist the Bible to their own advantage as men have always twisted it and turned it to theirs.” 36
Lucretia’s sister, Martha Coffin Wright, was a Hicksite activist in her own right, particularly active in the struggles for women’s rights and for abolition. 37 A visiting student from Auburn Theological Seminary came to Wright’s home to proselytize and hand out tracts and asked her, “Didn’t [she] consider the Bible the only rule of faith and practice?” Her response:
“By no means! I considered the old testament a very unfit book for children to read. He began to speak as if there were to be sure some indelicate passages. I told him I had no reference to that, but that revenge and all the evil passions were encouraged by some parts of that book, that while Christ commanded forgiveness to enemies, David said, ‘I hate thy enemies, O Lord,’ with perfect hatred. ‘O’, said he, ‘he meant that he hated their evil actions.’ ‘Then he should have said so, said I.’” 38
On the infallibility of the Bible, Wright said:
“No living mortal knows any more than you or I know. As to the teachings of the pulpit or the Bible, they come only from fallible mortals like ourselves, & their opinion is worth just as much as yours & mine neither more nor less less if it seems less rational….” 39
In contrast, the Orthodox female Quaker reformers I have studied usually espoused a more traditional theological stance toward the Bible. New England Orthodox abolitionist Lucy Buffum Lovell wrote in her diary describing her own religious teachings to her daughter Caroline:
“She one day said to me, ‘Mother, you said that our Saviour was God, and the Son of God too. But no! That can’t be, it is not so.’ I told her she must not say so, it was a mystery. I could not understand it, and there were a great many things which I could not understand, but we must believe that it was so, because the Bible says so. She said nothing more against it, but seemed to receive it by faith, and implicit confidence in my word.” 40
An examination of the addresses of orthodox activists Angelina and Sarah Grimke, shows that the Bible was key to their arguments and that they worked extensively to remain within a Biblical context of argument. Angelina Grimke, in her Appeal to the Christian Women of the South, opened her speech with a quotation from the book of Esther, and discussed the importance of the Bible relative to her own beliefs:
“…it may be said [that]…the Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now the Bible is my ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it is to this test I am anxious to bring the subject at issue between us. Let us then begin with Adam and examine the charter of privileges which was given to him. ‘Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air’….In this charter, although the different kinds of irrational beings are so particularly enumerated, and supreme dominion over all of them is granted, yet man is never vested with this dominion over his fellow man; he was never told that any of the human species were put under his feet….” 41
Grimke went to great lengths to describe the status of slaves among the Biblical foreparents of the Old Testament, finally concluding :
“Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the parallel between Jewish servitude and American slavery? No! For there is no likeness in the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of Moses protected servants in their rights as men and women, guarded them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the South robs the slave of all his rights as a man, reduces him to a chattel personal, and defends the master in the exercise of the most unnatural and unwarantable power over his slave.” 42
She translated the Biblical reference to the word “servant”, from the original Greek and compared its uses in its various appearances in the Bible. 43
Then, after summarizing her arguments, Biblical and otherwise, Grimke entreated her women listeners to realize that abolition was their task and responsibility, and in the process named a multitude of female activists in the Bible, by name and by Biblical reference…. 44
Similar tactics are employed by Sarah Grimke, in her Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman. She titled her first letter The Original Equality of Woman, and noted:
“in examining this important subject, I shall depend solely on the Bible to designate the sphere of woman, because I believe almost every thing that has been written on this subject, has been the result of a misconception of the simple truths revealed in the Scriptures, in consequence of the false translation of many passages of Holy Writ….” 45
She titled her second letter Woman Subject Only to God, and returned to the stories of Genesis:
“As I am unable to learn from sacred writ when woman was deprived by God of her equality with man, I shall touch upon a few points in the Scriptures, which demonstrate that no supremacy was granted to me. When God had destroyed the world, except Noah and his family, by the deluge, he renewed the grant formerly made to man, and again gave him dominion over every beast of the earth, every fowl of the air….But was woman, bearing the image of her God, placed under the dominion of her fellow man? Never! Jehovah could not surrender his authority to govern his own immortal creatures into the hands of a being, whom he knew, and whom his whole history proved, to be unworthy of a trust so sacred and important….we find the commands of God invariably the same to man and woman; and not the slightest intimation is given in a single passage of the Bible, that God designed to point woman to man as her instructor….”46
Sarah Grimke wrote a letter in response to criticism by the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts. Grimke began by quoting the ministers’ letter to her:
” ‘ The appropriate duties and influence of women are clearly stated in the New Testament. Those duties are unobtrusive and private, but the sources of mighty power. When the mild, dependent softening influence of woman upon the sternness of man’s’‘ opinions is fully exercised, society feels the effects of it in a thousand ways.’”
“No one can desire more earnestly than I do, that woman may move exactly in the sphere which her Creator has assigned her; and I believe her having been displaced from that sphere has introduced confusion in the world. It is, therefore, of vast importance to herself and to all the rational creation, that she should ascertain what are her duties and her privileges as a responsible and immortal being. The New Testament has been referred to, and I am willing to abide by its decision, but must enter my protest against the false translation of some passages by the MEN who did that work, and against the perverted interpretation by the MEN who understood to write commentaries thereon. I am inclined to think, when we are admitted to the honor of studying Greek and Hebrew, we shall produce some various readings of the Bible a little different from those we now have”
In conclusion, and on a personal and political note:
As a contemporary member of the Methodist clergy struggling with the issue of inclusion of gay members in the Methodist body of Christ, I have found the Hicksite debate over the place of scripture not only a very interesting one historically, but one which may have contemporary implications for other religious bodies and questions as well. As my own denomination argues over the ordination of gay pastors and the marriage of gay church members, I believe that we, too, will need to place the Bible and its clear scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality into “proper perspective”.
Anthony, Susan B. Susan B. Anthony to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, July 24, 1895, Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California. In Lynn Sherr, Failure Is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words. New York: Random House, 1995.
Anthony, Susan B. Susan B. Anthony in Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 1896?, Harper 2, 856. In Lynn Sherr, Failure Is Impossible.
Barbour, Hugh, and J. William Frost. The Quakers. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Foster, Thomas. An Appeal to the Society of Friends on the Primitive Simplicity of Their Christian Principles and Church Discipline: And On Some Recent Proceedings In the Said Society. London: Printed at the Philanthropic Reform, St. George’s Fields and Sold by J. Johnson, St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1801.
Grimke, Angelina Emily. Angelina Emily Grimke, Appeal to the Christian Women of the South, in New York [American Anti-Slavery Society], 1836, in Arno and New York Times, 1969. In Larry Ceplair, Ed., The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimke: Selected Writings 1835-1839. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989.
Grimke, Sarah M. Sarah M. Grimke, “Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman,” addressed to Mary S. Parker, President of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society:
Amesbury, [Mass] 7th Mo. 11th, 1837, Letter I “The Original Equality of Woman”, inCeplair, The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimke. Newburyport, [Mass.] 7th Mo.17, 1837, Letter II “Woman Subject Only to God”, in Ceplair, The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimke. Haverhill, [Mass.] 7th Mo. 1837, Letter III “The Pastoral Letter of the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts”, in Ceplair, The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimke.
Hicks, Elias. Elias Hicks to Phebe Willis, 5th month 19th day, 1818. In Letters of Elias Hicks Including also a few short essays written on several occasions, mostly illustrative of his doctrinal views, published by Isaac T. Hopper. New York: Isaac Hopper, 1834.
Elias Hicks, 9th month 23rd day, 1820. In Letters of Elias Hicks.
Lovell, Lucy Buffum. Lucy Buffum Lovell, diary Aug. 6, 1842. In Lucille Salitan and Eve Lewis Perera, Editors, Virtuous Lives: Four Quaker Sisters Remember Family Life, Abolitionism, and Women’s Suffrage. New York:Continuum, 1994.
Mott, Lucretia. “Uses and Abuses of the Bible.” Sermon delivered at Cherry Street Meeting, Philadelphia, November 4, 1849. In American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc, 1999.
Matthews, William, of Bath. The Recorder: Being a Collection of Tracts and Disquisitions, Chiefly Relative to the Modern State and Principles of the People Called Quakers, volume 1, Part VI, “Sundry Pieces Relative to the Case and Treatment of Hannah Barnard “, p. 113 ff.London:Printed for the Author by R. Cruttwell; published by J. Johnson, St. Paul’s Church-Yard,1802.
Penney, Sherry H., and James D. Livingston. A Very Dangerous Woman: Martha Wright and Women’s Rights. Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004.
Smith, Robert, Editor. The Friend: Religious and Literary Journal Volume 1. Philadelphia:Published by John Richardson, corner of Carpenter and Seventh Streets (1828).
Wright, Martha Coffin. Martha Coffin Wright to Lucretia Coffin Mott, Jan. 17, 1846, Garrison Family Papers, Sophia Smith Collection. In Penney and Livingston, A Very Dangerous Woman.
Martha Coffin Wright to Ellen Wright Garrison, November 8, 1872, Garrison Family Papers. In Penney and Livingston, A Very Dangerous Woman.
1. Hugh Barbour and J. William Frost also note the case of Abraham Shackleton, Irish Quaker and clerk of the Carlow Monthly Meeting of Ministers and Elders, who expressed “doubts whether God had commanded the wars in the Old Testament. Early Friends, he claimed, had emphasized the primacy of the experience of the Light of God and had used Scriptures in a secondary role.” Shackleton was disowned in 1801, and some of his friends in the Society withdrew in protest. Hugh Barbour and J. William Frost, The Quakers. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), 170. Also see Rufus Jones, Later Periods of Quakerism (London: 1921), I, 293-311 and William Rathbone, A Narrative of Events That Have Lately Taken Place in Ireland among the Society Called Quakers (London: 1804).
2. Barbour and Frost, The Quakers, 170, 289.
3. Barbour and Frost, The Quakers, 170.
4. Thomas Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends on the Primitive Simplicity Of Their Christian Principles and Church Discipline: And On Some Recent Proceedings In The Said Society, (London: Printed at the Philanthropic Reform, St. George’s Fields And Sold by J. Johnson, St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1801), 49.
5. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends,116.
6. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 54.
7. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 54.
8. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 57.
9. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 60.
10. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 54-55.
11. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 159.
12. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 57.
13. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 57.
14. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 48.
15. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 32.
16. William Matthews, of Bath, The Recorder: Being a Collection of Tracts and Disquisitions, Chiefly Relative to the Modern State and Principles of The People Called Quakers, volume 1, printed for the Author by R. Cruttwell; published by J. Johnson, St. Paul’s Church-Yard London and sold by all the booksellers, 1802, from Part VI, “Sundry Pieces Relative to the Case and Treatment of Hannah Barnard” p. 113 ff, 121.
17. Matthews, The Recorder, 149.
18. Matthews, The Recorder, 166.
19. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 60.
20. Foster, An Appeal to the Society of Friends, 229.
21. Matthews, The Recorder, 153.
22. Elias Hicks to Phebe Willis, Jericho, 5th month 19th day, 1818, in Letters of Elias Hicks Including also a few short essays written on several occasions, mostly illustrative of his doctrinal views. published by Isaac T. Hopper (New York : Isaac Hopper,1834), 43.
23. Elias Hicks, Jericho, 5th month 19th day, 1818, in Letters of Elias Hicks, 44.
24. Elias Hicks, Jericho 5th month 19th day, 1818, in Letters of Elias Hicks, 46.
25. Elias Hicks, New York, 9th month 23rd, 1820, in Letters of Elias Hicks, 64.
26. Elias Hicks, Jericho, 5th month 19th day, 1818, in Letters of Elias Hicks, 45.
27. Elias Hicks, Jericho, 5th month 19th day, 1818, in Letters of Elias Hicks, 49.
28. Robert Smith, Editor, The Friend: Religious and Literary Journal, volume I (1828):285.
Philadelphia: Published by John Richardson, corner of Carpenter and Seventh Streets.
29. Lucretia Mott, “Abuses and Uses of the Bible”, (sermon delivered at Cherry Street Meeting, Philadelphia, November 4, 1849), in American Sermons: The Pilgrims to Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1999), 630.
30. Mott, “Abuses and Uses of the Bible, ” 631.
31. Mott, “Abuses and Uses of the Bible,” 637.
32. Mott,” Abuses and Uses of the Bible,” 632.
33. Mott, “Abuses and Uses of the Bible”, 633.
34. Mott, “Abuses and Uses of the Bible”, 635.
35. Susan B. Anthony to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, July 24, 1895, Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California, Anthony Family Collection, AF 24 (2), in Lynn Sherr, Failure is Impossible: Susan B. Anthony in Her Own Words (New York: Random House, 1995), 254-255.
36. Susan B. Anthony, in Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 1896?, Harper 2, 856, in Lynn Sherr, Failure is Impossible, 257.
37. Sherry H. Penney and James D. Livingston, A Very Dangerous Woman: Martha Wright and Women’s Rights. ( Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004), 2.
38. Martha Coffin Wright to Lucretia Coffin Mott, Jan. 17, 1846, Garrison Family Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, in Penney and Livingston, A Very Dangerous Woman, 62.
39. Martha Coffin Wright to Ellen Wright Garrison, November 8, 1872, Garrison Family Papers, in Penney and Livingston, A Very Dangerous Woman, 203.
40. Lucy Buffum Lovell, diary entry of August 6, 1842, in Lucille Salitan and Eve Lewis Perera, Editors, Virtuous Lives: Four Quaker Sisters Remember Family Life, Abolitionism, and Women’s Suffrage. (New York: Continuum, 1994), 72 .
41. Angelina Emily Grimke, Appeal to the Christian Women of the South, (New York:[American Anti-Slavery Society], 1836; New York: Arno and New York Times, 1969, in Larry Ceplair, Editor, The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimke: Selected Writings 1835-1839 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 36,38-39.
42. A. Grimke, Appeal to the Christian Women….in Ceplair, 49-50.
43. A Grimke, Appeal to the Christian Women….in Ceplair, 52.
44. A. Grimke, Appeal to the Christian Women in Ceplair, 60.
45. Sarah M. Grimke, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman, addressed to Mary S. Parker, President of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society, Amesbury, [Mass.] 7th Mo. 11th, 1837,Letter I “The Original Equality of Woman”, in Ceplair, The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimke, 204-205.
46. Sarah M. Grimke, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Woman, addressed to Mary S. Parker, President of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society, Newburyport,[Mass.] 7th Mo. 17, 1837, Letter II “Woman Subject Only to God”,in Ceplair, The Public Years of Sarah and Angelina Grimke, 207-209.