Copy the page URI to the clipboard
Martin, Claire J. L.
(2003).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21954/ou.ro.0000e820
Abstract
The period following the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 was a challenging time for nonconformists. Severe persecution and the gradual diminution of millennial hopes forced them to look to their long-term survival as coherent religious groups. This accelerated the development of group consciousness and institutionalisation within the nonconformist churches. However, the decision-making process inherent in this development resulted in internal divisions concerning interpretation of the group's authoritative guide, whether it was Scripture or the Spirit.
Within the Society of Friends, leading Friends' concern for the future survival of Quakerism was embodied in efforts to curb the excesses of early Quaker enthusiasm and individualism. They sought to exert the authority of the church over the conscience of the individual. This provoked resistance from those who viewed this as an abandonment of the Quaker belief in the inner light. This thesis examines the most serious post-Restoration manifestations of Friends' struggle concerning human and spiritual authority: the Hat, Wilkinson-Story and Keithian Controversies. The Hat and Wilkinson-Story Controversies saw dissident Friends defending the freedom of the inner light against the imposed authority of George Fox and other leading Friends. However, the Keithian Controversy saw leading Friends defending the inner light against further restrictions that George Keith sought to impose upon it.
This thesis also compares Quaker internal controversies with those of other seventeenth-century nonconformist groups: General Baptists, Particular Baptists, Muggletonians, Independents and English Presbyterians. All churches that had developed a sense of group awareness experienced internal divisions during this period. However, the different structures of organisation and authority of the various groups determined both their susceptibility to division and their ability to overcome it. These structures also influenced the abilities of the different churches to survive the challenges of persecution and toleration.