Having seen John Hall's posting about mid-19C evangelical Quakers, I'll
pull pack on my "Never in England," and ask John -- perhaps off this list?
-- to elaborate on the "possibly".
It is my understanding that the groups the moved to the Plymouth Brethren
were thought to have baptized as their act of separation from Friends, but
my knowledge of this is dim at bst.
Maddy wrote:
>an attempt to
>identify as well as a baptismal well on the grounds that there was a nearby
>congregation of Friends.
This logic cannot stand without precise evidence that _those_ Quakers did
indeed baptize there, but there would have been most unusual, and the
instance is unknown, so far as I can tell, in lterature on early (17C)
Friends.
One possibilitiy is that often, very very early on (before 1650) the lines
between Quakers and baptists were sometimes a little blurry. But again,
this would be a longshot and would need some very precise evidence
demonstrating that the proto-Quakers of that meeting did in fact baptize.
Patrick.
>Many thanks, John, for the characteristically detailed and illuminating
>reply.. The reference was to C17 quakers - specifically, to an attempt to
>identify as well as a baptismal well on the grounds that there was a nearby
>congregation of Friends. I thought it was unlikely but took advantage of
>the discussion thread to check.
>Thanks again.
>
>Maddy
>
>
>
>Dr Madeleine Gray
>Department of Humanities and Science
>UWCN
>
>'Reading is sometimes an ingenious device for avoiding thought'
__________________________________
Patrick J. Nugent
Earlham College
Richmond, Indiana 47374 USA
(765) 983-1413
[log in to unmask]
__________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|