:'-^.y- 
 
# 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^^ 
 
 \THEOLOGXGi^L 
 
 V ■ .^^ 
 
 Division, ~^^*—' 
 Section _. / I * f 
 
^ — ^ 
 
 e 
 

 
 
 
 4 _. . 
 
 
 ^ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/societyoffriendsOOwood 
 
SOCIETY OF FRIENDS VINDICATED- 
 
 THE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL 
 
 JOSEPH HENDRICKSON, 
 
 IN A CAUSE 
 
 DECIDED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY 
 
 STATE OF ITE-W JERSEY, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 THOMAS L. SHOTWELL, COMPLAINANT, 
 
 AND 
 
 JOSEPH HENDRICKSON AND STACY DECOW, DEFENDANTS, 
 
 / 
 BY GEORGE' WOOD AND ISAAC H. WILLIAMSON, 
 
 Counsellors at Law, 
 
 TO WHICH IS APPENDED 
 
 THE DECISION OF THE COURT, 
 
 TRENTON, N. J. 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY P. J. GRAY. 
 
 1832. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred 
 and thirty-two, by P. J. Gray, in the Clerk's Office of the District of New Jersey 
 
,H£C.CCT18t? 'i^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ■ ■?:<■< 
 
 The case which is here reported, has excited a deep and lively 
 interest among an extensive portion of the community, and the 
 Editor has been induced to prepare this publication in order to 
 gratify the curiosity which has been raised. He deems it proper 
 to make a short preliminary statement of the case. 
 
 Many years ago a subscription was got up, within the precincts 
 of the Preparative Meeting of the Society of Friends, at Cross- 
 wicks, in the state of New Jersey, for the purpose of raising a 
 fund, to estabhsh a school for the education of the children of the 
 indigent members of that meeting. Members subscribed, and a 
 fund was raised, and placed under the control and direction 
 of the preparative meeting, which appointed a treasurer to take 
 charge of the school fund. 
 
 The plan originated in the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, to 
 which this meeting at Crosswicks was attached, and under their 
 auspices similar funds, for the like purposes, were raised in other 
 preparative meetings belonging to their jurisdiction. 
 
 The religious dissention which has arisen in the vSociety of 
 Friends, and in which Elias Hicks has performed so conspicuous a 
 part, need not here be particularly detailed. After the dispute had 
 raged for some time, the party to which EUas Hicks was attached, 
 usually denominated " Hicksites," and the opposite party, usually 
 called the " Orthodox," became completely established. They were 
 
IV 
 
 absolutely detached from each other, in most places, so as to form 
 separate meetings, and this was the case at Crosswicks, as well as 
 at all the other meetings under the jurisdiction of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson had been appointed the treasurer of this 
 school fund, by the preparative meeting at Crosswicks, before this 
 controversy arose, and in his capacity of treasurer, had loaned 
 out a portion of the money on interest, to Thomas L. Shotwell, 
 who was not a member of the Society of Friends ; who gave him 
 the bond and mortgage, upon which this suit is brought. When 
 these parties became completely divided, and formed two sepa- 
 rate preparative meetings at Crosswicks, the " Hicksite" prepara- 
 tive meeting appointed Stacy Decow the treasurer of this school 
 fund. Thomas L. Shotwell, who had become attached to that 
 party, refused to recognize Joseph Hendrickson, who adhered to 
 the " Orthodox," as the lawful treasurer any longer. Under the 
 direction of the preparative meeting held by the " Orthodox," and 
 claimed by them to be the true preparative meeting of the Socie- 
 ty of Friends, Joseph Hendrickson as their treasurer, demanded 
 of Thomas L. Shotwell the payment of the interest due upon his 
 bond and mortgage, which he refused to pay him, disclaiming his 
 right to receive it. 
 
 Upon this refusal, Joseph Hendrickson exhibited a bill of com- 
 plaint in the usual form, in the Court of Chancery of New Jersey, 
 against Shotwell, to foreclose his bond and mortgage ; and in his 
 bill, he set forth the pretension on the part of Shotwell, that Sta- 
 cy Decow was the lawful treasurer of the school fund. And 
 for the purpose of rebutting this pretension, he set forth particu- 
 larly the religious controversy in this Society above alluded to ; 
 their division into two parties ; and alleged that the ground of this 
 division was on account of religious doctrines. He stated, that 
 there were three prominent points of doctrine on which they dif- 
 fered ; that the ancient Society of Friends believed in the divinity 
 
of the Saviour, the atonement, and in the inspiration and uner- 
 ring truth and certainty of the holy Scriptures, which tenets were 
 still held by the " Orthodox " party, and are, and always have 
 been deemed fundamental: but that the " Hicksite" party reject- 
 ed these doctrines. He further charged, that the " Hicksite " 
 party had seceded from the institutions and government of the 
 church ; that during the sitting of the Yearly Meeting of Philadel- 
 phia, in 1827, the members composing the "Hicksite" party 
 held private irregular meetings, which resulted in the issuing, by 
 them, of an address directed to their own party, calling a con- 
 vention for the purpose of framing a yearly meeting of their own; 
 that this convention, composed of their own party, met accord- 
 ingly, and did form a new yearly meeting, which was first held 
 in Philadelphia, on the second Monday in April, 1828, and has 
 continued since to be held annually, on the same day of the 
 month. He also stated, that the old yearly meeting, at their 
 sitting in 1827, was regularly adjourned to meet the ensuing 
 year, at Philadelphia, on the third Monday in April, agreeably to 
 the established rules of the Society ; that they did so meet the fol- 
 lowing year, and have continued annually to assemble at that 
 time and place ever since. And he charged, that the " Hicksite " 
 preparative meeting at Crosswicks, was detached from the old 
 preparative meeting, and was connected with, and in subordina- 
 tion to, the new " Hicksite" Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia. He al- 
 leged that these proceedings amounted to a secession from the go- 
 vernment of the church, and that, as such seceders, they were not 
 identified with the old institutions, and could not carry the proper- 
 ty with them. Upon the filing of this bill, Thomas L. Shotwell 
 came into court, and exhibited a bill of interpleader against Joseph 
 Hendrickson and Stacy Decow, the two adverse treasurers, in 
 which he set forth their respective claims and pretensions. Joseph 
 Hendrickson filed an answer, in which, he reiterated and insisted 
 upon the various grounds charged in his original bill. 
 
VI 
 
 Stacy Decow, in his answer lo this bill of interpleader, denied 
 that the three religious doctrines already stated, were fundamental 
 doctrines with the Society of Friends. On the contrary, he said 
 they had no creed, and every individual member might believe, 
 in regard to them, as he pleased. He refused to disclose his re- 
 ligious sentiments or those of his party, alleging that he was not 
 bound to disclose them before a temporal tribunal. He contended 
 that the rehgious Society of Friends was a pure democracy, ac- 
 knowledging no head but Christ, the Gi'eat Head of the christian 
 church, and that they did not consider Elias Hicks as their leader. 
 That, believing in the fundamental doctrine of the influence of the 
 divine hght upon the soul, they held no inquisition over the con- 
 sciences of their fellow men. He denied that his party had se- 
 ceded from the rule and govei'nment of the church. He con- 
 tended that they had merely revived the government, and orga- 
 nized it anew upon its -original principles, which had become ne- 
 cessary, in consequence of the erroneous and irregular proceed- 
 ings of some members of the opposite party, particularly certain 
 elders in Philadelphia. 
 
 After the pleadings were completed, the depositions of witnesses 
 were taken at Camden, opposite to the city of Philadelphia, be- 
 fore Jeremiah J. Foster, Esq. an Examiner in the Court of Chan- 
 cery, which, together with the pleadings at length, and some of 
 the exhibits in the cause, have been published in tw^o volumes. 
 
 The Chancellor having been, while at the bar, of counsel in the 
 cause, called into his assistance, agreeably to the practice of the 
 Court, the Chief Justice and one of the Associate Justices of the 
 Supreme Court, before whom the cause was heard. 
 
 This volume may with propriety be considered a continuation 
 of the W'Ork of J. J. Foster, Esq. and is so intended to be. But in- 
 asmuch as many persons may wish to procure this volume, with- 
 out going to the expence of obtaining the depositions, the Editor 
 
VI I 
 
 has thought it advisable to give this brief account of the pleadings 
 and previous proceedings for the benefit of the reader. 
 
 He regrets that he is unable to publish the arguments of the coun- 
 sel on the other side. He had made arrangements to procure 
 the speech of one of them, but those who had at that time the 
 control of it, declined consummating the arrangement, and he 
 could not therefore procure the copy. The Editor only adverts 
 to these circumstances, in order to account for their arguments 
 not appearing in this publication, and to exempt himself from 
 any censure for not inserting them. 
 
 Trenton, August, 1S32, 
 
SOCIETY OF FRIENDS VINDICATED. 
 
 Court of Chancery, of JVew Jersey, 
 Trenton, January 3, 1832. 
 
 This being the day set down by the Court, for hearing the ar- 
 gument, and their Honors, Chief Justice Ewing, and Associate 
 Justice Drake, of the Supreme Court, being present, the Chancel- 
 lor having been concerned as counsel in the cause, 
 
 George Wood, Esq., solicitor for the plaintiff, thus opened the 
 cause : 
 
 The debt secured by the bond and mortgage in question, in this 
 cause, is part of a school fund, raised for the education of the 
 children of indigent members of the Preparative Meeting of the 
 society of Friends, or people called Quakers, at Ci'osswicks, in the 
 county of Burlington.* 
 
 The trustees and the treasurer of this school fund are appointed 
 by this preparative meeting. The whole fund, including this mort- 
 gage debt, which is a part of the fund, is a mere appendage to this 
 preparative meeting. 
 
 Independently of the pleadings and evidence in this cause, it is 
 well known that there is an unfortunate controversy in this reli- 
 
 * See the original subscription paper in the Appendix. 
 A 
 
gious society. A controversy which has spread discord through- 
 out the whole church. It has not been confined in its effects to 
 mere religious matters, but its baneful influence has infected all 
 the relations of private life. Brother has been arrayed against 
 brother, and husband against wife. The bitterness of this dissen- 
 tion has been rendered doubly severe, from the reflection, that the 
 members of this church have heretofore been distinguished, with- 
 out seeking distinction of any kind, for their pacific disposition 
 and friendly intercourse. The last property in New Jersey, which 
 any one, a few years ago would have expected to see involved in 
 the heat of litigation, would have been Quaker meeting houses, 
 and their appendages. 
 
 The dispute commenced about religious doctrines. This led 
 to a discussion in respect to discipline and government, and has 
 eventuated in an absolute separation of the parties ; both sides are 
 respectable in regard to numbers and character. 
 
 The religious world, from a very early period, has been divided 
 in sentiment, respecting the divinity of Jesus Christ. Those op« 
 posed to it, have appeared at different times and in diflferent forms. 
 Arjanism, presented the boldest front of opposition to this doctrine, 
 which commenced with Arius, a presbyter of the church of Alex- 
 andria, in the fourth century. Shortly before this, arose the Sa- 
 bellian controversy. The Socinian, is of more modern date; and 
 lastly, we have the Unitarian. They have appeared with diflfer- 
 ent modifications of doctrines, becoming more lax as they recede 
 in point of time. They all agree, however, in one point — in de- 
 grading the great Head of the Christain Church, in disrobing Him 
 of his divinity and equality in the Godhead. They agree, also, in 
 rejecting the atonement — they also reduce the scriptures from a 
 work of inspiration, which is infallible, to a mere history, liable to 
 err, and subject to allowances in interpretation, so as to get clear 
 of all those passages in which the divinity of the Saviour is fully 
 and unequivocally developed. 
 
 Arianism spread at one time extensively. Modern protestants 
 are generally Trinitarians. Unitarianism has lately gained ground 
 in New England; and within a comparatively short period, it has 
 invaded the peaceful borders of Quakerism. 
 
 There are at Crosswicks, two associations, each claiming to be 
 the preparative meeting in question. The one is attached to the 
 
\^Ar\y meeting of Philadelphia, which assembles on the third 
 Monday of the fourth month, or April. The other, to the yearly 
 meeting which assembles there on the second Monday of that 
 month. The bill of interpleader was intended to bring before the 
 courtj the two persons, Hendrickson and Shotwell, each claiming 
 to be the treasurer of this school. Hendrickson, my client, being 
 appointed by the preparative meeting commonly called " Orthodox," 
 Shotwell, by the preparative meeting commonly called " Hicksite." 
 I use these terms, by which the two parties are generally known, 
 merely for the purpose of designation, and without any view to 
 disparagement. 
 
 The question to be considered and decided, is, which is the true 
 preparative meeting to which this property belongs. They can- 
 not both be, for it belongs to one. 
 
 It is admitted on all hands, that Joseph Hendrickson, though the 
 obligee at law, holds the bond and mortgage in equity as such 
 treasurer, subject to the trust. Who is truly the treasurer ? Which 
 is the true preparative meeting, to which this fund is attached? 
 What preparative meeting is it, whose indigent members are en- 
 titled to be educated out of this fund ? 
 
 We contend that the preparative meeting called " Orthodox," is 
 the true preparative meeting identified with the preparative meet- 
 ing existing at Crosswicks, at the time this school fund was raised 
 — that the other is not the true preparative meeting, and for two 
 reasons — first, because they have departed from the fundamental 
 doctrines of this religious society; and secondly, because they 
 have departed from the discipline, rule, and government of this 
 church, and have set up for themselves a new and distinct go- 
 vernment, separately organized. 
 
 Before I proceed to a consideration of the doctrines of this so- 
 ciety, allow me to present a few preliminaiy remarks. Wc ac- 
 cord freely to the opposite party, the position, that every indi- 
 vidual has a right to entertain, and openly to enjoy his own re- 
 ligious opinions; provided, in the practical assertion of them, he 
 does not infringe that moral rule, as sanctioned and enforced by 
 the municipal law. By the act of 1796, Paterson's New Jersey 
 laws, 211, it is a misdemeanor to deny the Being or Providence of 
 God — contumelious reproaches of Christ, the Holy Ghost, or the 
 Scriptures, are also punishable. The deoial in these instances, to 
 
be punishable, must be of a contumelious character; the statute doc- 
 trine of blasphemy being merely declaratory of the common law. 
 Within the wide range allowed by this statute, every man can 
 freely and publicly enjoy his own opinions. 
 
 But this liberty is broad and general, not restrictive and exclu- 
 sive — Christianity is deeply imbued with the spirit of genuine ra- 
 tional liberty. Wherever it goes, it carries knowledge, civiliza- 
 tion and liberty in its train — it strikes the shackles from the foot of 
 the slave. But the liberty for which I contend, is liberty under 
 the law, not the privilege of holding what may be got in a gene- 
 ral scramble ; and the law which protects this liberty, sheds its be- 
 nign influence, not only on individiioJs, but on religious societies. 
 
 Christianity is a social system. The christian individuated, would 
 be a phenomenon. Through the whole course of its histoi-y we 
 find it existing in the shape of religious societies, differing from 
 one another ; sometimes in essential doctrines, sometimes in forms 
 of government, and sometimes in both. This state of things, is the 
 combined result of two principles — freedom of thought, and social 
 feeling. The movements springing from the application of these 
 apparently antagonist principles, resemble, in some measure, the 
 harmonious operations of physical nature. These various reli- 
 gious societies, though they differ, may live harmoniously together, 
 but the members of the same society, must agree in all important 
 particulars, in order to preserve this concord. 
 
 " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there 
 am I in the midst of them," may be considered as something more 
 than a mere consolatory declaration. It invokes an injunction, 
 and exhibits at the same time, a prophetic view of the christian 
 state. 
 
 While the law protects individuals, it would be short-sighted 
 indeed, not to protect religions societies in their social capacity — 
 in the enjoyment of their rights, and in woi'shipping in their social 
 meetings without disturbance or conflict, according to the estab- 
 lished views and doctrines of their founders. Without such fos- 
 tering care, Christianity, as far as it is dependent on human means, 
 would be starved out of the world ; and this protection is benefi- 
 <'ial to morality as well as religion. 
 
 In what are religious societies to be protected? In the mainten- 
 ance of their doctrines — of their peculiar views of the Deity, and 
 
of the worship that belongs to Him, and in the organization of their 
 institutions; and as incidental to these, they are entitled to the 
 preservation of the property bestowed upon them, either directly, 
 or through the intervention of trustees, for these great purposes. 
 How are they to be protected in these important particulars 1 By 
 guaranteeing to them the power of purgation, of lopping off dead 
 and useless branches, of clearing out those who depart essentially 
 from the fundamental doctrines and discipline of the society. — 
 There is no other mode of protecting a religious association. To 
 preserve the identity of an institution, you must keep in view the 
 purpose for which it was formed, and its essential modes of ac- 
 tion, and you must preserve them. If a set of individuals within 
 its bosom, may divert it to other purposes, its identity is gone — 
 it is no longer protected. Property bestowed in trust for these 
 purposes, is no longer protected in the trust. 
 
 The power of bestowing property for such religious purposes, 
 or in other words, of creating such trust, is one of the most inter- 
 esting rights which man can exercise and enjoy in society. Man, 
 says Edmund Burke, is by nature, a religious animal. His in- 
 stinct as well as his reason, leads him to the perception of Deity, 
 and he becomes awfully impressed with this idea, when bowed 
 down by the hand of affliction, or when contemplating the grand 
 and sublime operations of nature. When so impressed, from what- 
 ever cause, he feels impelled to contribute to the propagation of 
 that religious devotion, which lifts up his nature, and prepares him 
 for higher and nobler destinies. The wise and the good feel and 
 highly prize this as a privilege ; and every wise and good govern- 
 ment will be disposed to protect the enjoyment of it when not car- 
 ried to superstitious lengths ; deprive them of this protection, and 
 you so far deprive them of religious freedom. The religious so- 
 ciety is not protected. The individual entertaining his peculiar 
 religious views as a member of that society, is not protected in 
 bestowing his property upon it ; an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, 
 a Quaker, may have his property which he had bestowed in trust 
 for these religious purposes, diverted to other purposes; trustees 
 in such cases, are encouraged to prove faithless to their trust. 
 
 The protection of religious freedom, in the individual and social 
 capacity, must be so regulated that they may harmonize ; let the 
 individual, having been a member of a religious society, and hav- 
 
ing changed his opinions, Withdraw and enjoy his own opinions 
 newly formed ; but if you allow him to remain a member, he is 
 of course marring the religious doctrines of the society, to which 
 he has become alien in feeling and in sentiment ; let him, when he 
 withdraws, carry his own property with him ; but if he carries 
 the property of the society along with him, he is encroaching upon 
 their rights. 
 
 There is another preliminary view which I wish to present to 
 the consideration of the court. As before remarked, Christianity 
 has always been fostered and protected through rehgious societies. 
 Their property has been generally bestowed upon them by way 
 of donation by individuals, entertaining the same religious views. 
 They have been protected in the enjoyment of their property, as 
 religious societies, under the law of charitable uses, introduced into 
 the civil law by Constantine, when Christianity became the reli- 
 gion of the Roman empire. 
 
 An opinion has sometimes been entertained, that this doctrine 
 of charitable uses, was introduced into England by the statute of 
 forty-third Elizabeth, but this notion is manifestly erroneous. The 
 protection of property, given for charitable pm^poses, j)ice causa, 
 as they are sometimes termed, was enforced in all countries, whose 
 codes sought their origin in the civil law ; and it is impossible to 
 suppose, that these doctrines should not, at an early period, have 
 been introduced into England, where religious subjects were placed 
 under the auspices of the canon law, and enforced in the eccle- 
 siastical, and occasionally in the chancery courts, then in the 
 hands of churchmen. A portion of the eft'ects of the deceased 
 were distributed to these, j)i(^ causcE, by the ecclesiastical courts, 
 before the next of kin received any thing. In sixth Reeve's English 
 law, some of these pice causcB are enumerated, p. 80, 81. The 
 statute of superstitious uses, twenty-third Henry VIJI. is a 
 sort of mortmain act, and distinguishes between superstitious, 
 and charitable uses, and prohibits grants of land to the former. 
 This whole provision is grounded on the fact, that grants of land 
 to charitable uses, were customary and legitimate. And if so, 
 such grants must have been enforced somewhere, in some courts, 
 and no doubt in the court of chancery, which took cognizance of 
 trusts of all kinds. The statute of charitable uses, is recited in first 
 
 * 4 Rccvo's English Law, 437. 
 
Burns' English law, 307, which enumerates different charitable uses, 
 appoints a special commission to superintend them, with an appeal 
 to the chancellor. The act manifestly refers to the previous exist- 
 ence of charitable uses ; the remedy in chancery, in cases of breach 
 of the charitable trust, must also have existed previously. This sub- 
 ject is ably investigated by Jones, late chancellor of New York,* 
 where he is brought to the same conclusion, and although his deci- 
 sion was reversed in the court of errors upon other grounds, his opi- 
 nion upon this matter, remains untouched. Speaking of the prin- 
 ciple, that limitations to charitable uses by way of devise, though 
 void at law, would be enforced in equity, he observes, p. 479, that 
 " the same principle must have pervaded and governed every 
 case of charitable use, anterior to the statute of Elizabeth, where 
 the use was held to be valid in equity, when the devise or deed 
 was void at law, from the failure or incapacity of the donee to 
 take, or the want of sufficient certainty in the description of the 
 persons or designation of the objects or purposes of the charity; 
 and indeed it is manifest from other provisions of the statute it- 
 self, that the charitable uses which the commissioners were autho- 
 rised to establish, were understood to be subsisting uses at the 
 time ; for the titles of purchasers of the estates affected by them 
 who had purchased or obtained the same for a valuable consider- 
 ation, and without notice of the trust, or charge, were not to be 
 fmpeached by the decrees or orders of the commissioners; but 
 the commissioners were nevertheless to direct recompense to be 
 made by those, who being constituted trustees, or having notice 
 of the charitable use, had violated the trust or defrauded the use, 
 by the sale or other disposition of the estate. Provisions wholly in- 
 consistent with the supposition of a right in the heir at law, but 
 well adapted at the same time, to the protection of bona fide pur- 
 chasers, and to the relief of cestui que trusts, whose interests were 
 betrayed by faithless trustees, or usurped by disappointed heirs." 
 And in page 481 he remarks, " it is admitted that there did ex- 
 ist a general jurisdiction over charities in England, anterior to 
 the statute of Elizabeth, which was exercised by the chancellor; 
 but that jurisdiction, it is said, was a branch of the prerogative 
 of the crown, and did not belong to the ordinary powers of the 
 court of chancery ; and elementary writers of acknowledged au- 
 
 * M^Carter v. Orphan Asylum, 9 Conven. 
 
thority, are cited to show that the superintendence of charities, in 
 common with the charge of infants and lunatics, belongs to the 
 king, as pai-e7is patricB, and that the jurisdiction of chancery in such 
 cases, does not appertain to it as a court of equity, but as admin- 
 istering the prerogatives and duties of the crown. If it were so, 
 the court of chancery in tliis state might perhaps claim the juris- 
 diction, for the very reason, that in England it did belong to the 
 crown, as parens patrice. Charities are classed with infants, as 
 belonging to the same jurisdiction, and as the entire cognizance of 
 the cases of infants, though nominally in the crown, has long been 
 delegated to the chancellor, by whom it is exercised; and the 
 chancellor, as administering the same prerogative of the crown, 
 has also the general superintendence of all the charities in the king- 
 dom, it would seem to follow, that as the general jurisdiction of 
 the cases of infants in this state, is vested exclusively in this court ; 
 charities, if they belong to the same jurisdiction, should also be of 
 equitable cognizance, and if so, all the remedy of the English court 
 of chancery, by its ordinary powers, or as administering the pre- 
 I'ogative and duties of the crown, could apply, may be adminis- 
 tered by this court." 
 
 It is probable that the English court of chancery, relying upon 
 some broad expressions in the statute of Elizabeth, carried the 
 law of charities farther than it was before. Thus the court of 
 chancery, since that statute, will enforce a charity where there is 
 no legal estate, and where the trusts are not designated, and will 
 devise a scheme for the distribution of the charity; but in this 
 country, without the aid of statuary provisions, our courts of chan- 
 cery will carry into effect charities bequeathed to associations of 
 individuals not incorporated, where there are trustees to take the le- 
 gal estate, and the trust is so designated as that it may be enforced 
 without the contrivance of a new scheme. Of this opinion is 
 chancellor Kent.* In Inglis v. the Trustees of the Sailor's Snug 
 Harbor,f it was decided that a devise for the purpose of main- 
 taining and supporting aged, decrepid, and worn out sailors, is a 
 trust which equity will enforce, and they go so far as to say, that 
 
 * 2 Kent's Com. Lcc. 33. 
 
 t 3 Peters' U. S. Rep. p. 119, and see llie opinion of Justice Story in the Ap- 
 pendix to do., deliverctl in a former case. Also, Bcatty v. Kurtz, 2 Peters' U. S. 
 Rep. p. 566. 
 
if the devise of tiie legal estate should be inoperative, the trust 
 would fasten upon the land in the hands of the heir. In the At- 
 torney General vs. Pearson, third Merivale, 409, Lord Eldon says, 
 "that a devise (notwithstanding the statute of charitable uses,) for 
 the purpose clearly expressed, of maintaining a society of protes- 
 tant dissenters, would be enforced." A similar opinion was given 
 in this court, by chancellor Williamson, in the case of the execu- 
 tors of Ackerman against the legatees. The statute of New Jer- 
 sey incorporating trustees to hold property in trust for reUgious 
 societies, recognizes the doctrine, that these religious societies are 
 legitimate cestui que trusts in equity, for they are not incorpora- 
 ted by it; the trustees only are incorporated, for the better trans- 
 mission of the legal estate, of which privilege a religious society 
 may avail themselves if they think proper ; but no law was neces- 
 sary to incorporate the society, to enjoy the equitable beneficial 
 interests to which they are entitled. 
 
 We admit, therefore, the equity of the complainants' claim, if 
 they are really and truly the preparative meeting in Crosswicks, 
 for whose use this school fund was created. We do not place 
 ourselves behind the ramparts of the common law, and say that 
 Hendrickson is entitled to recover as the legal obligee of this fund. 
 We admit the trust, and claim only, on the ground that he, and 
 not Decow, is the true and legitimate trustee. 
 
 It may be asked, w^hy this elibrt to show^ that the claimant in 
 this bill of intei-pleader, has a right to sue in the character of trus- 
 tee, and to recover if his claim is supported ? I ans^ver, that I 
 feel anxious to place this case upon its true merits, and to leave 
 no other ground upon either side, if possible, upon which a techni- 
 cal decision could be made, aside of the merits of the case. My 
 clients, confident in the lawfulness and righteousness of their cause, 
 wish to have a decision upon the main question, which of these 
 parties forming these separate preparative meetings, is the true 
 society of Friends, and as such, entitled to the property. 
 
 There is another preliminary topic, upon which I will trouble 
 the court with a few additional remarks. Though a religious so- 
 ciety has an equitable beneficial interest in property held in trust for 
 them, yet they take it, not in their individual, but in their social ca- 
 pacity ; they take this benefit as members, and only so long as they 
 have the qualification of members. Though not a corporation, 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 they partake, as to this purpose, in equity, in some measure, of the 
 corporate character. This doctrine may be appHed to all charita- 
 ble trusts, where bodies of men, and not individuals, are the per- 
 sons for whose use it is held by the beneficiaries. Thus in the 
 case of the Sailor's Snug Harbor, in order to enjoy the bounty, 
 the persons must be aged or decrepit seamen, and attached to the 
 institution formed under that will for the dispensation of the chari- 
 ty. The moment they cease to answer that character, they cease 
 to be the objects of that bounty. Suppose a large majority of them 
 should be decrepit seamen, and false to the generous character 
 of their profession, they should unanimously pass a resolve that 
 on their recovery, they would appropriate the property which the 
 benevolent founder had devoted to the solace of those, whose best 
 days had been spent in buffetting the waves, and that they would 
 apply these funds to other purposes ; would a court of equity re- 
 cognise their right to do so, under the pretence, that they for the 
 time being, were the objects of that bounty? On such a point no 
 court could hesitate. 
 
 I shall now proceed to consider the doctrines of the society of 
 Friends, and to show^that those religious opinions set forth by 
 Hendrickson in his answer, and now entertained by those to whom 
 he is attached, are the ancient, established, and fundamental doc- 
 trines of this religious sect. They are set out in his answer, and 
 I cannot state them in better language. 
 
 " In the first place, although the society of Friends have seldom 
 made use of the word trinity, yet they believe in the existence of 
 the Father, the Son, or Word, and the Holy Spirit. That the 
 Son was God, and became flesh — that there is one God and Fa- 
 ther, of whom are all things — that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 by whom all things were made, who was glorified with the Father 
 before the world began, who is God over all, blessed for ever — 
 that there is one Holy Spirit, the promise of the Father and the 
 Son; the leader, and sanctifier and comforter of his people, and 
 that these three are one, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit — 
 that the principal difference between the people called Quakers, 
 and other protestant trinitarian sects, in regard to the doctrine 
 of the trinity, is, that the latter attach the idea of individual per- 
 sonage to the three, as what they consider a fair logical inference 
 from the doctrines expressly laid down in the Holy Scriptures. 
 
11 
 
 The people called Quakers, on the other hand, considering it a 
 mystery beyond finite, human conception, take up the doctrine as 
 expressly laid down in the Scripture, and have not considered 
 themselves as warranted in making deductions, however specious. 
 
 " In the second place, the people called Quakers have always 
 believed in the doctrine of the atonement — that the divine and hu- 
 man nature of Jesus Christ the Saviour were united ; that thus uni- 
 ted, he suffered, and that through his suffermgs, death and resur- 
 rection, he atoned for the sins of men. That the Son of God, in 
 the fulness of time, took flesh, became perfect man, according to 
 the flesh, descended and came of the seed of Abraham and David 
 — that being with God from all eternity, being himself God, and 
 also in time partaking of the nature of man, through him is the 
 goodness and love of God conveyed to mankind, and that by him 
 again man receiveth and partaketh of these mercies — that Christ 
 took upon him the seed of Abraham, and his holy body and blood 
 was an offering and a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. 
 
 '• In the third place, the people called Quakers believe that the 
 Scriptures are given by inspiration, and when rightly interpreted 
 are unerring guides ; and to use the language adopted by them, 
 they are able to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is 
 in Jesus Christ. They believe that the spirit still operates upon 
 the souls of men, and when it does really and truly so operate, it 
 furnishes the primary rule of faith. That the Scriptures proceed- 
 ing from it, must be secondary in reference to this primary source, 
 whence they proceed ; but inasmuch as the dictates of the spirit 
 are always true and uniform, all ideas and views which any per- 
 son may entertain repugnant to the doctrines of the Scriptures, 
 which are unerring, must proceed from false lights. That such 
 are the doctrines entertained and adopted by the ancient society 
 of Friends, and that the same doctrines are still entertained by the 
 "Orthodox" party aforesaid, to which party this defendant belongs. 
 That these doctrines are with the said religious society fundamen- 
 tal, and any individual, entertaining sentiments and opinions con- 
 trary to all or any of the above mentioned doctrines, is held not 
 to be in the same faith with the society of Friends, or people called 
 Quakers, and is treated accordingly." 
 
 I am aware, from the course heretofore pursued on the other 
 side, that an objection will be taken to a consideration and deci- 
 
12 
 
 sion upon these doctrines by the court. It will be said that this is a 
 matter of conscience, which cannot and ought not to be probed — 
 that the subject eludes the research of a temporal tribunal, and is 
 too difficult to be investigated. I concede, most unequivocally to 
 the opposite party, the right of conscience and religious liberty to 
 its full extent. But when the religious doctrines of any man, or of 
 any set of men, should be ascertained to settle a question of pro- 
 perty, to determine a trust, and who are the proper objects of that 
 trust, that matter may be inquired into as well as any other ; and 
 there is no more difficulty attending the investigation than in nu- 
 merous other matters which are examined and discussed in our 
 courts of justice. Warren Hastings was governor general of In- 
 dia. In that capacity, he declared war, negotiated treaties, ex- 
 acted contributions from tributary princes. He was impeached 
 before the House of Lords, for gross malversation in office, in the 
 government of an empire, through a series of years ; an empire 
 much greater than the kingdom of Great Britain, not only his acts, 
 but through them his purposes, his motives, and I may say, his jyo- 
 litical doctrines, were inquired into. Pamphlets, treaties, public 
 documents of every kind were examined — months were devoted 
 to the inquiry. Now this court has the same facilities for investi- 
 gation, and proceeds very much on the same principles, on which 
 a parhamentary impeachment is conducted. 
 
 But let me refer you to other cases : for instance, to the trials of 
 Hardy and Tooke for high treason. They were members of a so- 
 ciety formed in England, as was alleged on the part of the gov- 
 ernment, for treasonable purposes. On the other side, it was said, 
 their object was to obtain by legitimate means, a salutary parlia- 
 mentary reform. On thisinquiry, the constitutions of this and oth- 
 er societies, pamphlets and proclamations, issued by their mem- 
 bers, and sometimes directly under their authority, were given in 
 evidence. Day after day, volume after volume was poured in up- 
 on the jury — and what did the court do? Did they fold up their 
 arms, and say, why this is too difficult a matter for us, and espe- 
 cially for the jury, who are to be kept together without meat or 
 drink, to inquire into, and we must shrink from the task ? No. 
 They met the difficulties of the case boldly and fnirly, and even 
 relaxed from the strictness witli which a jury is usually guarded, 
 in order to meet the exigency of thernse. A similar course wns 
 
13 
 
 adopted on the trial of Fries for higii treason, in this country. 
 There is a boldness and a depth of investigation, peculiar to the ad- 
 ministration of English and of American law, which stops at no 
 obstruction, however great, which is repressed by no difficulty, 
 however appalling. 
 
 Before I proceed to the proof of these doctrines, permit me to 
 make a few explanatory remarks upon them. The society of 
 Friends do not use the word trinity — nor do they apply the term 
 person to the Godhead ; because, as they say, they do not find these 
 words in the Scriptures. They are cautious in not using any scho- 
 lastic phrases to convey ideas, the result of metaphysical reason- 
 ing upon subjects beyond their comprehension. And it is some- 
 what remarkable, that while this society has been charged with 
 attaching too much influence to the operation of the divine light 
 upon the soul, they have, in conveying their religious ideas upon 
 doctrinal points, paid a greater deference to Scriptural language 
 than any other sect. They have been cautious not to be wise be- 
 yond what was written. In their catechism, the answers are con- 
 veyed in Scriptural language, without addition — taking care to se- 
 lect such passages as convey the idea clearly and beyond doubt. 
 And to shew what importance they attach to this Scriptural lan- 
 guage, and how they interpret it, they adopt impHcitly the text 
 which says, " all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
 profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
 in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
 furnished unto all good works "* Thus adopting this text, they 
 shew they do not undervalue the Scriptures, or consider them lia- 
 ble to the fallibility of mere human productions. They believe in 
 the unity of the Divine Nature, and also that there are three in the 
 Godhead, but to convey their idea they select those passages of 
 Scripture in which the doctrine is clearly put forth, without draw- 
 ing any inferences of their own. Whether the three are so distin- 
 guished as to convey the idea of individual personage, in the sense 
 in which man understands it, and can only understand it as that 
 idea comes to him, from observing those rational intelligences that 
 are brought under his cognizance, is a question upon which they 
 do not undertake to decide. 
 
 ''Barclay's Catechism, page 5. 
 
14 
 
 In respect to the atonement, they beHeve in the great propitia 
 tory sacrifice, and in the union of the divine and human nature oi 
 Jesus Christ. Tliey deem tliat propitiatory sacrifice necessary 
 to salvation, as the only means provided for that purpose. But 
 they do not, as some theologians have done, decide upon its indis- 
 pensable necessity, so as to exclude the power of the Supreme 
 Being to have provided another mode, if, in his infinite wisdom, 
 he had thought proper so to do. They think it sufficient for them 
 to say, that this is revealed as the only mode actually provided. 
 They adopt implicitly, as before shown, the inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. They believe the Scriptures may be, and often are, misin- 
 terpreted, when not read in a right frame of mind, and under the 
 influence of the Holy Spirit — but they do not hold that under this 
 influence they are exalted above the Scriptures, and become wiser 
 than what is there revealed. Their opinions upon the subject of 
 the light within, will be found correctly stated in the second vol- 
 ume of Penn's works, 620, and he there shews the Scriptural source 
 from whence they derive it. 
 
 At the time when this society arose, the religious world, with 
 very few exceptions, was trinitarian, and upon this subject, and 
 upon the co-relative truths, the atonement, and the authenticity 
 and inspiration of the Scriptures, they differed from no other trin- 
 itarian sect, in any essential matter. Their principal distinctive 
 features resulted from their peculiar opinions in regard to dress 
 and manners, to oaths, to wars, and to a hireling ministry, and for 
 these opinions they suffered a good deal of persecution in those 
 days, when the liberal doctrines of religious toleration were not 
 properly understood or practised upon. But we do not find them 
 persecuted or punished for undervaluing the Scriptures, for re- 
 jecting the atonement, or for their opinions upon the Godhead, with 
 but a solitary exception, which I siiall by and by consider. 
 
 In this inquiry, it should be borne in mind, that we have nothing 
 to do with the abstract truth or accuracy of these doctrines. 
 Such an inquiry belongs properly to no earthly tribunal. The on- 
 ly inquiry is, whether they are, or are not the fundamental doc- 
 trines of this ancient society of Friends, and with a view to settle 
 a question of trust. 
 
 I think I may venture to say, that these three doctrines in ques- 
 tion, are proved to be held by that society as clearly and abun- 
 
15 
 
 dantly, as it would be possible for any sect to prove what its reli- 
 gious doctrines are. We are told on the other side, that these 
 cannot be their doctrines of the trinity, as a society, though individ- 
 ual members may hold to them, because the society has no creed. 
 Passages have been referred to in their writings, in which they ob- 
 ject to a creed — and this matter of a creed, in the course of the 
 examination, has been made the subject of much comment, and of 
 some sarcasm. But what is meant by a creed ? The modern 
 expositions of religious doctrine, are usually called confessions of 
 faith. The term creed, is more generally applied to those mani- 
 festoes of doctrine which were put forth in the earlier stages of 
 Christianity, by conventions or general councils, and which were 
 imposed upon the community to be believed under severe penal- 
 ties, always temporal, and sometimes eternal. It will be found 
 that in this sense, and as opposed to religious toleration, this soci- 
 ety has condemned creeds. And surely it will not be pretended 
 that it is necessary for a society to have such a creed before it can 
 be said to entertain any fundamental religious doctrines. But we 
 will not dispute about words, provided the substance be preserved. 
 All I mean to say, is that the doctrines in question are held by 
 tliis society as fundamental, and I mean to prove it. 
 
 They are estabhshed, in the first place, by pubhc and authorita- 
 tive acts and declarations, adopted by this society, and about 
 which there can be no dispute. The discipline of the yearly 
 meeting of Philadelphia, is the first piece of evidence to which I 
 will call your attention — a work acknowledged on all hands, as an 
 authentic source, whose provisions are obligatory upon the mem- 
 bers, as a rule of conduct. Haliday Jackson, their witness, admits 
 this. In page twenty-three, of this book you find the following re- 
 gulation : — 
 
 " If any in membership with us shall blaspheme, or speak pro- 
 fanely of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, he or she 
 ou^^ht early to be tenderly treated with for their instruction, and 
 the convincement of their understanding, that they may experience 
 repentance and forgiveness ; but should any, notwithstanding this 
 brotherly labor, persist in their error, or deny the divinity of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the immediate revelation of the 
 Holy Spirit, or the authenticity of the Scriptures ; as it is manifest 
 they are not one in faith with us, the monthly meeting where the 
 
16 
 
 party belongs, having extended due care for the help and benefit of 
 the individual without effect, ought to declare the same, and issue 
 their testimony accordingly." 
 
 In Barclay's Catechism, already adverted to, and which is known 
 to be a standard work, adopted by the society, these doctrines are 
 explicitly set forth.* When you find these doctrines imperatively 
 enjoined in their discipline, under severe sanctions, and put forth in 
 their catechism for the instruction of their youth, as the principles 
 in which they are to be trained up, how can it be pretended that 
 these are not held by the society as their settled religious opin- 
 ions? A catechism, above all things, would be adopted by a re- 
 ligious society, with the utmost circumspection, and care would be 
 taken that no doctrines should be inculcated which were not held 
 sacred by the society. Such care has been taken in this instance. 
 That book has been penned with the greatest caution. Scrij)tural 
 language has been used, and the most striking passages of Scrip- 
 ture, such as are mainly relied upon by all sects holding these doc- 
 trines, have been culled to convey their ideas. Would this have 
 been done if that work had been intended to be unitarian 1 Would 
 they not, on the other hand, like all unitarians, have endea\ ored 
 to explain away these passages I 
 
 George Fox is admitted to be the founder of this society — though 
 he is not called the head, inasmuch as they acknowledge no head 
 but the Great Head of the Christian Church. They are adherents 
 to his doctrines. This is matter of history, and has, though a work 
 of supererogation, been proved in the cause. See his letter to the 
 gvoernor of Barbadoes : — 
 
 " For the Governor of Barbadoes, with his council and assem- 
 bly, and all others in power, both civil and military, in this 
 island ; from the people called Quakers. 
 
 " Whereas, many scandalous lies and slanders have been cast 
 upon us to render us odious; as that "we deny God, Christ Jesus, 
 and the Scriptures of truth," &c. This is to inform you, that all 
 our books and declarations, which for these many years have 
 been published to the world, clearly testify the contrary. Yet, for 
 your satisfaction we now plainly and sincerely declare, that we 
 
 * See Barclay'si Catccliism, pages 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 34- 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 16, after the last line of text, read — 
 " own and believe in the only wise, onnnipotent, and everlasting" 
 &c. 
 
17 
 
 God, the creator of all things in heaven and earth, and the preserv- 
 er of all that he hath made : who is God over all, blessed for ever; 
 to whom be all honor, glory, dominion, praise and thanksgiving, 
 both now and for evermore ! And we own and believe in Jesus 
 Christ, his beloved and only begotten Son, in whom he is well 
 pleased ; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the 
 Virgin Mary ; in whom we have redemption through his blood, 
 even the forgiveness of sins ; who is the express image of the in- 
 visible God, the first-born of every creature, by whom were all 
 things created that are in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible ; 
 whether they be thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers; all 
 things were created by him. And we own and believe that he 
 was made a sacrifice for sin, who knew no sin, neither was guile 
 found in his mouth ; that he was crucified for us in the flesh, with- 
 out the gates of Jerusalem ; and that he was buried, and rose a- 
 gain on the third day by the power of his Father, for our justifica- 
 tion ; and that he ascended up into heaven, and now sitteth at the 
 right hand of God. This Jesus, who was the foundation of the ho- 
 ly prophets and apostles, is our foundation ; and we believe there 
 is no other foundation to be laid but that which is laid, even Christ 
 Jesus : w4io tasted death for every man, shed his blood for all men, 
 is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the 
 sins of the whole world; according as John the Baptist testified of 
 him, when he said " Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away 
 the sins of the world," John, i. 29. We believe that he alone is 
 our Redeemer and Saviour, the captain of our salvation, who 
 saves us from sin, as well as from hell, and the wrath to come, 
 and destroys the devil and his works ; he is the seed of the woman 
 that bruises the serpent's head, to wit, Christ Jesus, the Alpha and 
 Omega, the first and the last. He is (as the Scriptures of truth 
 say of him) our wisdom, righteousness, justification, and redemp- 
 tion ; neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other 
 name under heaven given among men, whereby we may be sav- 
 ed. He alone, is the shepherd and bishop of our souls: he is our 
 prophet, whom Moses long since testified of, saying, " a prophet 
 shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like 
 unto me ; him shall ye hear in all things, whatsoever he shall say 
 unto you ; and it shall come to pass, that every soul that will not 
 hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." Acts, 
 
18 
 
 ii. 22. 23. He is now come in spirit, " and hath given us an un- 
 derstanding, that we know him that is true." He rules in our 
 hearts by his law of love and life, and makes us free from the law 
 of sin and death. We have no life, but by him ; for he is the quick- 
 ening spirit, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, by whose 
 blood we are cleansed, and our consciences sprinkled from dead 
 works, to serve the Uving God. He is our mediator, who makes 
 peace and reconciliation between God offended and us offending ; 
 he being the oath of God, the new covenant of light, life, grace, 
 and peace, the author and finisher of our faith. This Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the heavenly man, the Emanuel, God with us, we all own 
 and believe in ; he whom the high-priest raged against, and said, 
 he had spoken blasphemy ; whom the priests and elders of the Jews 
 took counsel together against, and put to death ; the same M'hom 
 Judas betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, which the priests gave 
 him as a reward for his treason ; who also gave large money to 
 the soldiers, to broach a horrible lie, namely, " that his disciples 
 came and stole him away by night whilst they slept." After he 
 was risen from the dead, the history of the acts of the apostles sets 
 forth how the chief priests and elders persecuted the disciples of 
 this Jesus, for preaching Christ and his resurrection. This, we 
 say, is that Lord Jesus Christ whom we own to be our life and 
 salvation, 
 
 "Concerning the holy Scriptures, we believe they were 
 given forth by the holy spirit of God, through the holy men 
 of God, who (as the Scripture itself declares, 2 Pet. i. 2L) 
 " spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." We be- 
 lieve that they are to be read, believed, and fulfilled (he that 
 fulfils them is Chi'ist;) and they are " profitable for reproof, 
 for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the 
 man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
 works," 2 Tim. iii. 19. " and are able to make wise unto salvation, 
 through faith in Christ Jesus." We believe the holy Scriptures 
 are the words of God; for it is said in Exodus, xx. 1. " God spake 
 all these words, saying," &c. meaning the ten commandments 
 given forth upon Mount Sinai. And in Rev. xxii. 18. saith John, 
 " I testify to every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of 
 this book, if any man addeth unto these, and if any man shall take 
 away from the words of the book of this prophecy," ( not the 
 
19 
 
 word) &c. So in Luke, i, 20. " because thou believest not my 
 words." And in John, v. 47. xv. 7. xiv. 23. xii. 47. So that we 
 call the holy Scriptures, as Christ, the apostles, and holy men of 
 God called them, viz. the words of God. 
 
 " Another slander they have cast upon us, is, " that we teach 
 the negroes to rebel ;" a thing we utterly abhor in our hearts, the 
 Lord knows it, who is the searcher of all hearts, and knows all 
 things, and can testify for us, that this is a most abominable un- 
 truth. That which we have spoken to them, is to exhort and ad- 
 monish them to be sober, to fear God, to love their masters and 
 mistresses, to be faithful and diligent in their service and business, 
 and then their masters and overseers would love them, and deal 
 kindly and gently with them ; also that they should not beat their 
 wives, nor the wives their husbands ; neither should the men have 
 many wives ; that they should not steal, nor be drunk, nor commit 
 adultery, nor fornication, nor curse, swear, nor lie, nor give bad 
 words to one another, nor to any one else ; for there is something 
 in them that tells them they should not practice these nor any other 
 evils. But if they notwithstanding should do them, then we let 
 them know there are but two ways, the one that leads to hea- 
 ven, where the righteous go; and the other that leads to hell, 
 where the wicked and debauched, whoremongers, adulterers, mur- 
 derers, and hars go. To the one, the Lord will say, " come ye 
 blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
 the foundation of the world ;" to the other, " depart, ye cursed, 
 into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ;" so the 
 wicked go into " everlasting punishment, but the righteous into 
 life eternal," Mat. xxv. Consider, friends, it is no transgression 
 for a master of a family to instruct his family himself, or for oth- 
 ers to do it in his behalf; but rather it is a very great duty incum- 
 bent upon them. Abraham and Joshua did so : of the first, the 
 Lord said, Gen. xviii. 19. "I know that Abraham will command 
 his children, and his household after him; and they shall keep the 
 way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may 
 bring upon Abraham the things that he hath spoken of him." And 
 the latter said, Josh. xxiv. 15. "Choose ye this day whom ye 
 will serve — but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." 
 We declare, that we esteem it a duty incumbent on us to pray 
 with and for, to teach, instruct, and admonish those in and belong- 
 
20 
 
 ing to our families : this being a command of the Lord, disobe- 
 dience thereunto will provoke his displeasure ; as may be seen in 
 Jer. X. 25. i" Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee 
 not, and upon the families that call not upon thy name." Ne- 
 groes, tawnies, Indians, make up a very great part of the fami- 
 lies in this island ; for whom an account will be required by him 
 who comes to judge both quick and dead at the great day of judg- 
 ment, when every one shall be " rewarded according to the deeds 
 done in the body, whether they be good or whether they be evil :" 
 at that day, we say, of the resurrection both of the good and of 
 the bad, and of the just and the unjust, when " the Lord Jesus shall 
 be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, with flaming fire, 
 taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the 
 gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with ever- 
 lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the 
 glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, 
 and admired in all them that believe in that day," 2 Thess. i. 8. 
 &c. See also, 2 Pet. iii. 3. &c." 
 
 It would be impossible for man to select language stronger than 
 this, in support of these very doctrines for which we are now con- 
 tending. 
 
 In the confession of faith, subjoined to their catechism, and prov- 
 ed to have been adopted by the yearly meeting, these doctrines 
 are distinctly and unequivocally avowed. 
 
 I shall now refer the court to some very important public acts 
 and proceedings of this society, an account of which is to be met 
 with in Sewell's History, without taking time to read all the 
 passages. When George Keith abandoned the faith of this socie- 
 ty, he made heavy and severe charges against them, charging 
 them with maintaining the doctrines now ascribed to Elias Hicks. 
 About this time, the Friends came out boldly and denied it, and in 
 a public address, published by them on that occasion, they pro- 
 claimed the doctrines for which we are now contending.* Short- 
 ly afterwards, they presented a document to the parliament of 
 Great Britain, on finding that these charges of Keith were repeat- 
 ed by Francis Bugg, which is in these words : 
 
 1. "Be it known to all, that we sincerely believe and confess, 
 
 * 2 Sewell's History, ^99. 
 
21 
 
 that Jesus of Nazareth ,who was born of the Virghi Mary, is the true 
 Messiah, the very Christ, the Son of the hving God, to whom all 
 the prophets gave witness ; and that we do highly value his death, 
 sufferings, works, offices, and merits, for the redemption of man- 
 kind, together with his laws, doctrine, and ministry. 
 
 II. " That this very Christ of God, who is the Lamb of God, that 
 takes away the sins of the world, was slain, was dead, and is aUve, 
 and lives forever in his divine eternal glory, dominion, and power 
 with the Father. 
 
 III. " That the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testam.ent, 
 are of divine authority, as being given by inspiration of God. 
 
 IV. " And that magistracy or civil government, is God's ordi- 
 nance, the good ends thereof being for the punishment of evil-do- 
 ers, and praise of them that do well." 
 
 A difficulty occurred which prevented them from enjoying the 
 benefits of the toleration act, owing to their refusal to take the oath 
 required. By interceding with the parliament, they at length suc- 
 ceeded in procuring a participation of its benefits, by getting the 
 affirmation substituted in the place of the oath.* Now this tolera- 
 tion act, directly and palpably excluded unitarians from its bene- 
 fits. The holding of unitarian doctrines was rendered penal by 
 another act of parliament, passed a few years afterwards, and they 
 were not tolerated in England until the year eighteen hundred 
 and thirteen. Yet the Quakers came in and were cherished under 
 the wings of the toleration act. On the promise by queen Anne, on 
 her accession to the throne, to support the toleration act, the 
 yearly meeting presented a thankful address to her majesty. A 
 similar address was sent to George I. upon a like promise by him, 
 on his accession to the throne. 
 
 What then, shall we say to these public and official manifestos, 
 thus solemnly put forth, and upon the strength of which, important 
 parliamentary privileges have been obtained and enjoyed ? Shall 
 we say they were all delusive ? A mere promise to the ear, to 
 catch the favor of the government. Elias Hicks has been com- 
 pelled to say of the letter of Fox to the governor of Barbadoes, 
 
 * Burnett's History of his own Times, 3. 13. 
 
22 
 
 which he found staring in the face of his new doctrines, that it 
 did not contain Fox's real sentiments. But are his adherents 
 prepared to follow him in these charges, and to extend them to 
 the whole society at that early period ? Are they prepared to say 
 that their forefathers were timid, false, and hollow hearted? Afraid 
 to hold forth their real sentiments, and brave the danger ? That 
 their forefathers, in this country, were equally insincere, by con- 
 niving at their falsehood, and continuing in unity with them? Ai'e 
 not these charges, when made by their enemies, belied by the 
 whole tenor of their conduct? and have they not, therefore, when 
 thus made, been repelled by this society? During all this period, 
 they were suffering persecution for refusing to engage in military 
 operations, and to pay tithes. Were they false to some of their 
 principles and true to others? Whatever may be thought of the 
 zeal of the early Friends in many particulars, the charge of insin- 
 cerity cannot with any propriety be made against them. And 
 we are in possession of the conclusive fact, that they pubhcly held 
 forth these doctrines, and enjoyed the benefits flowing from their 
 promulgation. 
 
 The preaching of ministers, approved and accepted by a reli- 
 gious society, must furnish strong evidence of the doctrines held 
 by it. As a catechism is designed for the instruction of youth, the 
 preacher is provided and designed for the instruction of all, whe- 
 ther old or young. Hence, in this society, great care is bestowed 
 upon the setting apart of experienced, pious, and intelligent per- 
 sons for the ministry, and the elders are especially required by the 
 discipline, to exercise a vigilance, and to admonish and reprove 
 them for a departure in faith or doctrine. William Jackson, an 
 aged witness, who has travelled over England and this country, 
 and has heard all their ministers -who have appeared in his time, 
 before and since the American revolution, tells us that they have 
 uniformly held forth these doctrines, and no witness contradicts 
 him, or pretends that any other doctrines have been put forth in 
 the ministry, except by Elias Hicks and his associates. 
 
 If these were not the settled doctrines of the society, how, or 
 why, has it happened that they have been uniformly preached 
 among them? If the conti-ary doctrines were held in this society 
 indiscriminately, why was it reserved for Elias Hicks and his asso- 
 ciates to broach them for the first time ? Why has this light 
 
23 
 
 beamed from that source alone '. This is unaccountable upon 
 their pretensions. 
 
 We have produced witness after witness, aged, intelligent, ex- 
 perienced men, of character irreproachable; men whose lives have 
 been devoted to the cause of religion, Samuel Bettle, Thomas 
 WilHs, William Jackson and others, whose evidence is before 
 you, and will be carefully inspected; who join in saying, that 
 these are the established doctrines of that society; and that 
 those who hold the contrary doctrine are not in the same faith 
 with the society. They cannot be mistaken. Have they tes- 
 tified to what is not true? Let the negative evidence of the 
 witnesses on the other side answer that question. When asked 
 to disclose their doctrines and the doctrines of this society, in 
 reference to these points, they invariably refuse. And why? 
 Because they say they are not bound to answer. They do 
 not pretend that they are scrupulous against disclosing their re- 
 ligious belief; on the contrary they are eager to disclose it on 
 other points, such as the light within, their scruples about oaths, 
 and other matters. But they refuse to disclose on these points, 
 because as they pretend, they are not bound to do so. The 
 plain inference is, that such a disclosure would be fatal to their 
 cause. 
 
 I will next refer the court to the standard Morks of this socie- 
 ty, Barclay's Apology, his w^ork on church government, The Con- 
 fession of Faith, Sewell's History', Fox's Journal, and others, 
 proved to be standard works of the society, and made exhibits in 
 this cause.* I might read for days, from the WTitings of these au- 
 thors, in support of these doctrines, but I forbear to proceed any 
 further with it. I will direct the court, however, to Evans' Expo- 
 sition, as containing numerous other references to the standard 
 works of the society, in suppport of these doctrines. I advert to 
 it, however, merely as a book of reference, intending in this case, 
 to rely only on evidence which arose and existed prior to this dis- 
 sention. 
 
 But there is one writer belonging to this society, who has been 
 so much commented upon and alluded to in the examination of 
 witnesses in this cause, that it will not do to pass him over with- 
 
 * Mr. Wood hero road a varicfj' of passages from tliese different autliors. 
 
24 
 
 out special notice. I have said that amidst all the persecutions 
 inflicted upon the early Friends, they were never punished for 
 holding doctrines repugnant to those now avowed on our side, 
 with but one exception. I allude to the case of William Penn. 
 The character of this man does not require our praise, and would 
 not be affected by our censure. On this side of the Atlantic, he 
 has left the impress of his genius, and of his goodness, which will 
 pass down to the remotest posterity. He is the founder of a state, 
 among the most prominent of our Union, which for all the virtues 
 that impart strength and stability to national character, is surpass- 
 ed by none. He has formed and given us a doric pillar to sup- 
 port the capitol of our empire. 
 
 But we have now to do with his religious writings. The wit- 
 nesses tell us, that although Penn has always been highly respected, 
 yet his works are seldom resorted to as standards, in respect to 
 the doctrines of the society. And the reason is obvious. Penn 
 is a controversial writer, and in his arguments, struck out in the 
 heat of controversy, he is sometimes obscure. His object is not 
 so much to establish his own positions, as to overturn those of his 
 adversary. He attacks him with vigor, but is not sufficiently on 
 his guard against misinterpretation. He traces out the reasoning 
 of his opponent, in order to show the absurdity of his results. But 
 those results sometimes have the appearance of being his own in- 
 dependent conclusions. This is particularly the case in his Sandy 
 Foundation Shaken, a work which is exclusively controversial, 
 and which has sometimes subjected him to the charge of socini- 
 anism, and sometimes of unqualified infidelity, from the want of 
 attending sufficiently to the drift of the author. He had a public 
 religious coutroversy, according to the fashion of the times, with 
 the Reverend Thomas Vincent, upon three points of divinity. He 
 disputes his adversary's doctrine as to the three persons in the tri- 
 nity, or modes of subsistence. He did not mean to deny the tri- 
 nity, or the three in the Godhead, so far as it is revealed, accord- 
 ing to the opinion of this society, in the Scriptures. In the next 
 place, he denies the position, that there is an absolute disabihty in 
 the Supreme Being to forgive without a propitiatory sacrifice of 
 the high and exalted character, which he admits was made : he 
 does not deny the fact of such a sacrifice, and of its necessity under 
 the actual state of the christian dispensation. In the last place, he 
 
25 
 
 denies the exclusiue justification of impure pei'sons by an imputa- 
 tive righteousness. The fact that a benefit is imparted to the chris- 
 tian through the righteousness of Christ, under this dispensation, 
 he does not deny; but he contends for the additional necessity of 
 repentance and good works. In the course of his remarks, to be 
 sure, he does, m terms, deny three persons in the Godliead and the 
 propitiatory sacrifice, but in what way, and for what purpose 1 
 Not as his own independent conclusions, but as the results to which 
 the course of reasoning pursued by his antagonist, to prove his 
 positions, will lead him, when followed out, and with a view to 
 shew the fallacy of all human reasoning upon subjects beyond 
 human comprehension. This is evident from the following passage, 
 in page 252: "For it is to be remarked that G. W. (George 
 Whitehead, his coadjutor, ) is no otherwise a blasphemer, 
 than by drawing direct consequences from their own principles, 
 and re-charging them upon themselves ; so that he did not speak 
 his own apprehensions, by his comparison, but the sense of their 
 assertion." 
 
 On the subject of the trinity, he states the syllogism of his ad- 
 versary in the following words : 
 
 " There are three that bear record in heaven : the Father, the 
 Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. 
 
 " These are either three manifestations ; three operations ; three 
 subsistences, or three somethings besides subsistences : 
 
 " But they are not three manifestations ; three operations ; three 
 subsistences, nor three any thing else besides subsistences : ergo 
 three subsistences." 
 
 He then attempts, in the course of his argument, to shew that 
 the conclusion of his opponent is erroneously drawn, because the 
 premises are beyond his comprehension. The subject of this in- 
 vestigation is the Supreme Jehovah. What does man know 
 about the nature and essence of that Being, who is to him incom- 
 prehensible? He knows nothing of the essence, and but little as 
 to the modes of operation of those spiritual intelligences which 
 are brought under his observation. He can form no conception 
 of the manner in which even they, could operate upon external 
 objects, when disembodied of the organic Hving matter which 
 surrounds them. How then can he form an idea of the essence, 
 the operations, or of the mode of subsistence of the Supreme Be- 
 
26 
 
 ing. And if he cannot conceive it, how can he undertake to analyze 
 it, or reason upon the analysis. When he looks with the astrono- 
 mer, at the myriads of worlds which are spread through the hea- 
 vens, and hence infers the myriads of other worlds in the vast 
 field of space beyond them, he may form some faint and indistinct 
 conception of that wisdom, and of that power, which sustains this 
 mighty creation ; but what can he know, or presume to know, of 
 the mode of subsistence of such a Being. And yet you, Thomas 
 Vincent, bounded in your views by the petty horizon that sur- 
 rounds you, a mere ant upon a mole-hill, undertake, in a syllogism ; 
 to limit the possibility of existence of that Being, M'ho is beyond 
 and above all human comprehension. But we will try the strength 
 of your syllogism upon your own principles. You say these three 
 are not three manifestations, in three essences, and therefore there 
 are three modes of subsistence. There cannot be a mode of sub- 
 sistence, according to any notion we can form upon the sub- 
 ject, distinct from the essence which does subsist. If, then, 
 there are three modes of subsistence, there must be three essen- 
 ces ; and consequently, upon your own principles, three Gods. 
 But the Scriptures teach us that there is but one God. Such, I 
 take to be the scope and drift of the reasoning of William Penn, 
 in his Sandy Foundation Shaken, And he pursues the same 
 course in his argument upon the other points between them. 
 That there might be no misconception of his object, he winds up 
 with saying: 
 
 " Mistake me not — we never have disowned, a Father, Word, 
 and Spirit, which are one ; but mens' inventions." 
 
 His peculiar mode of reasoning on controversial subjects, is 
 further illustrated in the Guide Mistaken, in the second volume of 
 his works. He states, in the form of queries, a number of propo- 
 sitions, which are in themselves directly repugnant to the doc- 
 trines of the society to which he was attached, and of all other 
 trinitarian sects. But he concludes with explaining himself fully, 
 that those are not his own opinions, but the conclusions to which 
 he had brought the erroneous reasoning of his opponent. 
 
 Penn departed, in one particular, from the views of tjiis socie- 
 ty. The same caution which induces them to refrain from ad- 
 ding to Scriptural views, the inferences of human reason upon 
 mysterious subjects, leads them to abstain from all discussion up- 
 
27 
 
 on such subjects. But Penn was then young. He had been edu- 
 cated in all the liberal acquirements of the age, and he could not 
 resist the temptation of bandying a syllogism with the Reverend 
 Thomas Vincent. It must be admitted that there is an obsciu-ity 
 in some of his controversial writings, which lays him open occa- 
 sionally, to misconception. He was misconceived. He was 
 charged with blasphemy. The magistrates^ perhaps^ were not 
 skilled in syllogystic reasoning, or able to comprehend his object, 
 and he was cast into prison. Thus was imprisoned, on the charge 
 of blasphemy, the man who was destined, at no distant period, to 
 disarm the savage of the wilderness, of his ferocity, and to cause 
 him, witli his hatchet buried, to look in admiration upon the calm- 
 ness and integrity of a christian. 
 
 In the second volume of his works, from page 783 to 785, you 
 will find a view of his religious doctrines in full accordance with 
 those ascribed by us to this society. 
 
 " Perversion . The Quakers deny the trinity. 
 
 " Principle. Nothing less : They believe in the holy three, or trin- 
 ity, of Father, Word, and Spirit, according to Scripture; and that 
 these three are truly and properly one : of one nature as well as 
 will. But they are very tender of quitting Scripture terms and 
 phrases, for schoolmen's ; such as distinct and separate persons 
 and subsistences, &c. are ; from whence people are apt to enter- 
 tain gross ideas and notions of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 And they judge, that a curious inquiry into those high and divine 
 relations, and other speculative subjects, though never so great 
 truths in themselves, tend little to godhness, and less to peace ; 
 which should be the chief aim of true christians. And therefore 
 they cannot gratify that curiosity in themselve, or others ; specu- 
 lative truths being, in their judgment, to be sparingly and tender- 
 ly declared, and never to be made the measure and condition of 
 christian communion. For besides that Christ Jesus hath taught 
 them other things, the sad consequence, in all times, of superfinino- 
 upon Scripture texts, do sufficiently caution and forbid them. 
 jMen are too apt to let their heads outrun their hearts, and their 
 notion exceed their obedience, and their passion support their con- 
 ceits ; instead of a daily cross, a constant watch, and an holy 
 practice. The despised Quakers desire this may be their care, 
 and the text their creed in this, as in all other points : preferring 
 
28 
 
 self-denial to opinion, and charity to knowledge, according to that 
 great christian doctrine. 1 Coj: xiii. 
 
 " Pervers. The Quakers deny Christ to be God. 
 
 ^^Princ. A most untrue and unreasonable censure: for their 
 great and characteristic principle being this ; that Christ, as the di- 
 vine word, lighteth the souls of all men that come into the world, 
 with a spiritual and saving light, according to John 1. 9. ch. 8. xii. 
 (which nothing but the Creator of souls can do) it does sufficient- 
 ly shew they believe him to be God, for they truly and expressly 
 own him to be so, according to Scripture, viz : in him was life, 
 and that life the light of man ; and he is God over all, blessed for 
 ever. 
 
 '■''Pervers. The Quakers deny the human nature of Christ. 
 
 " Prirtc. We never taught, said, or held so gross a thing, if by 
 human nature be understood the manhood of Christ Jesus. For 
 as we believe him to be God over all, blessed forever, so we do 
 as truly believe him to be of the seed of Abraham and David af- 
 ter the flesh, and therefore truly and properly man, like us in all 
 things (and once subject to all things for our sakes) sin only ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 ^^ Pervers. The Quakers expect to be justified and saved 
 by the light within them, and not by the death and sufferings of 
 Christ. 
 
 •' Princ. This is both unfairly and untruly stated and charged 
 upon us. But the various sense of the word justification, obliges 
 me here to distinguish the use of it ; for in the natural and proper 
 sense, it plainly implies making men just, that were unjust; god- 
 ly, that were ungodly ; upright that were depraved ; as the apos- 
 tle expresseth himself, 1. Cor. 6. xi. and such were some of you, 
 but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the 
 name of our Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God. In the 
 other use of the word, which some call a law sense, it refers to 
 Christ, as a sacrifice and propitiation for sin, as in Rom. 5. ix. 
 Much more then being now justified by his blood, we shall be sa- 
 ved from wrath through him ; and 1 John ii. If any man sin, we 
 have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and 
 he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also 
 for the sins of the whole world. Which, though a great truth, 
 and most firmly believed by us; yet no man can be entitled to the 
 
29 
 
 benefit thereof, but as they come to beheve and repent of the evil 
 of their ways; and then it may be truly said, that God justifieth 
 even the ungodly, and looks upon them through Christ, as if they 
 had never sinned ; because their sins are forgiven them for his be- 
 loved Son's sake." 
 
 I submit with confidence to this court, that obscure passages, 
 in the heat of argument, of a controversial writer, afterwards ful- 
 ly explained, do not militate against us. I have adverted to Penn's 
 works, not because we rely upon them, for they are not made an 
 exhibit in the cause, but with a view to shew that when rightly 
 understood, they cannot be used as a weapon against us. 
 
 My next position is, that these doctrines are, with this society, 
 fundamental. Samuel Bettle, in his deposition, states them to be 
 so. One test of fundamental doctrines is, that a disbelief in them 
 constitutes a ground of disownment. And these are proved to be 
 so. They are so considered by Barclay on church government. * 
 Upon this point the discipline, as I have already shewn, is posi- 
 tive. 
 
 But these doctrines, wherever they are entertained, must be 
 considered as fundamental. Before you could treat them othenvise, 
 you must change the nature of man, and his principles of action. 
 The idea that a religious society could exist in harmony, or even 
 exist at all, for any length of time, where all sorts of opinions up- 
 on such subjects are allowed, is altogether arcadian and visiona- 
 ry. You might as well expect that sincere christians, and ma- 
 hometans, could harmoniously worship together in a mosque. No 
 good could come from such a state of things, but on the contrary, 
 it would have a most demoralizing tendency. One preacher would 
 rise up, and descant upon the glory and majesty of the Great 
 Head of the christian church, inculcate the deep reverence and 
 devotion that were due to his character. Another would rise, 
 and like Ehas Hicks, would endeavor to depreciate him ; caution 
 his hearers against relying too much upon him; urge them to en- 
 deavor to rise up to an equality with him, and to cast away the 
 Scriptures as mere props, that can aid the christian only in the 
 infancy of his spiritual life. What would be the effect of such 
 contradictory exhibitions ? Would it not degrade the whole sys- 
 tem 1 Would it not infuse into the society, if persisted in, a uni- 
 
 * Page, 53, 59, and tlie declaration of faith appended to the catechism, p. 11, 
 
so 
 
 versal scepticism, and spread among the youth a contempt and 
 disregard for all religious sentiments 1 Or rather, would it not, 
 eventually, as it has done in the present instance, involve the so- 
 ciety in confusion and conflict, and lead to a final separation. 
 Such must in all cases be its effects ; and while this view of the 
 subject shews that these doctrines are fundamental, wherever they 
 are entertained, it shews at the same time, that this society never 
 could have tolerated the broad latitude of doctrine, upon the Uto- 
 pian principles contended for on the other side. The unity and 
 harmony upon which they dehght to expatiate, would have lasted 
 about as long as the " Orthodox" and " Hicksites" continued to- 
 gether, after Elias Hicks let in upon them his flood of new light. 
 
 I now propose to shew that the " Hicksite" party hold the doc- 
 trines ascribed to them in the answer of Joseph Hendrickson. In 
 that answer they are thus stated : "The " Hicksite" party afore- 
 said do not adopt and believe in the above mentioned doctrines ; 
 but entertain opinions entirely and absolutely repugnant and con- 
 trary thereto," (alluding to the three doctrines in question.) In re- 
 gard to the first religious doctrine above named, 
 
 " Although the society of Friends have seldom made use of the 
 word trinity, yet they believe in the existence of the Father, the 
 the Son, or Word, and the Holy Spirit. That the Son was God, 
 and became flesh ; that there is one God, and Father, of whom are 
 all things; that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things 
 were made, who was glorified with the Father before the world 
 began, who is God over all, blessed forever; that there is one Ho- 
 ly Spirit, the promise of the Father and the Son, the leader, and 
 sanctifier, and comforter of his people, and that these three are 
 one, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit ; that the principal dif- 
 ference between the people called Quakers, and the other protest- 
 ant trinitarian sects, in regard to the doctrine of the trinity, is, 
 that the latter attach the idea of individual personage to the three, 
 as what they consider a fair logical inference from the doctrines 
 expressly laid down in the holy Scriptures. The people called 
 Quakers, on the other hand, considering it a mystery, beyond 
 finite, human conception, take up the doctrine as expressly laid 
 down in the Scripture, and have not considered themselves as 
 warranted in making deductions, however specious. 
 
 "The people called Quakers have always believed in ll:c 
 
31 
 
 doctrine of the atonement; that the divine and human na- 
 ture of Jesus Christ the Saviour were united; that thus uni- 
 ted, he suffered ; and that through his suflerings, death and re- 
 surrection, he atoned for the sins of men. That the Son of God, 
 in the fuhiess of time took flesh, became perfect man, according to 
 the flesh, descended and came of the seed of Abraham and Da- 
 vid ; that being with God from all eternity, being himself God, 
 and also in time partaking of the nature of man, through him is 
 the goodness and love of God conveyed to mankind, and that by 
 him again man receiveth and partaketh of these mercies; that 
 Christ took upon him the seed of Abraham, and his holy body and 
 blood was an oifering and a sacrifice for the sins of the whole 
 world. 
 
 " The people called Quakers believe, that the Scriptures are 
 given by inspiration, and when rightly interpreted, are uner- 
 ring guides; and to use the language adopted by them, they 
 are able to make wise unto salvation, through faith in Jesus 
 Christ. They believe that the spirit still operates upon the souls 
 of men, and when it does really and truly so operate, it furnishes 
 the primary rule of faith. That the Scriptures proceeding from 
 it must be secondary in reference to this primary source, whence 
 they proceed ; but inasmuch as the dictates of the spirit are al- 
 ways true and uniform, all ideas and views which any person 
 may entertain repugnant to the doctrines of the Scriptures, which 
 are unerring, must proceed from false lights. That such are the 
 doctrines entertained and adopted by the ancient society of 
 Friends, and that the same doctrines are still entertained by the 
 " Orthodox" party aforesaid, to which party this defendant be- 
 longs. That these doctrines are with the said religious society 
 fundamental, and any individual entertaining sentiments and opin- 
 ions contrary to all or any of the above mentioned doctrines, is 
 held not to be in the same faith with the society of Friends, or 
 people called Quakers, and is treated accordingly." 
 
 If this charge be true, the " Hicksites" unquestionably, are not 
 Quakers in religious belief, whatever they may be in manners and 
 external appearance ; they are, on the contrary, the antipodes of 
 them ; they are completely unitarian. I do not mean to dispute 
 their legal right to be so ; they are, as unitarians, entitled to pro- 
 tection in the enjoyment of their religious belief, publicly and prac- 
 
32 
 
 tically, under tlie constitution of their country. All I mean to 
 contend for, is, that as unitarians, they are not Quakers in doc- 
 trine ; they are not in law, entitled to take with them, in their new 
 unitarian belief, the property which has been, by donation or other- 
 wise, devoted, in trust, for the society of Friends. To all legal pur- 
 poses, they would have been just as much entitled to it if they had 
 turned mahometans : I contend that this, as a rule of property, is 
 general and uniform. If a unitarian society, where that mode of 
 worship is recognised by law, should hold property, a portion of 
 the members becoming trinitarian, could not carry the property 
 with them. 
 
 The charge which I have just read from the answer of Hen- 
 drickson, was contained in the original bill. It was, of course, 
 stated in the bill of interpleader, and the defendant, Decow, claim- 
 ing to be treasurer of the school fund, under the " Hicksite" pre- 
 parative meeting, was called upon to answer this charge, he has 
 not answered it, but has refused to disclose. All the witnesses 
 called on the other side, members of their new yearly meeting, 
 and in the habit of attending their different meetings for worship, 
 and hence, fully acquainted with the religious doctrines they en- 
 tertain and inculca'te, refuse to disclose upon that point. The 
 charge of unitarianism thus solemnly made, is undenied, either by , 
 answer or by proof. 
 
 Allow me, for a few moments, to consider their excuses for this 
 concealment, and in the next place, its effects upon the evidence 
 in this cause. They excuse themselves for not divulging their doc- 
 trines on the ground, that they are not bound to spread their spir- 
 itual sentiments before a temporal tribunal; that such a tribunal has 
 no cognizance of religious doctrines, and that if compelled to ac- 
 count upon such subjects, there, it amounts to religious persecu- 
 tion. But upon this subject, they appear to me, to be entirely too 
 refined and sublimated. They are for vaulting in the air. They 
 S3em to forget that even in religious concerns, while they are pre- 
 paring for heaven, they are upon the earth and bound to it, by a 
 force of attraction which they cannot resist. I repeat again, that 
 I am an advocate for religious liberty to its broadest extent, ex- 
 cept in those instances where bigotry or superstition may en- 
 croach upon the safety of government, or the wholesome restraint 
 of municipal law. Even there, I would have a government to 
 
33 
 
 yield much to the spirit of religious liberty. It is matter of his- 
 tory, that the early Friends were the pioneers of religious tolera- 
 tion. Even the early reformers, who were anxious for liberty of 
 thought, were for stopping short at the point to which their ideas 
 of reformation in religious doctrine and discipline carried them. 
 Philosophers, in those times, often dreamt of a greater latitude of 
 sentiment and action, but they wei'e only the day-dreams of philo- 
 sophical speculation. If Sir Thomas More, in his Utopia, was for 
 allowing the utmost breadth of religious freedom, he departed ve- 
 ry essentially from his principles, when he was called upon to act. 
 But liberty of conscience, consists in the right of an individual in 
 a society, to enjoy publicly his own religious views and mode of 
 worship, unmolested by temporal power. This was so understood 
 by the early Friends. A religious society must have property, devo- 
 ted, in trust, to their purposes, and to enjoy true liberty under the 
 law, their property must be protected by the law, not merely as to 
 the legal estate, but also as to the trust. How can the law pro- 
 tect this trust, if a part of the society, changing their doctrines 
 and getting possession of the property in the confusion of religious 
 dissention, can wrap themselves up in all the darkness of the Eleu- 
 synian mysteries ? To receive the protection of law, they must 
 subject themselves to the inquiry and investigation necessarily in- 
 cidental to such protection. True liberty does not consist in the 
 power of concealment, in order to hold property devoted in trust 
 to the support of one set of doctrines, and to misapply it to the 
 support of an entirely different set of doctrines. This is licentious- 
 ness, not liberty. It is icrong, not right. If the object of this in- 
 quiry was to punish the " Hicksite " party for their religious opin- 
 ions, they would then have an excuse for this concealment. But 
 when the object is simply to ascertain which of these two divi- 
 sions is the true society, when it is manifest that both cannot be: 
 which of these two preparative meetings is the true preparative 
 meeting, in order to settle a mere question of property, it is idle to 
 talk of persecution. It would be disgraceful to the law, to leave 
 such a question, or any other question of property unsettled, and 
 in order to settle it, the court must have the power of inquiry. 
 
 Their next pretence for refusing to disclose is, that this society 
 has no fundamental doctrines, and that the inquiry is immaterial, 
 and can have no effect upon the cause. This is not true, and is 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 admitted by themselves not to be true ; for they admit the doctrine 
 of the influence of the divine Hght upon the soul to be fundamen- 
 tal. This society does not exhibit then, even according to their 
 own admissions and views, the strange anomaly of a christian 
 community without any settled religious principles. It is true, 
 that they deny the three doctrines in question to be fundamental ; 
 but when we assert it and they deny it, it presents an issue to be 
 inquired into, not to be concealed. Otherwise, how is the point to 
 be settled? It surely cannot be seriously pretended that such 
 points, involving important questions of property, should be left un- 
 settled. 
 
 Contrast, I beseech you, the conduct of the " Hicksite " party, 
 with the proceedings of the early Friends. These men live in an 
 age and in a country, where i-eligious freedom, and every other 
 sort of freedom is enjoyed. Where they need have no apprehen- 
 sions from rehgious persecution. They, on the other hand, lived 
 in an age of persecution, and were actually persecuted for the pe- 
 cuhar religious views which they entertained on some points. Day 
 after day, they saw their companions dragged to the dungeon. 
 What course did they take? Did they study to conceal their 
 doctrines ? Did they, tortoise-like, close themselves in the shell ? 
 Were they ashamed of the light ? No. They came out boldly : 
 avowed their doctrines in the presence of the crowned heads of 
 the day. They presented themselves before the parhament, be- 
 fore committees of the parliament, solemnly and publicly exhibit- 
 ed to them their religious views, and obtained relief and privilege 
 as atrinitarian community of christians, under the toleration laws. 
 
 Let us now look at the eflect which this studied concealment on 
 the other side ought to have, as negative evidence upon this cause. 
 And I here give them credit for sincerity in the opinion, that they 
 are not hound to disclose their religious views on these doctrinal 
 points. I give their counsel credit for sivcerity in advising them 
 so, though I cannot concur in opinion with them. It will be borne 
 in mind that they do not pretend that their conscience will not al- 
 low them to disclose, only that they are not bound to disclose. 
 They do, in fact, disclose some of their doctrines in the answer, 
 and in the evidence. Why then do they not make a fair and full 
 developement upon these three doctrines in question ? Manifestly 
 because they did not think it politic to do so, Wh}- do they dis- 
 
35 
 
 close that the influence of divine illumination is one of their doc- 
 trines ? Manifestly because they did think it politic to go 
 thus far. Their conscience then, seems to be measured by their 
 views of policy. 
 
 It is a well settled rule of evidence, that when a matter lies 
 more peculiarly in the knowledge of one party, and he does not 
 explain it, every presumption is raised against him. In Whitney 
 against Sterling and others,* a question arose whether Brown 
 was a partner of the firm sued. General reputation was given in 
 evidence as to the partnership, and as to the members of the firm, 
 and the defendants were noticed to produce the articles of co- 
 partnership, which they dechned doing. The court say, " this 
 refusal aflbrded strong grounds of suspicion, that if produced, they 
 would have shewn that all the defendants were partners, and the 
 jury would have been warranted in draw'ing every reasonable in- 
 ference against the defendants by reason of such refusal." To 
 apply the principle of this decision to the present case. Here is 
 property attached to a preparative meeting of Friends. They di- 
 vide on the question of doctrine, and form two preparative meet- 
 ings. A question arises w^hich is the true one, to which the pro- 
 perty ought to be attached. Hendrickson says, his meeting is the 
 true one, because they hold certain rehgious doctrines, which he 
 proves to be the established doctrines of that religious society, and 
 that the other is not the true one, because they hold doctrines di- 
 rectly repugnant: unitarian doctrines: that they have, in fact, 
 changed from trinitarian to unitarian. Whether they do or do 
 not hold such doctrines : whether such change has, or has not ta- 
 ken place, they must know. They come forward as witnesses, to 
 prove other facts, but do not say what" are their sentiments on 
 these points. When we cross-examine them, they refuse to an- 
 swer. They say they are not bound to answer. This is not true ; 
 because witnesses should answer all material questions, which 
 will not subject them to punishment or disgrace : but admit they 
 were not bound to answer these questions. The defendants, in the 
 case cited, were not bound to produce the articles of co-partnership, 
 and in the languag^e of that court, I say, the refusal of the "Hicksite" 
 witnesses to answer, aflfords strong ground of suspicion, and war- 
 rants the court in drawing every reasonable inference against them. 
 
 * 14 Johnson's Reports, 215, and see 1 Caines Reports, 185. 
 
36 
 
 But, fortunately, in this case, we are not dependent upon the 
 opposite party for information as to their doctrines. We havG 
 laid before the court, a train of evidence, which shews conclusive- 
 ly that they do hold the doctrines we ascribe to them. 
 
 The dispute between the parties, arose, originally about doctrine. 
 Decow, in his answer, admits that there is a difference of doctrine 
 between them. Whitall, in his evidence, states the origin of this 
 dispute. He refers to the letters of Paul and Amicus, in which a 
 pretended Friend, under cover of vindicating the doctrines of 
 Quakerism, advanced unitarian sentiments. The society of Friends 
 became alarmed, lest the public, under these circumstances, should 
 suppose that they really held such sentiments. A paper was pre- 
 pared for publication, consisting exclusively of extracts from the 
 writings of ancient Friends ;* and setting forth the doctrines which 
 are now maintained by the " Orthodox." The publication of it was 
 opposed: and opposed too, by those who have since seceded. 
 What is their pretence for this opposition ? Why, that it was an 
 effort to palm a creed upon their church. Yet it is proved to have 
 been the custom, and is unquestionably true, that this society do, 
 when exposed to the danger of misconstruction, by the public, or 
 under any other circumstances rendering it expedient to do so, 
 publish their sentiments. They might as well pretend to say, that 
 Fox, their founder, was imposing upon them a creed, when he 
 wrote his letter to the governor of Barbadoes : or that the decla- 
 ration of their faith to the British parliament, was a creed, and 
 exceptionable on that ground. The demon of persecution, whicli 
 in this country, can exist only in imagination, seems constantly to 
 haunt them. The real secret of their antipathy to this paper, was, 
 not that it contained a creed, but that the ancient doctrines of 
 their writers, from whose works it was extracted, had become 
 unpalatable to them of late. 
 
 The publication which that party sent forth from their private 
 meeting, while the yearly meeting of eighteen hundred and twen- 
 ty-seven was in session, admits that a difference in doctrine led to 
 the controversy. They there tell us, that doctrines believed by 
 one party to he sound and edifying, are hy the other deemed un- 
 sound and spurious. Thomas Evans testifies that all their disputes 
 were about religious doctrines. 
 
 ♦ Exhibit No. 12, in this cause. 
 
What were these disputed doctrines? There is no pretence by 
 any body, that any others were disputed than those now in ques- 
 tion. Our party come forward openly, and avow their sentiments, 
 in regard to these disputed doctrines. If one party, as they there 
 admit, beheves certain doctrines sound and edifying, and the oth- 
 er beUeves them unsound and spurious, we have a right to infer 
 from their own pubhcation, that they oppose the doctrines in 
 question, unless they shew that there were other doctrines in dispute 
 between them, to which they refer. 
 
 Our witnesses. Parsons, WiUiam Jackson, Whitall, Willis, all 
 testify that the " Hicksite" party hold the doctrines now ascribed 
 to them, and no one on their side denies it. 
 
 We have proved that their preachers hold forth the doctrines 
 that we ascribe to them. Thomas Evans enumerates some of 
 them : Elias Hicks, Hawkshurst, IMott, Edward Hicks, Wetherald, 
 Comly and Lower, all " Hicksite" preachers, teaching these doc- 
 trines, and with acceptance and satisfaction to that party. 
 
 We have several volumes of their sermons, which have been 
 made exhibits in the cause. The most prominent of these preach- 
 ers, whose sermons are contained in them, is Elias Hicks. Speak- 
 ing of the Scriptures, * he says, " It is the best of all letter that 
 was ever written on earth, and after all, it is nothing 
 but letter. It is that which the wisdom of man has devised, and 
 which he can work in, for the sake of his own aggrandizement." 
 
 f "Now the book we read in, says 'search the Scriptures,' but 
 this is incorrect : we must all see it is incorrect," &c. It has been 
 asserted that Elias Hicks never disputed the infallibility and inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures. Yet, he here charges them with inaccu- 
 racy, and with being devised by man's wisdom. He has denied 
 the divinity of Jesus Christ and his atonement. Look at this pas- 
 sage : J " If we believe that God is equal and righteous in all his 
 ways ; that he has made of one blood, all the families that dwell 
 upon the earth, it is impossible that he should be partial, and there- 
 fore, he has been as willing to reveal his will to every creature, 
 as he was to our first parents, to Moses and the prophets, to Jesus 
 Christ and the apostles. He never can set any of these above us ; 
 because, if he did, he would be partial. His love is the same for 
 all ; and as no man can save his brother, or give a ransom 
 
 * Hicks' Sermons, 95, tib. 314. lb. 292. 
 
38 
 
 for his soul, therefore the Ahnighty must be the only deliver- 
 er of his people." No man can be so dull of apprehension as 
 to misunderstand this. Elias Hicks is at liberty to believe, 
 and his adherents may believe, that Christ is on a level with 
 Moses and the prophets, and with the first parents of mankind, 
 and that he is not set above us : that not he, but the Almighty 
 alone, is the true deliverer. I come to the bar of this court, not 
 to censure them or their doctrines, but as the advocate of my cli- 
 ents, upon this question of property, I say, and I trust I have 
 proved, that these are not the doctrines of Quakerism.* Whether 
 these printed books of sermons, have ever been formally adopted 
 by the yearly meeting of the *' Hicksites," I cannot pretend to say. 
 But we do not give them in evidence as the productions of pri- 
 vate individuals, which might require such adoption, to render 
 them evidence of the general sentiments of the society. They 
 are collections of sermons, of public pi-eacJiers, holding forth these 
 sentiments among them, without censure, and with acceptance. 
 If they had found fault with these sentiments, it would have been 
 the duty of their elders to inquire into the matter. The 
 public and acceptable preaching of their ministers, may surely be 
 taken as fair evidence of the religious sentiments of their people. 
 
 But Elias Hicks is too conspicuous a character to be hastily 
 passed over. He is their prime mover. This is notorious. His 
 station as such, is just as well defined, as that of Luther or Calvin, 
 Zwingle or Fox. They say, to be sure, that he is not their head; 
 because they consider Christ their head. But that he is a most 
 able coadjutor, and that he took the lead in broaching those doc- 
 trines, in respect to which they admit they differ from their for- 
 mer associates, they cannot pretend to deny. Abraham Lower 
 acknowledges in his evidence, that he was a faithful and accept- 
 ed preacher. In the early part of his career, as a unitarian 
 preacher, he wrote a letter to his friend Thomas Willis, and made 
 an exhibit in this cause. This letter is written with an ingenuity 
 and management which would have done no discredit to the ora- 
 torical skill of Demosthenes or Cicero. He commences by stating, 
 
 * Mr. Wood licrc read a number of passages from tlie sermons of Elias and 
 Edwarrl Hifks. and Thomas Wetherald, from the printed volumes called the 
 "Quaker,"' Hicks' Sermons, and the sermons of Elias and Edward Hicks, to prove 
 tiic same points. 
 
39 
 
 that for fifty years and upwards, he has beheved in the miracu- 
 lous conception. But he had lately been examining the ancient 
 history of the church, and found that many thought otherwise. 
 Before this, he had read the Scriptures often, but under the preju- 
 dice of a traditional belief, and therefore, never doubted it. But 
 since his late examination of ancient history, where he, no doubt, 
 had dipped into the arian controversy, he read the Scriptures 
 again, and ahhough he found there was considerably more scrip- 
 tural evidence for his being the son of Joseph than otherwise ; still 
 it has not changed his belief; as tradition is a mighty bulwark. 
 Strange ! The less evidence prevails over the greater ! And why ? 
 The prejudice of tradition is too strong for him. I have heard of 
 men being under the influence of prejudice ; but when they dis- 
 cover the prejudice, and see the preponderating evidence on the 
 other side, there is an end of it ; they are then freed from their shac- 
 kles. But it would not do for him to come out boldly as a unita- 
 rian — it would have aroused his friend. To continue his influ- 
 ence, he still professes his old doctrines, and he endeavors to in- 
 stil his principles indirectly, that his friend may adopt them as his 
 own, and as not appearing to have taken them from him. In his let- 
 ters to Phoebe Willis, and Dr. Shoemaker, he denies the atonement 
 most unequivocally. These letters are important in two points of 
 view. While they develope the principles of Elias Hicks, they 
 show that these are not the principles of Quakerism in which he 
 had been educated. 
 
 A slight examination of his sermons, will show you that he is a 
 visionary man. With a mind more active than judicious, he is 
 constantly striking out new conceits. With a temperament more 
 elastic than firm, he embodies these conceits to his own satisfac- 
 tion, with all the reality of solid doctrine. Christ, in his opinion, 
 as far as we can collect his opinion, was a man inspired with the 
 same light with which all other men are inspired, who may, if 
 they choose, rise to an equality with him. Neither He, nor Mo- 
 ses, nor any of the prophets, was above us. That would have 
 been partial and unjust in his opinion. Christ was a saviour, but 
 he was only to save the Israelites by healing their diseases. His 
 atonement was of the same healing character, but to the Jews 
 only. The Scriptures are useful though incorrect ; but they are 
 only useful as props in the infancy of spiritual being, which must 
 
40 
 
 soon be brushed away, or they will destroy that spirituality. 
 Among other things, he has made the discovery, that spirit can 
 only beget spirit. He does not tell us, however, in what way he 
 discovered, that spirit could even beget spirit. It does not seem, 
 for a moment, to occur to him, that such subjects are beyond hu- 
 man comprehension and inquiry, and that man becomes presump- 
 tuous when he undertakes to be wise in such matters beyond 
 what is revealed. His imagination has only to coin an idea, and 
 his zeal at once gives it currency. I have no doubt, that in pri- 
 vate life, his character was amiable and unexceptionable. But 
 his virtues, like Caesar's, have been instrumental to a successful in- 
 novation. Coming out, heated, from the steam of the arian con- 
 troversy he has cast a firebrand into this heretofore peaceful socie- 
 ty, and spread a devastation, which a hundred such men could 
 not repair. 
 
 Let me not be understood, as meaning to censure Elias Hicks 
 for his religious opinions. His right to hold them, was a matter, 
 which lay between his conscience and his God. It is his deport- 
 ment towards this society in the practical assertion of those reli- 
 gious opinions, formed by him in his declining years, of which, as 
 the advocate of my clients, it is my duty to complain. The 
 course which Elias Hicks ought to have taken, was a very obvi- 
 ous one ; the road he had to travel, was direct and plain before him. 
 When he adopted and undertook to preach those new doctrines, 
 which he thus shadowed forth in his epistles to his friends, and 
 which, in those epistles, he distinctly admits, are in violation of the 
 principles of Quakerism, and the traditions in which he had been 
 educated, he ought to have come out from the bosom of that so- 
 ciety. He might then have openly avowed his doctrines, and 
 made proselytes to his new system — the desire to do which, is so 
 natural to the mind of man. If, by pursuing this open and man- 
 ly course, he had gathered around him a new sect, it would have 
 been fair and lawful, and no man would have had a right to com- 
 plain, how much soever his early associates, who should still ad- 
 here to the traditions in which they had been educated, might 
 Jiave lamented his course. He would then have enjoyed full 
 freedom of thought and action, without encroaching upon the just 
 rights of a religious society, whose principles he had abandoned. 
 But whenever a member of such a society changes his religious 
 
41 
 
 opinions, and still artfully endeavours to continue in it, for the 
 purpose of more eifectually making converts to his new doctrines, 
 the error of his course will be shown in the demoralizing con- 
 sequences flowing from it. What subterfuges and evasions is 
 he obliged to resort to ! What shifts and expedients ! Some- 
 times boldly advancing his views among those who have become 
 prepared to receive them. Sometimes denouncing them and 
 broaching the old doctrines in which he had been educated. 
 Sometimes explaining them away, or endeavouring to reconcile 
 contradictions!! Detraction and discord are next witnessed. 
 The old become disgusted Avith the exhibition : the young ridi- 
 cule the whole as the offspring of hypocrisy, artifice, and self- 
 interest : a prostration of morality and religion follows in the 
 train. In religious matters, as in every thing else, licentiousness, 
 which is nothing else than a spirit of encroachment under the 
 specious name of liberty, is prejudicial to the rights and inter- 
 ests of mankind. 
 
 Having finished last evening what I had to say upon the sub- 
 ject of the departure by the " Hicksites" from the fundamental 
 rehgious doctrines of the society of Friends, I shall now proceed 
 to show that they have seceded from the rule and government 
 of the church. 
 
 They charge upon our party, a violation of the discipline in 
 commencing this suit. It is in evidence that Thomas L. Shotwell, 
 the defendant to our bill, was not a member of the society at 
 the time of the secession. If he has since the secession been 
 admitted into their church, we have not in thus instituting the 
 suit violated the principles of this society, because as we say they 
 are not, as unitarians, in the same faith with the society of 
 Friends. There was no other mode of getting redress. Having 
 withdrawn themselves from the jurisdiction of the regular yearly 
 meeting of Philadelphia, and all the subordinate meetings of dis- 
 cipline, it was vain to seek redress there against Shotwell, for 
 he of course would not submit to their authority. Could he 
 expect us to follow him into their new and irregular meetings ? 
 meetings originating, as they admit, in a revolution, and which 
 we do not recognize ? Their complaints then are founded on 
 principles of most convenient application, for themselves, inas- 
 much as they would close the door against all redress. 
 
43 
 
 There are some other pretensions set up on the other side, 
 incidental to this question of secession. 
 
 They tell us that there is no head to this church upon earth 
 — no subordination — no control of one meeting over another — 
 that each preparative meeting may act for itself, without respon- 
 sibility to the others, or to any superior meeting. Such a state 
 of things is designated under the captivating name of a pure 
 democracy. They figure to themselves a golden age of religious 
 liberty. 
 
 I see nothing of democracy in this. Democracy admits of re- 
 gular organization, of a due subordination of parts to the whole. 
 It admits of authority to govern, founded in the good of the 
 whole. It admits of subjection, provided it be subjection to the 
 law and wholesome discipline of society. But the pretensions 
 set up on the other side, are of an entirely ditTerent character. 
 They pretend that any preparative meeting with a bare majo- 
 rity, told by the head, composed of the young, the thoughtless, 
 and inexperienced, whose only claims to religious or even moral 
 consideration, may be founded on birth-right, are at liberty at 
 any time to set up for themselves, dissolve all connection with 
 the yearly meeting, and carry the property along with them. 
 It might as well be said, that a county could at any moment de- 
 tach itself from the state. This I consider not democracy but 
 rank jacobinism. If Quakers were to act on such principles, 
 they would be the sansculottes of Christianity. 
 
 Having been informed that the Quakers have no iixed reli- 
 gious principles, we are told in the next place, that they have 
 no subordination or settled rules of government, and that the 
 whole body may at any time, legitimately crumble into its original 
 moleculae. 
 
 But we have clearly shewn in this case, that the seeds of dis- 
 cord, are not thus sown in the institutions of this society. On 
 the contrary, they have a system of law and subordination, and 
 a regular gradation of authority. This is so stated in the an- 
 swer of Hendrickson, and is proved by his witnesses. They testify 
 to a power in the higher meetings to lay down the lower meet- 
 ings. The accountability of the lower to the higher meetings is 
 provided for in the book of discipline. Joseph Whitall in his 
 deposition, cites passages from the English Discipline of similar 
 
43 
 
 import. John Gummere states various instances where meetings 
 had been thus laid down by the Burlington Quarterly Meeting, 
 and Abraham Lower, their witness, admits this subordination 
 and their subjection to the rules of their discipline enacted in the 
 yearly meeting. 
 
 There is then a due subordination and subjection to rule, in 
 this society. The highest tribunal is the yearly meeting, which 
 exercises a general supervisory control over the whole, complete- 
 ly analogous to the controlling and superintending power of the 
 general synods of the Dutch Reformed Churches, and the general 
 assembly of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 The opposite party further pretend that they are justified in 
 the course they have taken, on account of the arbitrary conduct 
 of the orthodox, upon the right of revolution. Their grievances 
 resemble in their opinion, those of the patriots of our great revo- 
 lution. They are the whigs of Quakerism. This is a most ex- 
 traordinary ground for individuals to take, who live under a gov- 
 ernment of laws, which is able and willing to protect them if they 
 are aggrieved. 
 
 But these complaints are unfounded in fact. None existed un- 
 til these false doctrines were broached. They commenced with 
 the preparation of the paper which they have called a creed, 
 which I have already considered and which they could seriously 
 object to, only on the ground that it opposed the unitarian doc- 
 trines of Amicus, doctrines which were put forth about the time 
 that Elias Hicks began to shake off the tradition in which he had 
 been brought up, the mighty bulwark, as he terms it, and com- 
 menced his new career as a unitarian preacher. Their next 
 complaint of arbitrary conduct is levelled against the elders in 
 Philadelphia. Here again we trace the source of this irritation 
 to the new doctrines. Before this, all was peace and harmony. 
 But Elias Hicks was spreading his new unitarian lights among 
 the churches of Philadelphia. The elders felt it their duty to 
 interpose. If false doctrines are disseminated, will it be pretend- 
 ed that they are to lie idle, and not endeavour to arrest them? 
 The elders have a special superintendance over their meetings. 
 Willit be pretended, that clothed as they are with this superinten- 
 ding power, that standing upon the watch towers to give alarm, 
 when there is cause of alarm, they ought to connive at the cor- 
 
44 
 
 ruption of their churches by the promulgation of unsound doc- 
 trines ? Suppose a preacher should go about among them, and 
 deny the fundamental doctrine of the influence of the divine light 
 upon the soul, should this be acquiesced in 1 It is the same in ef- 
 fect when any other fundamental doctrine is denied. 
 
 Their next complaint is on the ground that committees were 
 appointed to go down among the churches and endeavour to 
 stem the current of these new doctrines. Halliday Jackson him- 
 self admits the practice of appointing such committees, when 
 there is a serious departure in doctrine or discipline which may 
 call for it, but he thinks it was not justifiable in this instance, 
 because there were parties in the church. Now I submit to the 
 court, that I have already shewn that false doctrines were afloat, 
 in regard to Quakerism, upon points radical and fundamental, 
 and if so, the appointment of these committees was perfectly jus- 
 tifiable, nay farther, it was absolutely incumbent upon them 
 to make the appointment. 
 
 Their only remaining topic of complaint relates to the choice 
 of a clerk, at the yearly meeting of eighteen hundred and twenty- 
 seven. Their candidate for the clerkship on that occasion was 
 John Comly, a man who had been busy for months before, hold- 
 ing private meetings, with the express view of preparing the 
 minds of all who were on their side for a dissolution of the socie- 
 ty. Among others, Halliday Jackson is compelled to admit this, 
 and his excuse for this conduct on the part of his friend, is found- 
 ed upon this right of revolution. With a candidate of such pre- 
 tensions aild with such views they came forward, and they cer- 
 tainly could not be surprized that the friends of this religious 
 institution, the adherents to the faith of their fathers, who had 
 been stemming the torrent of innovation, shoidd endeavour still to 
 resist its progress and prevent it from overwhelming Ihem. 
 
 It is proved by Samuel Bettle that the old clerk acts, accord- 
 ing to their established usage, until a new one is appointed. No 
 election in this case was made ; the meeting could not agree in 
 the choice of a clerk. The representatives had deliberated upon 
 the subject, and no agreement could be made. What then was 
 to be done? If they could not agree in the choice of a new 
 clerk, all that remained was to acquiesce and submit to the con- 
 tinuance of the old one until a new clerk should be appointed. 
 
45 
 
 But a serious objection is here interposed on the part of the 
 " Hicksites." They say they had a majority in their favour. 
 This, however, does not appear. The votes were not counted, 
 and it is all mere conjecture. 
 
 But however that may be, it is, I think, well settled, that this 
 society in its proceedings, does not vote or decide by majorities. 
 It is so alleged by Hendrickson in his answer, and his witnesses 
 prove it. Charles Stokes, their own witness, in his deposition 
 gives a very clear and full view of this subject, and refers you 
 to Barclay, who states the practice of the society. The sense 
 of the meeting is gathered by the clerk, of course a weighty and 
 responsible officer; and in doing so, no doubt, he attaches im- 
 portance to numerical strength, but it is not the only, nor the 
 principal criterion. The history of Quakerism, may be studied 
 in its details with advantage. This society has existed for ages, 
 has transacted business of every kind, settled the disputes and 
 controversies of its own members, without suffering them to re- 
 sort to courts of justice, yet in all its deliberations, religious and 
 secular, no decision has ever been made by taking a vote or by 
 counting the members. Their decisions are made in unity ; but 
 by this they do not understand unanimity or majority. They 
 designate their decision generally by calling it the prevailing 
 sense of the meeting. The officer to collect this prevailing sense, 
 is the clerk, who is clothed with great responsibility. The de- 
 cision does not, says Barclay, rest with the few or the many. 
 Age, experience, intelligence, weight of religious character, fur- 
 nish considerations of importance in determining the sense of the 
 community. If too much heat should be found entering into 
 their deliberations, they wait until the tumult and agitation of 
 the mind shall subside — until the passions shall be hushed under 
 the influence of religious impression. In such a frame of mind, 
 the pride of opinion is subdued, a proper regard is paid to reli- 
 gious intelligence and experience, and a silent and harmonious 
 acquiescence is the result. What self-command, what discipline 
 of the mind and heart, are required for the introduction of such 
 a principle of action, and how far superior is it to decision by 
 majorities, where the state of society is so far improved, and the 
 passions are so far controlled as to warrant its introduction. It 
 is said in the answer of Hendrickson, and is said truly, that one 
 
46 
 
 of the most prominent features in the " Hicksite" innovation, is 
 the attempt to break down this distinguishing principle of deci- 
 sion which has so long prevailed in their society, with so much 
 usefulness, and in its tendency to disqualify them for its use. 
 
 We become so familiarized with the artificial regulations of 
 society, as to mistake them for the paramount rules of action 
 prescribed by nature. Those who look only at the surface of 
 society, are apt to imagine that all proceedings that are counter 
 to the movements they have been accustomed to witness, must 
 be absolutely unjust. The superior influence which would direct 
 the actions of men associated together, in the absence of positive 
 rule, would be the combined result of superior moral and physi- 
 cal power. In most of the institutions of society, majorities re- 
 gulate their decision, because it furnishes a convenient rule ; but 
 this rule is often departed from, and would often be unjust. In 
 banks and other institutions where property is the main concern, 
 it gives way to property ; sometimes a concurrence of two-thirds 
 or of three-fourths is required. 
 
 In religious societies the promotion of religion is of course the 
 grand object in view Their rules of proceeding should be 
 adapted to that object. Surely there is nothing unjust in requir- 
 ing that mere numerical strength should give way to religious 
 weight and experience, in a religious society where birth-right 
 prevails, and more especially when the beneficial efTects of this 
 course of proceeding have been experienced through a series of 
 ages. 
 
 But the "Hicksite" partv true to their purpose of introducing 
 novelties, resolved to carry their ends by introducing among them 
 the new and extraordinary principle of deciding by majorities. 
 As preparatory to its introduction into this yearly meeting, they 
 doubled their number of representatives in those quarters in 
 which they had the predominancy, and for the great work of in- 
 troducing a notorious disorganizer into the most responsible 
 office among them. Their courage however failed them ; they 
 could not act up to their new purpose. The innovation would 
 have been too glaring. Not an attempt was made in that meet- 
 ing to count the votes. Amidst the agitation and bustle of the 
 scene, John Cox, the respectable old man who is spoken of with 
 so much approbation by the witnesses on both sides, reported, — 
 
47 
 
 what ? That he could not count the majority ? Nothing like it — 
 lie did not dream off ascertaining majority or minority. But 
 he could not gather the sense of the meeting. The spirit of inno- 
 vation and discord threw all into confusion. The " Hicksites" 
 eventually abandoned this effort. They acted wisely in not per- 
 sisting in their endeavour to palm a disorganizer upon the yearly 
 meeting as their clerk. The, old clerk took his seat. Comly 
 took his seat as assistant clerk, and they proceeded to business. 
 The yearly meeting became fully organized. Among other 
 things they passed a resolution for raising money for the libera- 
 tion of some slaves. This acquiescence however secured tran- 
 quility but for a short time. It was like the calm which pre- 
 cedes the storm. The fires of discord were allayed but they 
 were not quenched. They were smouldering under ground. 
 While this yearly meeting was engaged in the business of the so- 
 ciety, the " Hicksite" party held secret meetings of their own 
 apart, in which they were preparing the work of disorganization, 
 and at which Comly the assistant clerk attended. Dr. Gibbons, 
 the editor of the Berean, was there. They resulted in the issuing 
 of a publication addressed to the members of their party, in which 
 they state, " We feel bound to express to you under a settled con- 
 viction of mind, that the period has fully come in which we ought 
 to look towards making a quiet retreat from this scene of confu- 
 sion, and we therefore recommend to you deeply to weigh the 
 momentous subject, and to adopt such a course as truth, under 
 solid and solemn deliberation, may point to, in furtherance of this 
 object," &c. They invite a convention to be composed of " their 
 memhers,'^ with a view to organize themselves anew, and by 
 means of this new organization, to consummate their purpose of 
 making a quiet retreat. 
 
 That purpose was consummated. That quiet retreat, or at 
 least that retreat, was fully effected. Jn June eighteen hundred 
 and twenty seven, that party held a convention which brought 
 forth another address, but directed specially to their own mem- 
 bers. In this address they speak of the blessed influence of gos- 
 pel love and insinuate an abandonment by the opposite party of 
 this fundamental principle of their union, as they term it. So 
 it seems, they have fundamental principles, or in other words, ac- 
 cording to their notions of fundamental principles, a creed. And 
 
48 
 
 they conclude this address with saying, "We therefore under a 
 solemn and weighty sense of the importance of this concern, and 
 vvith ardent desires, that all our movements may be under the 
 guidance of him who only can lead us in safety, have agreed to 
 propose for your consideration the propriety and expediency of 
 holding a yearly meeting for friends in unity with us, residing 
 within the limits of those quarterly meetings heretofore present- 
 ed in the yearly nieetingheld in Philadelphia, for which purpose 
 it is recommended that quarterly and monthly meetings which 
 may be prepared for such a measure, should appoint representa- 
 tives to meet in Philadelphia on the third second day in tenth 
 month next, at ten o'clock in the morning, in company with other 
 members favourable to our views there to hold a yearly meeting 
 of men and women friends," &lc. 
 
 This passage in their address suggests several remarks for 
 your consideration. It will be borne in mind, that this " Hicks- 
 ite" party did not pretend to disown or exclude the " Orthodox" 
 from membership. They complain that the " Orthodox" were too 
 restricted in their views of doctrine. They do not pretend to 
 assert that persons entertaining their views of religion are not 
 Quakers, but they contend for a broader latitude. They are 
 for adopting a principle to regulate membership which will 
 embrace trinitarians, unitarians, or even pagan philosophers 
 For it is well known that the platonic sect of pagan philosophers, 
 did believe in divine illumination. In short, Quakerism, ac- 
 cording to their views, would resemble the tesselated pavement 
 to which the earl of Chatham's celebrated cabinet has been 
 compared. Abraham Lower admits that they did not pretend 
 to disown the orthodox. The yearly meeting of Philadelphia in 
 1827, continued its sittings, and was regularly adjourned to meet 
 the ensuing year as the discipline prescribes, and they did 
 accordingly meet the ensuing year, and have continued to meet 
 regularly ever since. It will be observed that the " Hicksite" 
 address, which I last referred to, is directed specially to 
 Friends in unity with themselves, who are prepared for their 
 measures, and favourable to their views. Its object was not to 
 call a convention composed of a delegation from the whole body 
 of the members within the jurisdiction of this yearly meeting, 
 but only a part of that body. A convention then composed of a 
 
49 
 
 party, met together in October 1827, and formed a new yearly 
 meeting, which according to their adoption, has met subsequently 
 at Philadelphia, yearly, a week sooner than the old yearly meet- 
 ing, which continues to assemble at the usual time and place. They 
 call this new yearly meeting a reorganization of the old one ; a 
 revival upon its pristine principles; a sort ofphcenix rising from 
 the ashes. But the old phoenix remains alive. The old yearly 
 meeting continues in full operation. There are two radical ob- 
 jections to their effort to identify their new yearly meeting with 
 the old yearly meeting. In the first place their new yearly 
 meeting is the offspring of a party, and not of the whole body. 
 There was no notification to the whole body to attend the con- 
 ventions which formed it. The proceedings of the meeting of a 
 corporation are not valid, unless there was a general notice to 
 the whole body composing that meeting to attend. In the next 
 place according to the rules and government of this church, no 
 new yearly meeting could be formed within the precincts of the 
 old one without their concurrence, and of course no new yearly 
 meeting without such concurrence could be formed to supercede 
 the old one. If we can place any confidence in the evidence, no 
 yearly meeting ever has been formed within the bounds of an 
 old yearly meeting without their concurrence. 
 
 The opposite party will derive no aid from adverting to the 
 circumstances under which this old yearly meeting was origi- 
 nally formed in this country. The members of the society who 
 originally organized this yearly meeting at Burlington, found 
 themselves in a new position. They were not within the bounds 
 of any yearly meeting: they therefore acted for themselves, in 
 the same way as the early Friends proceeded in forming the first 
 yearly meeting in London. But they bore in mind, notwith- 
 standing, the general connection of all the parts of this religious 
 society, by which they are identified in some measure as a 
 whole. They advised the yearly meeting of London of their 
 proceedings, and obtained their approbation : and considering 
 the colonial condition of their new country, they became in some 
 degree subordinate to that ancient yearly meeting, and appeals 
 to it were allowed, and an appellate jurisdiction was actually 
 exercised. Ever since this country has been freed from its de- 
 pendence upon the British crown, an advisory correspondence 
 
50 
 
 has been kept up with them by the yearly meetings of thiscomi- 
 try. What analogy can a friend to order see between the pro- 
 ceedings by which this yearly meeting was originally formed at 
 Burlington, and the proceedings which eventuated in the crea- 
 tion of this " Hicksite" yearly meeting ? If a party may rise up 
 in a church, hold private meatings, issue addresses to their 
 own party, and thus form a party-convention with full power 
 legitimately to create a new yearly meeting, there is an end to 
 all order, to all rule, and to all regular organization of society. 
 But they go still farther than this, and pretend that this new 
 yearly meeting of their own, fostered and matured in the hot-bed 
 of party-spirit, has completely superseded the old yearly meeting 
 which still continues in operation, and has legitimately usurped 
 and succeeded to all its rights. 
 
 I will not trouble the court with going into the details of the 
 circumstances attending the separation in the Burlington quarter 
 and the preparative meeting at Crosswicks. The proceedings in 
 the Burhngton quarter are detailed by Gummere, and in the 
 meeting at Crosswicks by Craft and Emlen. In both cases, in- 
 dividuals intruded themselves into the meetings, who did not be- 
 long to the society of Friends. By the principles of their society, 
 no person can be present at their meetings of business, who is 
 not a member ; vvhether he has never belonged, or whether he 
 has formerly belonged to their society, and been disowned. Un- 
 willing to use force, but disposed to act in the spirit of peace, if 
 any persons thus present should refuse to withdraw, the meeting 
 must either cease to transact their business, or adjourn to some 
 other place. The monthly meeting at Crosswicks and the Bur- 
 lington quarter took the latter alternative, and adjourned to a 
 neighbouring house, and took their minutes and papers, and their 
 clerks with them. They did not privately meet in convention 
 and form new meetings, but regularly adjourned their meetings 
 to different places. In the mean time, the " Hicksite" parties 
 who were connected with the persons who thus intruded, took 
 possession of the meeting houses, chose new clerks of their own, 
 organized themselves into monthly and quarterly meetings, and 
 have placed themselves under the jurisdiction of this new yearly 
 meeting, formed in convention by the " Hicksites" in the city of 
 Philadelphia. The "Orthodox" Burlington quarterly meeting, and 
 
51 
 
 their monthly and preparative meeting at Crosswicks, still con- 
 tinue under the jurisdiction and control of the old yearly meeting 
 of Philadelphia. Thus David Clark was long before the seces- 
 sion, and still is, the clerk of the " Orthodox" monthly meeting at 
 Crosswicks ; and Gummere, the clerk of the BurUngton quarter, 
 states that he still receives his reports from him, as such clerk. 
 
 I trust I have established to the satisfaction of this court, that 
 the " Hicksite" party, having previously abandoned the religious 
 faith of their fathers, have seceded from the rule and govern- 
 ment of the church. It only remains to consider the effect of 
 this secession and abandonment, upon the property in question in 
 this cause. 
 
 I have already said that these religious societies take the equi- 
 table beneficial interest in property held by trustees for their use 
 and on their account, in their social capacity ; and I have shewn 
 that in all cases of charity, that cardinal virtue of Christianity, 
 societies thus formed may acquire such an interest in property, 
 and that a court of equity will protect it, as Chancellor Kent 
 observes. The court would otherwise be cut off from a large 
 field of jurisdiction over some of the most interesting and mo- 
 mentous trusts that can possibly be created and confided to the 
 integrity of men. A body of men to hold property in a court of 
 law, in a social capacity, must be generally incorporated. There 
 are instances, however, in which they are allowed thus to hold 
 property even at law, without an actual incorporation, and in 
 such cases they are technically termed quasi corporations. An 
 individual having an interest in property thus held, has not a 
 vested interest. He is benefitted by it in his social relation as a 
 member of that society, and when he of himself and others 
 along with him, forming a party, cease to be members from 
 whatever cause, of that particular society, they cease to have 
 an interest in the property of that society. 
 
 When two parties arise in a religious society holding property 
 thus protected in a court of equity, as a charitable institution, 
 and they actually divide and become completely separated, hold- 
 ing different doctrines, that party must be considered as forming 
 the true society, which adheres to the original established doc- 
 trines of the society. The object of a religious society is religious 
 worship. But they worship their creator according to certain 
 
52 
 
 forms and doctrines in which they believe. The worship of their 
 creator in this way is the special purpose for which the society 
 was formed. They resemble in this respect a corporation creat- 
 ed for a special purpose. In such a case, all its faculties and 
 powers must be devoted to that purpose. A departure in essen- 
 tial particulars, persevered in, will be a cause of forfeiture of its 
 rights and privileges. Thus an association formed for banking 
 purposes, could not appropriate their funds to purposes essen- 
 tially different. And thus in the case of a religious society 
 formed for the promotion of certain religious doctrines, and 
 for worship agreeably to those doctrines, the funds cannot, with- 
 out violating the plainest dictates of justice as well as law, be 
 perverted to the support of different doctrines and a different 
 kind of worship. And when an unfortunate division arises, that 
 party which clings to the original faith of the society, or in other 
 words, to the special purpose for which it was originally orga- 
 nized, must, in the nature of things, be considered the true so- 
 ciety, whenever the separation between them has become so 
 marked as to render the determination upon that point neces- 
 sary. 
 
 When the difference arising between such parties has refer- 
 ence to the church government, and it is carried so far, that one 
 party leave the government of the church, those remaining and 
 adhering to the ancient government, must constitute that church. 
 Those thus departing, may organize and form a new society, if 
 they please, with a new government, but they must acquire 
 property anew if they have occasion to use any in their new 
 social capacity. They cannot take the property of the old soci- 
 ety with them. 
 
 If a departure either in faith and doctrine, or in discipline and 
 church government, separately produce such effects, the com- 
 bined operation of the two. that is a departure both in faith and 
 in government, must unquestionably terminate in the like result. 
 
 The opinion entertained by the " Hicksite" party, that a radi- 
 cal departure by a portion of the society from the established 
 faith and doctrine of the church, cannot be inquired into by a 
 temporal tribunal, is so far from being true, that on the con- 
 trary, such a departure is not only a ground of forfeiture of their 
 privileges and franchises in the church, but it is a consideration 
 
53 
 
 of paramount importance before the temporal tribunal. Thus if 
 there are two parties, one of which has departed in essential 
 doctrine, and the other in relation to church government, and a 
 marked separation has taken place between them, that party 
 which adheres to the true doctrines, will be deemed the true 
 church, and as such entitled to all its temporalities. 
 
 The opposite party pretend that they have the majority. — 
 This is denied, and they certainly have failed to prove it. Their 
 own witnesses in the cross-examination shew that but little re- 
 liance can be placed on the lists they have furnished, for they 
 are grossly inaccurate. But I will not go into details upon this 
 point, because if my view of the subject be correct, it is alto- 
 gether unnecessary ; and it would be altogether unnecessary in 
 the case of a society which usually votes by majorities. In such 
 a case the majority will regulate and decide on subjects coming 
 within Ihe pale of their authority, and which are not in violation 
 of the trust. But a majority have no power to break up the ori- 
 ginal land-marks of the institution. They have no power to 
 divert the property held by them in their social capacity from 
 the special purpose for which it was bestowed. They could not 
 turn a Baptist society into a Presbyterian society, or a Quaker 
 into an Episcopalian society. They could not pervert an insti- 
 tution and its funds formed for trinitarian purposes to anti-trini- 
 tarian purposes. It might as well be pretended that they could 
 divert the funds devoted to the sustenance of aged and decrepid 
 seamen to the use and benefit of a foundling hospital. A corpo- 
 ration diverted from the purposes of its institution will be regu- 
 lated and brought back to its original objects by a court of law, 
 and a religious society protected by the law of charities will be 
 kept to its original destination by the powerful arm of this high 
 court. 
 
 The principles which I have endeavoured to explain, appear 
 to me to flow so naturally from the doctrines of trusts, familiar to 
 every equity lawyer, as not to admit of any dispute, nor do T know 
 that the counsel on the other side will attempt to dispute them. 
 I will call the attention of the court, however, to a few autho- 
 rities for the purpose of illustration. In the case of Baker and 
 others against Fales, 16 Mas. R. 488, it was decided, that when 
 the majority of the members of a congregational church secede 
 
54 
 
 from the parish, those who remain, though a minority, constitute 
 the cliurch in such parish, and retain the property belonging 
 thereto. The court say that the very term, church, imports an 
 organization for religious purposes, and property given to it eo 
 nomine in the absence of all declaration of trust or use, must by 
 necessary implication, be intended to be given to promote the 
 purposes for which a church is instituted, the most prominent of 
 which is the public worship of God. That as to all civil purposes 
 the secession of a whole church from the parish would be an ex- 
 tinction of the church, and it is competent for the members of the 
 parish to institute a new church, or to engraft one upon the old 
 stock. But where members enough are left to execute the objects 
 for which a church is gathered, choose deacons, &c., no legal 
 change has taken place : the body remains, and the secession of 
 the majority of the members would have no other effect than a 
 temporary absence would have upon a meeting which had been 
 regularly summoned. The same point was in effect determined 
 in 8 Mas. R. 96. 
 
 In the case of Ryerson against Roome decided in this court, a 
 part of the members of a church left it, and were incorporated 
 anew, and formed a distinct church. The late chancellor of New 
 Jersey decided that they were not entitled to any of the property ; 
 that the whole continued to belong to the old church. 
 
 The case of the Attorney General against Pearson, reported in 
 3 Merivale, was very fully discussed at the bar, and maturely con- 
 sidered by Lord Eldon. A bill and information was exhibited by 
 the Attorney General, by Stuart claiming to be the minister, and 
 by Mandon, a trustee; the defendants alleged that a majority of 
 the congregation united in choosing another parson, who was a 
 vmitarian. The property was given upwards of a century pre- 
 ceding in trust for -preaching the gospel, but without disignating 
 in the trust the kind of religious doctrines to be taught. They 
 said that in 1780 some of the members were trinitarian,and some 
 unitarian; that in 1813 they appointed Stuart the complainant 
 their minister, then being a unitarian, but that in 1816, having 
 turned trinitarian, they dismissed him, and that Joseph Grey, a 
 unitarian preacher, with the unanimovs consent of the congrega- 
 tion, was appointed in his place. The Lord Chancellor decided 
 that this being a trust for religious purposes a court of equity 
 
55 
 
 would exercise complete jurisdiction. That the deed being in 
 trust for religious worship without mentioning the kind, the court 
 would resort to usage to explain it, and to ascertain the kind of 
 worship originally intended. That it was not in the power of the 
 members to change the original purpose of the trust, and if estab- 
 lished for trinitarian purposes, to convert it to purposes anti- 
 trinitarian. That the trustees, though vested with the power of 
 making orders from time to time, cannot turn it into a meeting 
 house of a different description, and for teaching different doctrines 
 from those established by the founder ; that he, as chancellor, 
 had nothing to do with religious doctrines except to ascertain the 
 purpose of the trust, that he was bound to determine that ques- 
 tion and not to permit that purpose to be altered. 
 
 This case is too plain to require comment. That great Chan- 
 cellor on a question of property did not shrink from inquiring into 
 religious doctrines to ascertain a trust, and to make the property 
 conform to the tru.it, under the fantastic idea that such matters 
 were too sacred or sublimated for an English court of justice. 
 Though it had been used for years for unitarian purposes, and 
 the present incumbent, an unitarian preacher, was appointed 
 unanimously^ he directs an inquiry before the master as to what 
 was the original purpose of the trust, that he might settle the 
 property and have it appropriated to the maintenance of those 
 doctrines which were originally intended, and that too without 
 inquiring whether there was any formal creed or confession of 
 faith drawn up and signed. 
 
 In the second volume of Bligh's Reports, page 529, you will find 
 the case of Craigdallie against Aikman and others. This was a 
 Scotch case and came up before the House of Lords. A large part 
 of the members of a congregation left the jurisdiction of the synod. 
 But they claimed to hold the property on the ground that they were 
 the true church, in as much as they adhered to the original doctrines 
 of the church, andthey alleged that the synod had departed from 
 those doctrines. The court below decided in favour of the party 
 who still adhered to the synod. In the House of Lords, where 
 Lord Eldon presided, the court under his advice decided, that if 
 it were true, that the members of the congregation thus seceding, 
 adhered to the original doctrines of the church, for the support of 
 which, the trust was originally created, they were entitled to the 
 
56 
 
 property, notwithstanding their secession, and that, in such case, 
 the decision below, should be reversed. They therefore referred 
 the case back, with directions that an inquiry should be made 
 into the subject of doctrines. The case came again before the 
 House of Lords with a report from the court below, that on in- 
 quiry they could not tind that there was any material and intel- 
 ligible distinction between them on the subject of doctrine, and 
 that they differed, only, on some immaterial point in regard to the 
 form of an oath. The court then affirmed the decision below. 
 This case shews that either a secession from the government of 
 the church or a departure in doctrine, will amount to an aban- 
 donment of right, but that the departure from the religious doc- 
 trines of the church is of primary and paramount importance. 
 The case also shews, that in determining the mere question of se- 
 cession, the court looks to the highest Ecclesiastical tribunal 
 which exercises a superintending control over the inferior judica- 
 tories, and that their position must be regulated by the relation- 
 ship in which they stand to the highest controling tribunal in 
 the Church. The same point has been decided in the state of 
 New York. The trustees of the Reformed Calvinist Church of 
 Canajoharie sued Diffendorf * for his subscription money which 
 he had promised to pay annually as long as the Rev. J. J. Wack 
 remained their regular preacher. This clergyman had been de- 
 posed by the Classis having the immediate superintendence of 
 that church, but on appeal to the synod, the highest church ju- 
 dicatory, he was restored. The court decided that the adjudi- 
 cation of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal upon this matter, 
 was conclusive upon the subject, and that they must consider 
 him the regular preacher. In the case of Den against Bolton 
 and others, 7 Halsted's Reports, you had the rules and govern- 
 ment of the Reformed Dutch Church before you as Justices of 
 the Supreme Court, and it must be within your recollection that 
 the synod of that church, has about the same general control 
 over the inferior tribunals of that church, as is held by the year- 
 ly meetings of the society of Friends. In that case the Supreme 
 Court decided that all disputes arising in the Reformed Dutch 
 Church, respecting the validity of an election appointment on call 
 of elders and deacons must be referred to the Church Judicatory 
 
 * 20 Johns. R. 12. 
 
57 
 
 to which the congregation is subordinate ; that is, first to the 
 classis, next to the particular synod, and lastly to the general 
 synod. That the decision of the classis upon any such election, 
 appointment, or call is final, unless appealed from, and its decision 
 will be respected by the Supreme Court, and full effect given to 
 it. That though the consistory may be dissatisfied with the de- 
 cision of the classis, they cannot get clear of their decision by 
 changing their allegiance. And the Chief Justice, in delivering 
 his opinion, distinctly stated that to constitute a member of any 
 church, two points at the least are essential, a profession of its 
 faith and a submission to its government. 
 
 These authorities will be found fully to support the legal po- 
 sitions 1 have advanced. The application of them to the case is 
 too plain to require much comment. If the " Hicksite" party 
 have abandoned the fundamental doctrines of the society of 
 Friends, and we have shewn that they have ; or if they have 
 withdrawn from the yearly meeting of Philadelphiaj the highest 
 church judicatory, having a general superintending control, and 
 if their preparative meeting at Crossvvicks is attached to their 
 new yearly meeting, and denies the jurisdiction of the ancient 
 yearly meeting, all which we have shewn, they are not the 
 true society of Friends. In attempting to hold this property they 
 are violating the trust. It is the especial duty of this Court to 
 preserve the trust and to redress the injury. 
 
 I must be allowed again to remark before I dismiss this sub- 
 ject, that the question before you regards property. You are 
 not called on to pass upon the merits of religious doctrine or 
 church government in the abstract, as points of theology. You 
 are only to ascertain what the doctrines of this church are, 
 what was its government ; in fact which party adheres to those 
 doctrines and which has abandoned them. Which party adheres 
 to the government which existed when the dissention took place, 
 and which has withdrawn from it, as subsidiary to the main 
 question of property, and in order to ascertain and enforce the 
 trust. The questions are delicate, and they also are of great im- 
 portance, and highly interesting. It is now to be solemnly deter- 
 mined how far church property is protected. Whether the various 
 churches spread over New Jersey, adhering to settled doctrines, 
 and organized under regular forms of law and discipline, are to 
 
58 
 
 be protected in the enjoyment of property, held in trust for them 
 and for the support of those fixed religious opinions, or whether 
 on the other hand, innovators introducing new opinions into a 
 church, and carrying parties along with them, and thus getting 
 into possession of the property of the church, may apply it to the 
 support of new and dilTerent doctrines, put the church govern- 
 ment at defiance by denying its authority, and by forming in 
 conventions composed of their own party a new government, put 
 the government and law of the land at defiance, by refusing 
 when called on in courts of justice to disclose or testify to their 
 doctrines under the cry of persecution, and under the pretence 
 that such matters are too delicate and sacred for temporal tribu- 
 nals to discuss. Men have a right to change their minds in re- 
 ligion as well as in any thing else : they have a right to form 
 new churches conformably to their new opinions, and to endow 
 them when thus formed, but they must do it fairly and openly, 
 not under false guises and mysterious proceedings kept in the 
 back-ground, so that they may draw off the funds and domains 
 of the ancient and established churches of the land, and apply 
 them to their new purposes. You have now before you all the evi- 
 dence that can be desired, taken with great labour and at great 
 expense. The cause is ripe for decision, and justice calls for it. 
 Every source of information has been traced up and exhausted. 
 From the investigation which I have been called upon to make 
 into the doctrines of this society, in the discharge of my profes- 
 sional duty, 1 have been led to believe that this difference of 
 opinion never would have taken place if the members of this 
 society had been adequately instructed in their standard works. 
 They have a catechism prepared by a writer of great learning 
 and ability ; it bears the marks of great care and pains in the 
 execution, and it may fairly challenge competition in the 
 plan and design with any production of the kind. If that cate- 
 chism and the other works of that author were well studied 
 and digested among the youth of this society they would soon 
 lose their relish for the conceits of Elias Hicks. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 ISAAC H. WILLIAMSON, Esq. 
 
 Delivered on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 10th and 11th of 
 January, 1832. 
 
 May it please the Court — 
 
 The unfortunate circunnstances which have given rise to this 
 cause are deeply to be lanfiented by every friend of religion, and 
 to the pious members of the society of Friends they must be truly 
 distressing. That ancient and highly respectable society which 
 has so long been distinguished for love of peace and order; for 
 its meekness, for the patience with which its members have sub- 
 mitted to persecution, and above all, for the union and harmony, 
 the brotherly love and christian charity by which they have prov- 
 ed to the world that they richly deserved the title by which they 
 have been designated, " The Society of Friends." They have 
 fallen from the high elevation on which they stood ; the torch of 
 discord has been lighted up among them ; the union which exist- 
 ed has been broken ; instead of fellowship and harmony, we find 
 now contention and strife. This is the more to be lamented as it 
 has happened in a time of universal religious excitement and of 
 unexampled christian effort to spread the benign principles of the 
 gospel. Whilst every means is using to promote the diffusion of 
 light and truth, while the heralds of the cross are sent to foreign 
 lands to proclaim the message of redeeming love, and to hold 
 forth the doctrines of the religion of Jesus, disputes and dissen- 
 sion have unhappily arisen at home. It is unfortunate for all ; 
 there is an awful responsibility somewhere. 
 
 It is for me to endeavour to trace effects to their true causes, 
 and to ascertain what has produced this sad state of things. I 
 shall go into this enquiry with extreme reluctance. When 1 
 consider the task I have undertaken, the arduous labour I 
 am to perform, I almost shrink from it. I shall not attempt to 
 answer all the arguments of the adverse counsel ; many of them 
 
60 
 
 I conceive have no bearing on the case, but I shall endeavour 
 to present my view of the subject to the court in a condensed 
 form, and in such way as shall abridge their labours as far as 
 practicable. I shall endeavour to ascertain what is the true 
 question before the court, and in order that I may be the more 
 clearly understood permit me first to state what it is not. It is 
 not whether a number of individuals belonging to a religious soci- 
 ety have a right to withdraw and form a new one, this right is 
 unquestionable. 
 
 Nor is it whether this court have a spiritual jurisdiction ; 
 whether they have a right to inquire into men's private opinions, 
 as to matters of faith or religious belief, and to control their con- 
 sciences. We claim no such authority for this court, nor do 
 we pretend that the court can take notice of the comparative 
 merit of religious creeds, nor decide which of them is the true 
 one, for this would be to ask them to point out the true way to 
 the heavenly Jerusalem. Our laws leave every man to the free 
 exercise of his own opinions and to worship God according to the 
 dictates of his own conscience, uncontrolled by any inquisitorial 
 power. But I shall contend that the court have a right to 
 inquire into the opinions and doctrines of the professors of religion, 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the true ownership of property, or 
 the correct disposition of it. This is not to interfere with men's 
 consciences, nor with their religious belief, or to exercise a spi- 
 ritual jurisdiction. The question now before the court is a mere 
 question of property arising out of a trust, and this court has not 
 only a jurisdiction over property, but an exclusive jurisdiction 
 over trusts. The property in dispute is a charity, a fund raised 
 for the purpose of educating poor children belonging to the society 
 of Friends in Chesterfield, in this state. It was raised by sub- 
 scription, by voluntary contributions and donations from the 
 quarterly and annual meetings of which the preparative meeting 
 of Chesterfield is a constituent part, and the object of the charity 
 is expressly designated. There are two parties claiming the 
 control of this property. The parties on the record are nominal 
 parties only, Hendrickson and Decow in their own right claim 
 nothing, they claim merely for the benefit of the societies to 
 which they respectively belong. I shall therefore consider it in its 
 true character, as a question between these two societies, and 
 
61 
 
 here I am somewhat at a loss how to distinguish these parties. 
 The world, that part of it I mean which has heard of this con- 
 troversy, has given them distinctive appellations, the one " Or- 
 thodox," the other " Hicksite." We are not dissatisfied with the 
 name given to us. Ever since the fourth century when the con- 
 troversy arose between the arians and the trinitarians, those who 
 adhered to what arc termed trinitarian doctrines have been 
 called "Orthodox." They are now styled " Orthodox" to dis- 
 tinguish them from arians and all modern unitarians by what- 
 ever name they may be designated. The term " Orthodox" 
 therefore has been used to signify, ' sound in faith, correct in 
 doctrine,' and in this sense we are satisfied with being designated 
 as the " Orthodox" party. But how shall I distinguish the op- 
 posite party, for they disown the name of " Hicksites" ? Shall I 
 call them disorganizers ? They deserve the name, for they have 
 introduced into a peaceful society, all this discord. Shall I 
 call them unitarians 1 They will neither confess nor deny, they 
 refuse to inform us whether they believe or disbelieve the doc- 
 trines of the trinity. Shall I call them jacobins and sansculottes, 
 as one of their own counsel did, (and no doubt he thought they 
 well deserved the epithets,) or shall I call them usurpers 1 They 
 are such, for they have usurped our rights and our name. I can- 
 not call them by the name which they have assumed. I shall 
 therefore call them, as the world has called them, " The Hicksite 
 party." 
 
 We claim before the court that this party have separated 
 from the society to which they originally belonged. That they 
 are separatists ; and being such, have lost all right to, and control 
 over this fund. I will not say they have forfeited their right to 
 it, but I contend they have lost all right to interfere with, or to 
 control it. They have separated from the society and meeting 
 to which they belonged, and for whose use the charity was ori- 
 ginally designed: they can therefore have no claim to it. 
 
 I shall contend, First, that they are separatists, and being such, 
 that they have no right to this property. 
 
 Second, that they have separated on the ground of religious 
 doctrines, that they have changed their religious opinions, and do 
 not adhere to the doctrines of the society of Friends. They fol- 
 low a new leader who holds out new lights, and they have de- 
 
62 
 
 serted old friends for new ones. If I can show this court that they 
 have abandoned the ancient doctrines of Friends, those which 
 they held when this trust was created, 1 shall satisfy the court 
 that they can have no control over this property. But we are 
 met with the objection that we have no right to go into this in- 
 quiry — no right to inquire into men's religious opinions and belief. 
 I have already admitted that you have no right to do so except 
 for special purposes. But if this court once obtain jurisdiction 
 of a cause upon grounds of equity, they will decide that cause 
 although they are compelled to go into matters over which they 
 have no original jurisdiction. The court we admit, has no juris- 
 diction over men's religious opinions, yet if an inquiry into those 
 opinions becomes necessary in the investigation of a question be- 
 fore the court to settle a claim of property, it will go into that 
 inquiry. 
 
 It has no criminal jurisdiction, it cannot inflict punishment, but 
 if in the progress of a cause respecting property the question 
 arises whether a deed has been forged, the court will go into an 
 investigation of the alleged crime, not for the purpose of inflict- 
 ing punishment, but for the purpose of settling rights. Again, the 
 court have no jurisdiction over corporations, they cannot remove 
 an oflicer who has been elected, nor restore him if he has been 
 wrongfully removed. But if in the course of an inquiry a question 
 arises whether an officer has been duly elected the court must 
 go into it. Or if the question arises in a cause of which the court 
 has jurisdiction, respecting the election of directors of a bank, or 
 managers of a turnpike road, the court must go into the inquiry, 
 not because they have original jurisdiction of that question, but 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the right of properly to which (he 
 respective parties advance their claims. So in the present case, 
 if the right of property depends upon religious opinions, the court 
 must go into the inquiry as to those opinions, unless religious 
 opinions and doctrines form an exception to all other description 
 of cases. This is not a new question, but one which is well 
 settled and concerning which there can be but little difficulty. 
 In 1 Dow, 16, Lord Eldon says, " the court may take notice of 
 religious opinions, as facts pointing out the ownership of pro- 
 perty." 
 
 Here the true distinction is taken, the court go into questions 
 
63 
 
 of religious opinion and doctrine as matters of fact, to ascertain 
 the true ownership of property. In 3 Merivale, 412, in a case 
 very analagous to the present, the Lord Chancellor says — "I 
 must observe, if the question comes before the court in the exe- 
 cution of a trust, vt'hether a trustee has been properly removed, 
 and that point depends upon the question, whether the trustee 
 has changed his religion, and become of another (as in this 
 instance) different from the religion of the rest of the society, it 
 must then be, ex necesitate, for the court to enquire, what was 
 the religion and worship of the society from which lie is said to 
 have seceded," &.c. 
 
 In that case it seems a church had been built for the worship 
 of dissenters, and the trust declared in the deed was simply " /or 
 the sei'vice and worship of God" This church had gone into the 
 hands of a part of the congregation who were unitarians. Part 
 of the congregation were trinitarians and they filed their bill, 
 alleging, that the house was built to promote the spread of trini- 
 tarian doctrines, in order to obtain the possession of the property 
 from those who held it for the purpose of preaching unitarian 
 doctrines. The court went into the enquiry whether the con- 
 gregation was originally trinitarian or unitarian. This case then 
 is analogous to that on which we now ask the opinion of this 
 court. The doctrine contended for by the opposite counsel would 
 be prejudicial to religion and injurious to every religious congre- 
 gation. U a trust be created for the benefit of a congregation 
 professing one kind of religious doctrines, and afterwards claimed 
 by a part of that congregation, but professing opinions of another 
 kind, can it be maintained that the court will not or cannot en- 
 quire into the doctrines of those who claim the control of that 
 trust, and into the doctrines of the church at the time of the cre- 
 ation of the trust; for the purpose of ascertaining who are the 
 cestui que trusts entitled to it ? And permit me to say, that if any 
 trust ought to be protected, it is a trust for charity, and especially 
 those of a religious nature. I entertain therefore no doubt, but 
 that the court will protect this trust fund to the extent of its 
 powers. 
 
 But it has been contended, that if this can be done in cases of 
 schisms in other religious denominations, yet it cannot be done 
 in the case now in question, because, as they allege, the society 
 of Friends has no creed, no confession of faith, by which their 
 
64 
 
 opinions can be tested. I shall not now stop to enquire what 
 their doctrines are, or whether they have such a creed. My 
 present purpose is to satisfy the court that they can go into the 
 enquiry what the doctrines of the society were at the time this 
 trust was created, and what the doctrines of those are who have 
 since separated from that society. But I shall hereafter contend 
 that the society of Friends have a creed — that they have re- 
 peatedly published it, and that it is easier to ascertain the 
 opinions of Friends, than of any other religious society in the 
 country. But even supposing the contrary, will the court refuse 
 to go into this enquirj' on account of its difficulty? 
 
 I will refer the court to a case of much greater difficulty ; the 
 case to which I allude is in 3 Dessausure, 557, where the court 
 was not deterred from going into the necessary enquiry by the 
 difficulty of it. That vi'as a controversy between two lodges of 
 free masons ; and it was decided that the grand lodge could not 
 make regulations subversive of fundamental principles and land- 
 marks. The question was whether a certain test oath adopted 
 by the grand lodge, was of that character. Nothing could be ob- 
 tained from the witnesses but matter of opinion, as they refused 
 to testify what their fundamental principles and land-marks 
 were; great contrariety also existed in the testimony, the wit- 
 nesses upon one side swearing that in their opinion the test oath 
 was a departure from the fundamental principles and land- 
 marks, and those on the other side swearing that it was not so. 
 But did the court shrink from the investigation, because it was 
 attended with difficulty 'i No. They went into the enquiry and 
 decided the question upon the evidence before them. We have 
 been referred to an opinion of Judge Emmett, in the state of 
 New York, and the character of the judge has been highly eulo- 
 gized. That judge certainly stands high, and his opinion is enti- 
 tled to great respect. But the opinion produced is a charge to 
 a jury, delivered in the haste of a trial, and without an oppor- 
 tunity for full and calm examination, and therefore not entitled 
 to the weight of a deliberate opinion. That, moreover, was a 
 trial at law, and the court over-ruled evidence of religious opin- 
 ions, upon what ground I do not know, except that the enquiry 
 was a proper one for a court of equity and not for a court of 
 law. This evidence being laid out of view, the judge undertook 
 
65 
 
 to charge the jury that in the absence of all other considerations, 
 the majority must govern. This opinion being at law, cannot 
 be held to govern in the present case. A majority can have no 
 more right to divert a trust fund from the object for which it 
 was originally intended, than a minority. 
 
 But what is the consequence if the court cannot go into this 
 enquiry in the case of a schism in a society of Friends ? Is the 
 society of Friends to be an exception to all other societies, be- 
 cause they have no written creed or articles of faith, and the 
 difficulty of ascertaining their religious doctrines ? Can the 
 presbyterian, the episcopalian, the Roman catholic funds be pro- 
 tected, and yet the property given in trust to the society of 
 Friends not be protected 1 Can it be that the arm of the law is 
 not long enough, or strong enough, to reach their case, and that 
 they are to be put out of the protection and pale of the law ? 
 The clients of those learned counsellors, when they look at the 
 consequences of this doctrine, will not, I should think, thank them 
 for its avowal. If it be true, it leaves the society of Friends a 
 peculiar people, to settle their differences in their own way, 
 without protection and without redress. I do not apprehend that 
 breaches of the peace would be the consequence of such a doc- 
 trine ; this society would not in any event resort to physical 
 force, but the necessary result would be, that if a part of a reli- 
 gious meeting attached to a general or yearly meeting, saw fit to 
 change their religious principles, no matter to what, or how ad- 
 verse to those held by the original society, they might carry with 
 them the whole of the property, if they had it in their hands, and 
 yet the law could not reach them, because they have no written 
 religious creed. Thus then, a trust fund created for the express 
 use of the society of Friends, might be converted to build a Ro- 
 man cathoHc chapel, or a synagogue for Jews. This cannot be. 
 If it should even be a matter of more than ordinary difficulty to 
 discover the creed of this society, that will not deter the court, 
 but they will make greater exertions to arrive at the truth. 
 
 And here I think the opposite counsel who first addressed the 
 court, took a false position. He contended, that it was incum- 
 bent on us to prove the religious opinions of his clients ; that the 
 burden of proof was upon us, not upon them. I think he must 
 have forgotten the position in which the parties stand before this 
 
66 
 
 court. They do not stand here in the character of plaintiff and 
 defendant, but in the character of claimants ; both parties are 
 actors, and each one is bound to make out his own claim. We 
 make out ours ; we prove all that the trust requires ; we answer 
 the allegations contained in the bill of interpleader, and show 
 that our religious opinions are those of the society of Friends. 
 When they come to answer, they decline showing theirs. It is 
 true, they say they have not changed their opinions, that they 
 hold the doctrines of the original Friends, as they understand 
 them ; but when we ask. Do you believe in the doctrine of the 
 divinity of Jesus Christ, in the atonement, and that the scriptures 
 were written by divine inspiration and are of divine authority 1 — 
 all which were held to be fundamental doctrines by the early 
 Friends — they refuse to answer. But still they say, We hold 
 the doctrines of the original Friends. This answer is drawn to 
 suit any state of things that may become necessary. Prove the 
 doctrines of the original Friends to be what you please, still they 
 say, We hold the same ; prove them to be trinitarians. We are 
 trinitarians ; show that they are unitarians, We are unitarians 
 also; prove them them to be Jews, and, We will be Jews too. 
 This is a very convenient method of answering, but it will not 
 effect the purpose for which it is adopted. The bill of inter- 
 pleader, and the answers of Decow and Hendrickson, put in 
 issue the original doctrines of the society, and permit both par- 
 ties to go into evidence respecting them. We prove what these 
 original doctrines are, and that we hold them. But the adverse 
 party refuse to answer as to the doctrines which they hold, or to 
 grant any proof respecting them, alleging merely that they have 
 a majority, and therefore are the society. 
 
 The burden of proof as to their religious doctrines, was upon 
 them ; they have put them in issue by their own pleadings, and 
 it was incumbent upon them to show their religious principles, 
 in order to sustain their claim. We further insist that their re- 
 fusal to answer, furnishes a strong presumption against them. If 
 they really hold the doctrines of the early Friends, as they al- 
 lege, why should they refuse to answer 1 What inducement have 
 they for withholding, or refusing to avow them ? Are they 
 ashamed of their principles, or afraid that they should be fully 
 known, on account of the legal consequences which would attend 
 
67 
 
 an avowal of them ? If they are not, why decline to state can- 
 didly what principles they do hold ? But it is said, that we ought 
 to have excepted to their answer. Not so — we are satisfied with 
 the answer if they are. We do not wish to strip otTthe mask, if 
 they choose to wear it. We will make out our case in the 
 clearest manner possible, and rely upon the presumption of law 
 against them, if they refuse to disclose in their answer their 
 principles, or to prove them. 
 
 But the gentlemen have suggested another ground of objection, 
 with the hope, as I apprehend, of escaping out of the hands of 
 this honourable court. It is this, that inasmuch as they have 
 refused to answer, in reference to their doctrines, and have omit- 
 ted to examine witnesses in their behalf on that subject, the 
 court ought not to decide the cause now, but should put it in 
 some shape in which the opinions of the party can be tested. It 
 ought to be referred, say they, to a master to ascertain, or to a 
 jury to settle, what the doctrines are. But can the gentlemen 
 show an instance, in which the court has ever ordered a refer- 
 ence to a master, or directed an issue to be formed to be tried by 
 a jury, where one j'arty has proved his case, and the other party 
 has voluntarily refused to do so. No, they cannot. It is contrary, 
 I aver, to all the principles of a court of equity. The court will 
 not indulge one party to lie by until he has heard his adversary's 
 evidence, and then grant him a reference, in an issue in order 
 to go into his own evidence ; it will not give a party such an op- 
 portunity to tamper with witnesses. 
 
 And as for a trial by jury, your honours might as well order a 
 jury trial in an account cause. This would be a glorious cause 
 for a trial by jury, and much certainty, to be sure, would be ob- 
 tained by it. The case now before the court is a question of 
 trust, which more than any other, it is the province of this court 
 to decide, it is bound to decide it, and will never yield that right 
 in order to have it tried by a jury. The gentlemen have relied 
 on the case in Dow, but that does not sustain them. That was 
 an appeal from a court in Scotland, and from the record and 
 pleadings sent up, it did not appear upon what ground the decision 
 had been made. When the case came before the House of Lords, 
 they ordered the cause sent back because it did not appear upon 
 what ground the court had delivered its opinion. There was no 
 
68 
 
 reference to a master, no trial by jury ordered, but the cause was 
 referred back to the court, to state the ground of their decision. 
 In 3 Merivale, 412, which the gentleman also cited, the court 
 referred it to a master to ascertain the religious opinions of the 
 congregation ; but it was done by consent of parties ; the ques- 
 tion then came before the Lord Chancellor upon bill and an- 
 swer, and upon a motion to dissolve the injunction which had 
 been granted ; the court there had granted the injunction, but 
 in order that a speedy decision might be had, and to avoid the 
 delay which might otherwise occur, referred it by consent of par- 
 ties to a master, to ascertain what were the religious opinions of 
 the congregation at the time of building the church. There could 
 have been, in the then stage of the cause, no such reference with- 
 out the consent of parties. I trust therefore that this court will 
 themselves decide this question, which will be most advantageous 
 to the parties, to the public, and to the cause of religion. In the 
 case in Dessausure, to which I have already referred your ho- 
 nours, although there was great difficulty in deciding what the 
 facts were, yet the court ordered no reference, but decided the 
 cause, and I trust this court will pursue the same course. 
 
 Before I come to consider the evidence, I will take notice of 
 another subject or two, which have been presented here by the 
 adverse counsel. We have heard much from them respecting 
 the friendly feelings, and generosity of the " Hicksite" party, and 
 of their willingness to divide the property, according to the num- 
 bers of the respective parties. It is certainly very kind in them, 
 to want to divide with us, property which belongs to us, and to 
 which they have no right. But would the court divide a trust 
 fund, which had been raised for a specific purpose, even if both 
 parties were agreed to the division ? No ; this could not be. 
 This court would never suffer it. This trust was created for 
 one religious meeting, and would the court divert it, or permit it 
 to be diverted from the object for which it was intended, and 
 give it to two religious meetings,? The court cannot divert the 
 trust from its original purpose; it would be a breach of faith, and 
 of every principle of equity, to suffer it to be so divided. The ad- 
 verse party have changed their religious opinions, and their 
 supreme head ; but they are welcome to return, if they choose, to 
 their original principles, and to participate again in the property. 
 
69 
 
 They make no complaint against the " Orthodox" party, in the 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting, they do not allege that they 
 have changed their opinions. Where then, I would ask, is the 
 generosity of their ofTer to divide, when the property is of a na- 
 ture not to be divided, and to which, I will not say, they have 
 forfeited all right, but I may say, over which they have lost 
 all control? What is to become of the meeting houses in case of 
 such a division ? Are they to be cut in sunder, and a portion 
 given to each party ? Where will this doctrine lead to 1 If ano- 
 ther division of the society takes place, there must be another di- 
 vision of the property, and another, and another. Will the court 
 sanction a principle involving such consequences as these ? Ne- 
 ver : it will look to the object of the trust, and see that it is strict- 
 ly applied to the purpose for which it was originally intended. It 
 is enough for me to say, that in the present stage of this cause, 
 the court cannot make the decision which they ask, it will not 
 take the responsibility of dividing this property. 
 
 Another idea was thrown out, doubtless for the audience, more 
 than for the ear of the court ; they allege that we brought them 
 into court, and by so doing, have violated the principle of Friends 
 against going to law with each other. We deny the charge. 
 We say that if they are brought here it is to be attributed to 
 their own act, and it is the consequence of their own intermed- 
 dling, in that in which they had no right to interfere. The 
 original bill was filed by Hendrickson against Shotwell to com- 
 pel him to pay the money secured by the mortgage ; Decow, who 
 represents the " Hicksite" party then interferes, and tells Shot- 
 well that Hendrickson is removed from his office, as treasurer to 
 the fund, that he (Decow) is the person entitled to the monev, 
 and gives him formal notice that it nr.ust be paid to him, and not 
 to Hendrickson ; Shotwell is then compelled for his own protection 
 to file his bill of interpleader. Have they then any ground for 
 charging us with bringing them into court, when they voluntari- 
 ly thrust themselves before it ? If there be any thing in the charge 
 it must rest upon them. Havew-e committed any breach of our 
 principles? l\o, we have not. At the time of filing Hendrickson 's 
 bill, Shotwell was not a member of either meeting, nor had he 
 been for a long time previous. There was then nothing impro- 
 per in the commencement of this suit by Hendrickson against 
 
70 
 
 Sholwell, and if there has been any thing improper since, it is 
 owing to Decow himself, and the party for whom he acts. Having 
 thus endeavoured to remove out of the way, these several matters, 
 which, 1 conceive, have nothing to do with the real subject of this 
 controversy, 1 shall now endeavour to maintain two general 
 propositions. 
 
 First, That the " Hicksite" party have separated themselves 
 from the preparative meeting of Friends of Chesterfield, and 
 attached themselves to a new yearly meeting as their supreme 
 "head, and thus become separatists, and as such, have ceased to 
 have any right to the fund in question. Second, That they have 
 changed their religious opinions and do not hold to the doctrines 
 of the society of Friends, as maintained and professed by them 
 from the beginning, and at the time this fund was created; that 
 they have adopted new doctrines, and become a new sect. 
 
 If I can sustain either of these propositions, we must succeed 
 in this cause, and I am greatly mistaken, if I do not support 
 both. In maintaining these po^itions, 1 hope at the same time, 
 to prove that the "Orthodox" party are the true preparative 
 meeting of Chesterfield, and adhere to the doctrines of f)rimitive 
 Friends. And I shall afterwards undertake to show the legal 
 consequences arising out of the separation or secession of the 
 " Hicksite" party. 
 
 First : The " Hicksite" party are separatists and seceders ; they 
 have separated themselves from the liead of their church, the 
 ancient yearly meeting in Philadelphia, and from the society to 
 which they originally belonged. The parties before the court 
 claiming the control of this fund, cannot both be the same pre- 
 parative meeting, they have no connection with each other. 
 There is no bond of union between them. One must be the true 
 preparative meeting of Chesterfield, and the other a counterfeit, 
 a spurious meeting. Both are not entitled to that character; 
 which then of these parties is the real, and which the counterfeit 
 meeting 1 which has ceased to sustain the character of the 
 original meeting ? 
 
 Before this terrible schism took place in the society, the 
 Quakers throughout the world, considered themselves as one reli- 
 gious body, as a united whole. To use the language of one of 
 the witnesses, they were a unit. It is true they were divided 
 
71 
 
 into several communities, and at the head of these several com- 
 munities, arc the yearly meetings. These yearly meetings were 
 to a certain extent, independent of each other, but still they 
 always looked upon each other as brethren, and united in har- 
 mony. A correspondence was constantly maintained between 
 them, and they were ever ready to assist each other when 
 occasion required it. The yearly meeting at Philadelphia was 
 that to which the Chesterfield preparative meeting was attached. 
 The discipline of this yearly meeting describes the connexion and 
 subordination of its constituent meetings in these words: 
 
 " The connection and subordination of our meetings for disci- 
 pline are thus: preparative meetings are accountable to the 
 monthly, monthly to the quarterly, and the quarterly to the 
 yearly meeting : So that if the yearly meeting be at any time 
 dissatisfied with the proceedings of any inferior meeting ; or a 
 quarterly meeting with the proceedings of either of its monthly 
 meetings, or a monthly meeting with the proceedings of either of 
 its preparative meetings ; such meeting or meetings, ought with 
 readiness and meekness to render an account thereof when 
 required." — Book of Discipline, p. 31. Ed. 1806. 
 
 In conformity with this organization, the preparative meeting 
 at Chesterfield was a constituent branch of and subordinate to the 
 Chesterfield monthly meeting : that monthly meeting, of the 
 Burlington quarterly meeting, and the Burlington quarter, of the 
 Philadelphia yearly meeting. It appears from the evidence, 
 that the separation which first occurred, took place in the head 
 of the society, in the yearly meeting. We must therefore look 
 there, to see what was done to produce the separation, in order 
 that we may form a correct opinion as to what has transpired 
 since. As the division begun in the head, and subsequently took 
 place in the branches, and as the branches have attached them- 
 selves to different heads, they must consequently stand or fall 
 with the head to which they have attached themselves. If those 
 who separated from the original head, and absolved themselves 
 from its authority, and formed a new supreme head, are seceders, 
 are separatists, then all those in the subordinate branches who 
 have attached themselves to those seceders, and to that new 
 head, are seceders also ; seceders from their head, and seceders 
 from their original principles. The " Hicksites" say, that they 
 
72 
 
 are the original yearly meeting reorganized and continued. We 
 deny it ; we say that (hey are a new society, a new meeting, 
 totally distinct from and unconnected with the former one, with 
 the one, and the only one, recognized in the discipline. If they 
 can show that they are a continuation of this meeting, and that 
 they adhere (o the original principles of Quakerism, they sustain 
 their case ; but if we prove that they are not a continuance of 
 it, but have abjured it, and absolved themselves from its autho- 
 rity, and that they assume to be what they are not, they must 
 then fail. Whether they are a new yearly meeting or whether 
 they are separatists, must depend upon another question. Was 
 the original meeting merged or destroyed, when the new meeting 
 was formed ? If it was not, then the latter can have no claim 
 or pretence, to being a reorganization and continuance of it. 
 The gentleman on the opposite side, put the question this morn- 
 ing on this ground, and here I am ready to meet him. He con- 
 tended that the original meeting was put an end to, and that their 
 new yearly meeting was merely a reorganization of the old one. 
 This is an important point, and perhaps may be a turning one, 
 especially if there should be any great and serious difficulty in 
 ascertaining the doctrines of the respective parties. I shall 
 therefore examine it carefully. 
 
 It appears from the evidence before the court, that the yearly 
 meeting of April 1827, at which the separation took place, met 
 regularly, transacted the usual business, and after they had got 
 through that business, regularly adjourned to the following year ; 
 and that they have regularly met at the stated period and at the 
 same place, and as the same yearly meeting, from that time down 
 to the present. If that yearly meeting has been put an end to, 
 if it is extinguished or destroyed, it must be by some act done at 
 that yearly meeting, or by some act previously performed. Any 
 thing subsequently done cannot eifect its existence. This leads 
 me to enquire, for the purpose of showing how the separation took 
 place, what occurred at that meeting, which the gentleman can 
 rely upon as a ground for destroying the original yearly meeting. 
 But before I examine what then passed, permit me to advert to 
 the course previously pursued by the " Hicksite" party. Much, 
 it is alleged, had transpired to produce dissatisfaction and discord 
 among the members, and even before that yearly meeting of 1827 
 
73 
 
 assembled, a separation was contemplated by the party who 
 afterwards withdrew, unless they could obtain the ascendency. 
 They meant to obtain that ascendency if they could, but if they 
 failed in etTecting that purpose, then they were determined to 
 separate. This clearly appears from the evidence of Halliday 
 Jackson, one of their own witnesses. Previous to the session of 
 that yearly meeting, John Comly, who was the arch mover of all 
 this business of separation, under pretence of a religious visit, had 
 gone through the country, to prepare the minds of their party to 
 come forward and make a struggle in the yearly meeting, holding 
 out the idea of the separation, if that struggle should prove abor- 
 tive. See 2nd vol. of Depositions, p. 58, .59, and 108 to 119. 
 The great difficulty in the way of these disorganizers appears to 
 have been, the meeting for sufTerings, and the meetings of min- 
 isters and elders, and from the testimony of this witness, it seems, 
 that the party wished to procure such changes in the discipline 
 of the society, as should place those meetings under their own 
 control and power. 1 shall hereafter notice the disputes, which 
 had arisen in the society, respecting those meetings, and show 
 that they all arose out of the opposition made to the doctrines 
 of Elias Hicks. The discontents arising from this cause had de- 
 termined his adherents to make a great struggle in 1827, and one 
 part of their plan, it seems, was to increase the number of repre- 
 sentatives to the yearly meeting from certain quarters. The 
 "Hicksite" party had a decided majority in Bucks, Abington, 
 and the Southern quarters. In Bucks and Abington, they accord- 
 ingly doubled their representation, and in the southern, they 
 increased it from ten to fifteen. The other party made no pre- 
 paration for the struggle. In this state of things, the yearly 
 meeting took place. The first controversy arose respecting the 
 choice of clerk, who it seems is a very important officer in their 
 meetings. The nomination of clerk rests with the representa- 
 tives. At the close of the first setting, the representatives con- 
 vened for the purpose of making a nomination. Two persons 
 were put on nomination, Samuel Bettle and John Comly. The 
 gentleman said, this morning, that Samuel Bettle was the last 
 person in the world, who should have been put on nomination ; he 
 should have made one exception, he should have excepted John 
 Comly. Previous to the yearly meeting, he had been round the 
 
74 
 
 country caucussing. This was called by him and the party, 
 " holding conferences," but by whatever name it is called, the 
 object of it was to prepare the minds of his friends for the struggle, 
 and for the approaching separation. If the representatives had 
 submitted to his nomination, the result may readily be seen. A 
 contest ensued among the representatives, each party insisting 
 on their own clerk; the " Hicksite" party contended that they 
 had a majority for Comly, while the others insisted that Samuel 
 Bettle was the most suitable man for the station. It seems that 
 the society of Friends are not in the habit of taking or counting 
 votes in any of their deliberations. It was impossible to say 
 therefore on which side the majority was. The clamour made 
 there cannot settle this question, and there was no other test to 
 which it was brought. A.s no decision could be efi'ected by the 
 representatives, what was to be done? Was the yearly meeting 
 to stop, or was some other course to be adopted t The meeting 
 unquestionably had a right to take the nomination into its own 
 hands. When the representatives returned to the meeting in 
 the afternoon, John Cox, one of their number, reported that they 
 could not agree on a nomination. There is a variety of evidence 
 upon this point, some say that the representatives were to meet 
 again, and that John Cox was not authorised to make such report. 
 But this is entirely immaterial. It is not denied that he did 
 make such report, or that no person was agreed on by the repre- 
 sentatives. The question then necessarily came before the 
 yearly meeting, and there a struggle was made by the " Hicksite" 
 party to prevent Bettle from acting, but no other person was put 
 in nomination by the meeting. When it was found that the re- 
 presentatives were not likely to harmonise and agree upon the 
 clerk, an elderly member of the meeting, observed, that he had 
 been accustomed to the business for many years, and that it had 
 always been the practice, that until a new clerk was appointed, 
 the old one should serve. This quieted the meeting. Bettle took 
 his seat and acted, and all opposition was withdrawn; here then 
 was unanimity. That these were the facts of the case, I refer to 
 the testimony of Samuel Bettle, vol. 1st of Evidence, p. 68; Jo- 
 seph Whitall, vol. I. p. 217 ; and Thomas Evans, voh I. p. 265. 
 There is not a particle of evidence to the contrary. What can 
 be more decisive upon this point, than the fact of Comly's taking 
 
75 
 
 his place, at the table as assistant clerk. He showed some hesita- 
 tion at first, but when the appointment of Bettle was acquiesced 
 in by the meeting, he (Comly) took his place at the table and 
 acted as his assistant through the whole week. It is singular 
 indeed that it should now be contended, that this appointment of 
 clerk was such an act of domination as dissolved the meeting, 
 when they themselves acquiesced in it, and continued their attend- 
 ance during the whole of that meeting. This is not all ; on the 
 next morning an attempt was made to dissolve the yearly meeting. 
 John Comly rose in his place, and stated that he felt conscientious 
 scruples under existing circumstances against acting as assistant 
 clerk. He alluded to the excitement which prevailed, and the 
 feelings with which they had come together, and finally proposed 
 that the meeting should adjourn indefinitely. Here was an insi- 
 dious attempt to dissolve the meeting: it was proposed to adjourn, 
 not until next year, nor to any given time, but indefinitely. There 
 can be no doubt that this was a preconcerted thing ; an effort to 
 dissolve the meeting, in order that their own plans might be more 
 successfully carried into effect. That this measure was concerted 
 between Comly, and the junto with which he acted, I refer to 
 the testimony of Thomas Evans, vol. I. of Ev. p. 269. The meet- 
 ing however refused to adjourn ; many of the " Hicksites" them- 
 selves opposed it, and urged Comly to act as assistant clerk, and 
 that the meeting should proceed with its business; and Comly 
 again took his seat at the table and acted as assistant clerk : under 
 these circumstances then, can the adverse party pretend, that 
 there was no regular clerk, or that the meeting was dissolved, 
 when the meeting refused to adjourn ; when they themselves 
 acquiesced in its proceedings and remained during the whole meet- 
 ing, until seventh day. If the meeting was dissolved, as they 
 contend, those gentlemen should have withdrawn immediately, 
 and if they had had the majority and gone on and set up their 
 yearly meeting at once, there might then have been some pre- 
 tence to a reorganization. But after acquiescing in the appoint- 
 ment of clerk, refusing to adjourn indefinitely, continuing their 
 attendance at the meeting, from sitting to sitting, and participat- 
 ing in the transaction of its business, until its regular adjournment 
 to the succeeding year, this pretence is certainly most extraor- 
 dinary and futile. Who can believe that if Comly, who planned 
 
76 
 
 that struggle, had believed the meeting to be dissolved, he would 
 have remained there during the whole meeting, and continued to 
 act as the assistant clerk ! 
 
 We have heard a vast deal about the democratic principle of 
 the majority governing in all religious meetings, and in this year- 
 ly meeting as well as others. The gentleman who preceded me 
 spent much time upon this point; and no doubt his clients are 
 deeply indebted to him for the discoveries he has made. He has 
 discovered, it seems, but where I know not, that the society of 
 Friends has always acted upon the principle of majorities, and 
 that this is the true principle for them to act on. But will the 
 gentleman pretend that it has ever been the practice of the 
 society to elect its officers by ballot; or that there was ever such 
 a thing known in any of its meetings as a countof members or a 
 vote taken? Such a thing is not pretended even by the wit- 
 nesses on their own side ; nor can an instance of it be produc- 
 ed from the whole history of the society. 
 
 The clerk, it is admitted by all parties, is a very important 
 officer in the yearly meeting, and in all their inferior meetings. 
 He must be a man of decision of character, of respectabiHty, of 
 piety, and one in whom the meetings have confidence. Samuel 
 Bettle had been clerk of the yearly meeting for many years, 
 had served it acceptably, and continued to do so until this unfor- 
 tunate controversy respecting Elias Hicks arose. When the 
 meeting then finally came to an acquiescence in the appointment 
 of Mr. Bettle, what was that but coming to a conclusion accord- 
 ing to the rules of the society? The society do not go upon the 
 ground that every man coming into a meeting stands upon the 
 same footing. In town meetings, this principle prevails ; but 
 would it be a proper or a prudent course to take in religious 
 meetings, where every member of the community may come? 
 The society would never have existed to this day, if it had act- 
 ed upon this principle. The clerk in obtaining the sense of the 
 meeting, takes into consideration the age, experience, respecta- 
 bility and weight of character of the speakers. Men of age, of 
 long tried experience, and of known piety, would be entitled to 
 more weight and consideration, than the opinions of men young 
 and thoughtless ; men without any religious character or stand- 
 ing. When the clerk has taken what he believes to be the sense 
 
77 
 
 of the meeting, if the meeting does not acquiesce therein, then 
 is the time for complaint, and not aflericards. But in the case 
 before us, the meeting did acquiesce in the appointment of Mr. 
 Bettle as clerk, and did proceed to transact the regular business 
 of the meeting. Even supposing, however, that the clerk was 
 forced upon the meeting, will it be contended that that act did, 
 or could, dissolve the yearly meeting? Such a pretence would 
 be absurd. Those who were discontented, if such there were, 
 had their remedy. They might have withdrawn immediately, 
 and set up for themselves. Observe the difference between their 
 conduct and that of the " Orthodox** in Burlington quarterly 
 meeting, and in the monthly and preparative meeting of Chester- 
 field. When they discovered that persons were present who 
 had no right to be there, and who would not withdraw, and that 
 a part of the meeting were determined to secede from their for- 
 mer connexion, and attach themselves to the new head, they 
 adjourned their meeting, and left the house in peace. They did 
 not remain to occasion trouble and disturbance. Why did not 
 the " Hicksite" party in the yearly meeting take the same 
 course? They would then have had some ground for the alle- 
 gation that their meeting is a reorganization and continuance of 
 the regular, established yearly meeting of Friends in Philadel- 
 phia. But having acquiesced in the appointment of the clerk, 
 having remained there and taken part in the proceedings of the 
 yearly meeting, until its close, they cannot now object to that 
 appointment, nor contend that it dissolved the yearly meeting. 
 
 There can be no doubt that every community, a religious 
 community as well as any other, may adopt its own rules for de- 
 termining questions that come before it. Is the democratic prin- 
 ciple that a majority prevails, so strong and powerful that a re- 
 ligious body can adopt no other ? Cannot Friends take their own 
 course for settling subjects which come under discussion in their 
 meetings ? The opposite counsel would seem to hold out the 
 idea that the majority must always be the test ; but if a society 
 has adopted another principle, will this court dissent from it, and 
 attempt to set up another? No. Every society has a right to 
 adopt their own principle, and the court will leave them to act 
 upon it ; or if they do not choose to continue that mode, to adopt 
 another at their pleasure. The society of Friends then, have 
 
78 
 
 adopted another mode of settling questions, and it is not for this 
 court, or any other, to change it for them. It is in vain there- 
 fore to talk about majorities, or to enquire on which side was 
 the greater number of speakers. All the witnesses on both sides 
 admit, that this never was the practice of the society, but that 
 they waited in solemn silence until they all acquiesced, or until 
 all opposition ceased. Silence then having been restored after 
 the appointment of Mr. Bettle, and all parties having acquiesced, 
 he was duly appointed even upon their own principles: and I 
 beg the court to recollect, that he was the only person nominat- 
 ed to the meeting for clerk : Comly was not even put on nomi- 
 nation there. 
 
 Where is the evidence, I would ask, of their having the majo- 
 rity which they allege ? If they meant to rely on that fact, they 
 ought to have made it out ; but they have made out no such 
 fact. They have called several witnesses to prove that John 
 Comly was nominated before the representatives, and that there 
 was, in the opinion of the witnesses, a majority there in his fa- 
 vour. But was there any thing done from which they could form 
 that opinion ? There was nothing ; there was neither a vote 
 taken, nor a count of members made. When they returned into 
 the yearly meeting, it is not pretended that they had a majority 
 for Comly, for he was not even nominated there. There cannot 
 therefore remain a question as to Ihe regularity of Bettle's ap- 
 pointment. 
 
 But will the court go into the enquiry whether he was duly 
 appointed or not '. It is not relevant to this cause. He was clerk 
 de facto. Will the court enquire whether he was clerk de jvre ? 
 He w'as elected ; will the court undertake to s;iy he was not 
 diil'i elected? He was the acting derk. Will the court under- 
 take to say whether his apjunntnu-nt was proper? I think not. 
 The court will take the facts as ihey rind them, and rinding 
 Samuel Bc.'ttle clei'k dn facto, it is suriicient for their purpose. 
 
 The point we insist u})on is, that even adntitting the objections 
 of the opposite counsel in their utmost latitude, there was not 
 that irregularity in the appointment of clerk, or in the proceed- 
 ings of the meeting, which could destroy the legal existence of 
 the meeting. If therefore the court should even doubt whether 
 he was regularly appointed, which I apprehend they cannot, 
 
79 
 
 will they undertake to say that that irregularity dissolved the 
 meeting ? That could not be said without going contrary to the 
 sense of every nnan who took part in the deliberations of that 
 assembly- 
 There is another ground of complaint on which they rely. It 
 is said, that a number of important questions were not acted 
 upon by that yearly meeting. It is true that there were such 
 questions brought before that meeting ; but they had all grown 
 out of the controversy respecting the doctrines of Elias Hicks, 
 and they were disposed of by general, I might almost say, by 
 universal consent. Some were postponed, and some referred 
 back to the meetings from which they came. But supposing 
 they were not acted on, it vs^as a conclusion come to by univer- 
 sal consent, the meeting therefore could not have been dissolved 
 by that cause. The meeting had an undoubted right either to 
 act upon then), or to defer acting on them. Even if their pro- 
 ceedings in these cases had been irregularly postponed, it could 
 not have dissolved the meeting. If it had been thought best not 
 to act at all upon the business, at that time, on account of the 
 excitement which prevailed, the fact of their not having acted 
 on them, could not put an end to the yearly meeting. 
 
 Another measure complained of is the appointment of what is 
 called the yearly meeting's committee. It appears that upon 
 the last day of the meeting, on seventh day, (Saturday) morn- 
 ing, a proposition came from the women's meeting to appoint a 
 committee for the purpose of visiting the quarterly and monthly 
 meetings. All the witnesses admit that the appointment of such 
 committees was in the regular order of the society, and that 
 under other circumstances than those which then existed, could 
 not have been objectionable. It seems however that when the 
 proposal was made, an objection was raised to it by the discon- 
 tented party. But after it had been some time under discussion, 
 all opposition was finally withdrawn, and it passed with great 
 unanimity. These then are all the acts complained of at that 
 yearly meeting ; and now I would enquire, whether, upon their 
 own ground, there is a single act alleged which could extinguish 
 and destroy that original meeting. The court will see that at 
 that time there was no idea entertained that that meeting was 
 dissolved. It was an after-thought, adopted by the party, but 
 
80 
 
 which never originated with themselves. I will refer the court 
 for a history of the separation to the evidence of Halliday Jack- 
 son. He is one of that party, and an active man in the separation, 
 and therefore it cannot be supposed that any thing he details 
 unfavourable to his own partj, would be inlentionally erroneous. 
 He gives us a minute statement of their proceedings, from which 
 it appears that before the Yearly Meeting of 1827 convened, 
 John Comly had opened to him (Jackson) a prospect of this sep- 
 aration. It further appears that u]»on fourth day evening, of the 
 yearly meeting week, a junto of about twenty got together in a 
 private house, and there concluded to dissolve their connexion 
 wath the original yearly meeting. The separation was then 
 agreed upon, and a plan contrived for carrying it into effect. A 
 committee was appointed from among themselves to draft an ad- 
 dress, and they then adjourned to fifth day evening, at the Green 
 street meeting house. On Thursday (fifth day) evening, as ma- 
 ny as two or three hundred attended there. The committee of 
 the junto had prepared an address, to those who acted with them, 
 which was read and considered, and they then adjourned to 
 meet again, on sixth day evening. These proceedings took 
 place during the yearly meeting, and while they were daily at- 
 tending its sittings, and yet they now aver that this going oif or 
 separation, dissolved that meeting. Upon the evening of sixth 
 day, it does not appear, that I recollect, what was done, but 
 they adjourned to meet again on the rising of the yearly meeting. 
 What was this but a recognition of the existence of that meeting, 
 and of its being the original yearly meeting of Philadelphia, and 
 an acknowledgment that they were waiting for its regular ad- 
 journment? No idea was thrown out, or entertained, that the 
 meeting was to be reorganized, but simply that they were pre- 
 paring to withdraw from it ; upon seventh day morning, after 
 the yearly meeting was regularly adjourned, they withdrew from 
 the house, and went to Green street meeting house, not as the 
 yearly meeting, for that had adjourned : they went as individuals, 
 as dissatisfied men, not to reorganize the old yearly meeting, but 
 to make a new and distinct meeting for themselves. Upon the 
 morning of Saturday, the address which had been prepared M^as 
 again read, approved of, and adopted ; they then separated. This 
 address was their manifesto in which they declared the cause of 
 
81 
 
 their separation, and of which 1 shall speak hereafter. In conse- 
 quence of this address, a meeting took place in the sixth month 
 following, at which they agreed upon and issued what they call 
 an epistle, but which may, I think, properly be denominated their 
 declaration of mdependence. In this document they declare their 
 intention of separating, and call upon quarterly and monthly 
 meetings, which may be prepared for such a measure, and upon 
 individuals in unity with them and favourable to their views, to 
 attend in Philadelphia in the following tenth month, for the pur- 
 pose, as they say, of holding a yearly meeting. Is there any thing 
 in this, which looks like an idea in their own minds, of the non- 
 existence of the original yearly meeting, or that it did not con- 
 tinue to be a yearly meeting, as much so, as if this cabal had ne- 
 ver got together ? It is not my intention to occupy much of the 
 time of the court in reading, but this is a document of considera- 
 ble importance, and I must beg leave to call the attention of the 
 court to some parts of it. It is the Epistle agreed upon by the 
 " Hicksite" party in sixth month (June,) 1827, and is to be found 
 in 2nd vol. of Evidence, 456. It says, " We therefore, under a 
 solemn and weighty sense of the importance of this concern, and 
 with ardent desires that all our movements may be under the 
 guidance of Him who only can lead us in safety, have agreed to 
 propose for your consideration, the propriety of holding a yearly 
 meeting for Friends in unity with us, residing within the limits 
 of those quarterly meetings, heretofore represented, in the yearly 
 meeting held in Philadelphia, for which purpose it is recom- 
 mended, that quarterly and monthly meetings which 7/2 ay Z>e;jre- 
 pared for such a measure, should appoint representatives to meet 
 in Philadelphia, on the third second day in the tenth month next, 
 at ten o'clock in the morning, in company with other members 
 favourable to our views, there to hold a yearly meeting of men 
 and women friends," &c. 
 
 Not one word is here said about reorganizing or continuing 
 the yearly meeting ; but the invitation given is simply to hold a 
 yearly meeting. And to whom is this invitation addressed ? If 
 this meeting was designed as a continuance of the original yearly 
 meeting, should not the address have been to all the members 
 of that yearly meeting ? If they meant to reorganize, should they 
 not have called upon all ? Certainly they should ; and had such an 
 
82 
 
 idea then been entertained, they would have invited all the mem- 
 bers. But the call is upon those only who are prepared for the 
 measure : those in unity with them and favourable to their views. 
 Can they now pretend that they met there as the original yearly 
 meeting of Philadelphia, and only for the purpose of reorganizing 
 it, when their own epistle expressly states that their meeting was 
 only for persons in unity with them ? This document shows 
 that they had no thought or design of reorganizing. In their 
 address of fourth month, they talk of " a quiet retreat." What 
 do they mean by this expression 1 Do they mean to avow an 
 intention of overthrowing the original yearly meeting ? It must 
 require something more than a quiet retreat to effect this. 
 Could any one understand from their own language, anything 
 else than that they meant to secede and set up for themselves, 
 to declare independence of the original meeting ? Mr. Lower, 
 and Mr. Halliday Jackson, both their own witnesses, place it 
 upon the true ground. They call it, in their evidence, a revo- 
 lution, and such it was. It was a revolution, a secession. We 
 do not complain of this. They had a right to withdraw from 
 the society if they chose to do so. But having withdrawn, and 
 dissolved their connexion with it, they have no right to go on 
 with the view of overthrowing the existence of the original 
 yearly meeting. It is impossible for the court to read the epistle, 
 and entertain any other idea than that which I have stated. 
 They had a right in their addresess to include or exclude the 
 " Orthodox" party, as they thought proper; but the fact of their 
 excluding them and giving the invitation in the manner they did, 
 proves conclusively that their purpose was to form a new yearly 
 meeting, of their own sort. 
 
 The court will observe moreover that they call upon quarterly 
 and monthly meetings which may be prepared for the measure, 
 to send representatives to their new yearly meeting. The wit- 
 nesses all agree that according to the rules of the society, monthly 
 meetings cannot send representatives to the yearly meeting. The 
 members in their individual capacity, may attend if they please, 
 but representatives can only be sent by the quarters. Here was a 
 departure from the discipline and established order of the society, 
 making the constitution of the new meeting different from the 
 old one. How do they justify this measure 't Do they show any 
 
83 
 
 authority for it ? Does this little book (the discipline) which the 
 gentleman has held up to the court, as being their guide, contain 
 any rule authorizing such a proceeding ? Xo such thing is to be 
 found in it. We have heard nouch about majorities, and of their 
 power; but if a majority in a meeting may destroy it, may take 
 away rights which are vested in its members, this is certainly 
 giving the question of majorities a power and importance which 
 it never had before. 
 
 The " Hicksite*' party thus have organized a new yearly 
 meeting within the precincts of a regularly established and ex- 
 isting yearly meeting, and contrary to the rules of the society of 
 Friends. They say the circumstances of the case, are similar 
 to those under which the original yearly meeting was established 
 in 1681. But this is not the fact. There was then no yearly 
 meeting existing within the limits over which the proposed yearly 
 meeting was to have jurisdiction, or which claimed as its mem- 
 bers the persons who were to be included in the new yearly meet- 
 ing. They met then, not wdthin the limits of another yearly meet- 
 ing, but where no yearly meeting had yet been formed. Monthly 
 meetings attached probably to no quarterly meetings ; quarterly 
 meetings, and friends in their individual capacities, met and 
 formed a new yearly meeting. But even then, though there was 
 DO yearly meeting claiming direct jurisdiction over them, they 
 applied to other yearly meetings then existing on this continent, 
 for their consent and approbation, before they established the new 
 meeting. Decow in his answer states that the yearly meeting 
 formed at Burlington in 1681 originated from a monthly meeting. 
 What did the "Hicksite" yearly meeting originate from? ZS'ot 
 from any regular or established meeting of the society, but from 
 a junto, which met at a private house, agreed on a separation 
 from an existing yearly meeting, and adopted measures to carry 
 that separation into effect. There is then nothing similar in the 
 two cases ; there is nothing to be found in the establishment of 
 the yearly meeting in 1681, w^hich can justify the course pursued 
 by the " Hicksite" party in 1827. No, it must come back to the 
 ground upon which it was placed by Mr. Lower, and Mr. Jackson. 
 It was a revolution, asecession, the establishment of a new meet- 
 ing, and a new society. They had a right thus to separate and 
 to form a society for themselves, they did so, and the conse- 
 quences of that act, they must submit to. 
 
84 
 
 I now proceed to their first yearly meeting, held in tenth 
 month 1827, in Green street meeting house. We find from the 
 testimony, that there were representatives attended fi:om five 
 quarterly meetings out of eleven. There were eleven quarters 
 attached to the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, and of these only 
 five sent representatives to the new meeting. Six quarters were 
 unrepresented in this meeting; they had not even a majority 
 about which they have said so much. There were also one or 
 two monthly meetings represented there. Those then who com- 
 posed that meeting were representatives from five quarterly 
 meetings, two monthly meetings, and other individuals favouring 
 their views. I would now ask the court, whether this meeting, 
 so constituted, can have any shadow of claim to being a continua- 
 tion of the old yearly meeting? Is there any thing that looks 
 like it, or that can bear them out in their pretensions 1 Every 
 man who looks at the facts must see there is nothing. 
 
 Mr. Lower makes a most curious mistake, when he undertakes 
 to fix the time of holding their first meeting. 1 Vol. Evidence, p. 
 468. He was asked " when the yearly meeting to which he 
 belonged was first held or opened ?" His reply is that " it was 
 first opened in 10th month 1827." His examination was not then 
 closed, but postponed to another day ; meanwhile its seems he 
 discovered that he had made a great mistake, or somebody had 
 discovered it for him, and when he came to be examined again, 
 he dates it back to the meeting in Burlington in 1681. The pas- 
 sage is a very curious one, and I shall beg leave to read it to the 
 court. The witness says, Vol 1. Evidence, p. 472. " I would beg 
 leave to recur to my testimony at its close on the evening before 
 last, and state that I was fatigued, with a hard day's service, 
 under the peculiar circumstances that I was then placed. I was 
 fagged down and was not aware of my condition, till I came to 
 reflect upon what had passed, and recurring to my feelings ; and 
 I think it is but justice to state, that I misapprehended the ques- 
 tion that was put to me relative to the time of our holding our 
 first yearly meeting, after the reorganization of society, that is, 
 that it was in contrast with that yearly meeting that was held in 
 Arch street, and which for the reasons that I have stated in 
 divers instances, ceases to be a yearly meetirig of the society of 
 Friends. And I would therefore desire, that my answer to that 
 
85 
 
 question, should be according to the account contained in the 
 book of discipline, that our first yearly meeting was held at 
 Burlington in 1681." 
 
 There can be no doubt but the counsel or some other kind 
 friend, had informed this witness during the interval of his exam- 
 ination, that it was necessary to consider their meeting as a con- 
 tinuance of the original meeting, that they must not go upon the 
 ground of its being a new meeting, and therefore the witness un- 
 dertakes to correct the mistake and to apologise for falling into it. 
 Under all the circumstances of the case, this meeting being 
 set up within the precincts of another, the original meeting being 
 regularly adjourned and continued, and now existing, the court 
 must see that this is not the same yearly meeting, but a new 
 meeting and a secession from the original meeting and from the 
 society of Friends. What is the opinion of Friends upon this sub- 
 ject ? Of all other meetings of Friends, whose minds have not 
 been poisoned with the doctrines of Elias Hicks ? Is there any 
 yearly meeting of Friends in this country, or in Europe, which 
 acknowledges this new meeting as a meeting of the society ? The 
 testimony tells us there is not one. The vearlv meeting in Lon- 
 don, which is the parent meeting, considers the meeting in Arch 
 street as the yearly meeting of Friends, and holds regular corres- 
 pondence with it as such. They consider the Green street meet- 
 ing as spurious, as not being a part of the society of Friends, and 
 refuse having any intercourse with them. Here then we have 
 the opinion of a meeting entirely uncontaminated with the prin- 
 ciples which produced the new meeting, and uninfluenced by the 
 excitement which grew out of the controversy. They recognise 
 the meeting in Arch street, and decline any communication with 
 the other. The yearly meeting of New England also acknow- 
 ledges the old yearly meeting, and disclaims all connexion with 
 the new one. The yearly meeting of Virginia does the same. 
 It acknowledges the yearly meeting in Arch street, as the regu- 
 lar yearly meeting, and refuses to have any thing to do with the 
 other. Such is also the case with the yearly meeting of North 
 Carolina. They have all denounced the principles of Hicks as 
 being repugnant to Quakerism, and declared that the meetings 
 set up by his adherents are not meetings of the society of Friends. 
 In all the yearly meetings I have named there are no •' Hicksites" ; 
 
•a^. 
 
 86 
 
 they have been spared the discord and division which the preach- 
 ing of Hicks produced, and we find wherever there is no Hicks- 
 ism, there Friends disown the new meeting and recognise the 
 meeting in Arch street, as the yearly meeting of the society of 
 Friends. Is not this the strongest evidence that this new meet- 
 ing of the " Hicksite" party is set up in violation of the principles 
 of Friends ? It is true they have been recognised by a division 
 of certain other yearly meetings, but it is only where Hicksitism 
 has attained footing, and by those who have adopted it as their 
 own religion. A part of the yearly meeting in New York, who 
 are of this character, recognise the new meeting and correspond 
 with it. In Oiiio a similar schism has also taken place and a 
 part recognis^e the meeting in Green street: the other portions 
 of these meetings however do not acknowledge it. From an ex- 
 amination of other yearly meetings where a division has occurred, 
 it appears there are none who recognise this new meeting except 
 those Vk'ho have been guilty of the same schism, of seceding in the 
 same way. Mr. Lower attempts to account for this, and I call 
 the attention of the court to his evidence on the subject as it 
 affords a fine specimen of his christian charity. He says, vol. I. 
 Evidence, pp. 468, 9, " The yearly meeting of London does not 
 correspond with the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
 &c. We understand, I think, by information; perhaps from the 
 clerk of the London yearly meeting, communicated to the clerk 
 of our yearly meeting, that they decline corresponding with our 
 vearly meeting ; and I understand that the reason alleged is, that 
 the meeting for sufferings of the orthodox yearly meeting of Phi- 
 ladelphia, have so defamed us in their communication to Friends 
 of the London yearly meeting, as to induce them to submit our 
 communication or epistle to the examination of perhaps two or 
 three individuals, to report whether such communications are fit 
 to be read in the meeting or not. The meeting, I think, has 
 hence arrived at the conclusion not to hear those communications 
 read, when those two or three individuals made their report, and 
 the great body of the society remain ignorant of us, excepting 
 what is supposed to be detailed out to them by those who are in 
 strict unity with the orthodox yearly meeting here. As to the 
 Friends in New England, they have been, I think in a lame way 
 some time back, and I have reason to apprehend they are not 
 
87 
 
 much better now, and we have no correspondence with them. 
 The Virginia yearly meeting which 1 think the orthodox make 
 a spread about, caHing it the ancient yearly meeting of Virginia, 
 from what information I have of that ancient concern, I am sat- 
 isfied that it is a very little concern. I should suppose from what 
 I have understood, that the whole body of its members together, 
 do not amount to a larger number than the members of Green 
 street monthly meeting. Carolina yearly meeting does not cor- 
 respond with us. These men of leisure, these rich men, I have 
 spoken of in Philadelphia, were the medium of the communication 
 of the bounty of the great body of Friends to help them and their 
 poor oppressed blacks, out of their trouble, as far as that little 
 bounty would go in such a matter, which, together with a sort 
 of missionary influence, has had, I think, a powerful effect in 
 alienating their minds, by infusing prejudices against us in them." 
 
 We see then, if the court please, that all the yearly meetings 
 of the society of Friends refuse to acknowledge this new yearly 
 meeting. It now remains for the court to say whether they will 
 recognise it. Will you pronounce it to be a meeting of the soci- 
 ety of Friends, when that society itself declares that it is not so ? 
 Will you recognise a meeting which is acknowledged by no body 
 of Friends in the world, and by those persons only who are con- 
 nected in the same schism. The court I think must consider it 
 as a schism, as a new meeting, as a new head to a new society, 
 and all those who have separated from the original quarterly, 
 monthly and preparative meetings, and united themselves to this 
 new head, must be considered in the same light, as having seced- 
 ed from the great head to which they were originally attached. 
 
 Wednesday morning, January 11th, 10 A.M. — My object yes- 
 terday, was to prove that the separation of the " Hicksite" party 
 which took place in April, 1827, did not extinguish or dissolve 
 the yearly meeting of Friends ; that there was nothing took place 
 during that meeting which could have merged or put an end to 
 its existence. I shall now proceed to show that nothing trans- 
 pired before that time which could have destroyed or put an end 
 to it. If nothing occurred at or before that meeting to extin- 
 guish it, nothing that has happened since could produce that re- 
 sult. The subsequent circumstances which the gentlemen have 
 so much relied upon, are the effects of these difficulties in the 
 
88 
 
 society, not the causes. The gentlemen mistake effects for 
 causes. We contend that it was a real difference of opinion 
 about essential religious doctrines, which gave rise to all these 
 difficulties, and produced the separation ; and that all the sub- 
 jects of complaint on which they lay so much stress, grew out 
 of that difference. In order to satisfy the court that there were 
 prior difficulties or grievances, and that their separation grew 
 out of these, they go back to the year 1819. Before, however, 
 1 take up their different grounds of complaint, permit me to make 
 one observation. Your honours will perceive from the testimony 
 of the witnesses on both sides, that these subjects of complaint 
 grew out of opposition to Elias Hicks, and to those doctrines 
 which he publicly promulgated in his testimonies before the 
 world. The cause of complaint which the gentleman states to 
 have occurred in 1819, is an alleged disrespect shewn to Elias 
 Hicks. It is in itself a very trifling thing ; one which such a 
 man as Elias Hicks is represented to be, or indeed any one else, 
 ought to have thought very little about. In the year 1819, 
 when on a visit to Philadelphia, he left the men's meeting at 
 Pine street, and went into the women's meeting, and while he 
 was there, an adjournment of the men's meeting took place. 
 This, it is said, was disrespectful to Elias Hicks, and that it is 
 contrary to usage to adjourn the men's meeting while the wo- 
 men's meeting was sitting, or while a member of the men's meet- 
 ing was there. But even if we admit this to be the case, it 
 amounts to nothing more than a disrespect to the man ; and is 
 this a ground of serious complaint ; a ground on which to rest 
 the justification of their secession from the society? Is it a cir- 
 cumstance which this court can seriously regard ? But it ap- 
 pears that it was not contrary to the usage of the society for the 
 men's meeting thus to adjourn. All the witnesses who speak on 
 this subject, those of the " Hicksite" party, admit that the yearly 
 meeting had repeatedly done the sanje thing (see A. Lower's 
 testimony, vol. I. p. 410,) ; the monthly meeting therefore had 
 the example of the highest body in the society for its adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 We do not however mean to deny that there was, even as 
 early as this period, an objection to the doctrines and preaching 
 of Elias Hicks. The sentiments which he had at that time 
 
89 
 
 avowed, had alienated many of the aged and solid members of 
 the society ; they viewed him as a new light ; the introducer of 
 new doctrines calculated to disturb the peace and harmony of 
 the society, and to mislead the members : as one aiming to be- 
 come the founder of a new sect ; they therefore felt much unea- 
 siness and concern respecting him. 
 
 Another subject of complaint is, that at a subsequent period 
 when EHas Hicks was coming to Philadelphia on a visit, some of 
 the elders in that city thought it their duty to interfere respect- 
 ing the doctrines which he promulgated. He was coming there 
 under the pretence of making a religious visit to the meetings 
 and families of Friends. If the elders really believed that he 
 was unsound in his doctrines, that he was spreading errors 
 through the society, calculated to mislead its honest but unin- 
 formed members, that his conduct was calculated to produce a 
 schism and division among them, was it not proper, was it not 
 their duty as officers and guardians of the church, entrusted 
 with the special oversight and care of the ministers, to oppose 
 him in every proper method 1 If there was any body competent 
 to judge of the doctrines of Elias Hicks; to form a correct opin- 
 ion of the consequences likely to result from the course he was 
 pursuing, the elders were that body. Men selected for one of 
 the highest and most responsible stations in the church, chosen 
 for their piety, their experience, and religious worth ; clothed 
 with a public character, and deputed to watch over the general 
 interests and welfare of the society, and over the preaching and 
 doctrines of the ministers. In the stand which these men took 
 against the principles of Elias Hicks, was there any departure 
 from the discipline of the society ? The " Hicksite" party allege 
 that there was ; they say that those elders should have pursued 
 a ditferent course; that they should have complained against 
 Elias Hicks to his meeting at home, the monthly meeting at 
 Jericho, which as they say, was the proper body to deal with 
 him. 
 
 But is there any thing in the discipline to prove that when he 
 was in Philadelphia upon a visit, the dders there had no right 
 to treat with him ? There is nothing. On the contrary, he 
 was under their care, and subject to their advice and admoni- 
 tion while there, as much so as any other member. The elders 
 
 M 
 
90 
 
 of Philadelphia therefore, undertook to interfere, as they had a 
 right to do, and as they were bound to do, on account of the doc- 
 trines which he was known to promulgate in his public testimo- 
 nies. It is not pretended, that if, after he left Long Island, he 
 had preached sentiments adverse to the known testimonies of 
 the society, respecting war, oaths, &c. the elders of that city 
 would have had no right to deal with him ; and yet they say, 
 that when he undertook to advance doctrines contrary to the 
 principles of Friends, and calculated to produce a schism, they 
 had no right to interfere. They have nothing, however, to sus- 
 tain them in this assertion, and the one is as proper and neces- 
 sary as the other. 
 
 But, if the court please, I am willing to put it on another foot- 
 ing. It was impossible to stop him in the promulgation of these 
 sentiments in any other way. He has been represented here as 
 being strong in the affections and hearts of those connected with 
 him. It is true, he was so, and this made him the more danger- 
 ous. The confidence that was reposed in him, his standing, his 
 popularity, and his influence, made him a most dangerous man 
 to inculcate unsound doctrines. This very circumstance made 
 it the more necessary for the elders to take the course they did. 
 The meeting at Jericho had adopted his doctrines ; they approv- 
 ed of him, and of all that he did. It was in vain then to apply 
 to it for a remedy ; it held that he was sound in the faith. They 
 might as well have complained to Elias Hicks himself; and they 
 had no alternative left but to take the course they did. 
 
 We find then, that a meeting of some of the elders and a few 
 other friends, took place in Philadelphia at the close of a meeting 
 for sufferings. Ten or twelve persons in all attended, and among 
 the rest Lower, who is a " Hicksite,"' and one of the principal 
 men on that side. He was requested to remain and consult 
 what was best to be done, and from his own statement he ap- 
 pears to have taken an active part in the proceedings. The sub- 
 ject for consideration was stated to be the unsound doctrines of 
 Elias Hicks, and the mischief he was doing among them. Was 
 not this a proper subject of enquiry ? Were they not autho- 
 rized, was it not their undoubted right, thus to meet and take 
 measures to prevent the evils likely to result from his course ? 
 They met, not as enemies, but as friends of Elias Hicks, to de- 
 
91 
 
 termlne what was best to be done under the circumstances of 
 the case. 
 
 It was well known that they could not stop him by applying 
 to the meeting at Jericho. In fact, he had then left home, and 
 was on his way to Philadelphia ; an application to that meeting 
 would therefore have been entirely unavailing. They were 
 obliged then to take other measures to prevent the evils which 
 must arise from the dissemination of his antichristian doctrines 
 among them. If there is any thing in the book of discipline 
 which prevents the elders from interfering with a member of 
 another meeting, who is visiting among them, if there is any thing 
 which forbids the course that these gentlemen took, I should 
 be glad to see it. It has not yet been produced. If when an 
 individual is travelling from home, spreading false doctrines and 
 poisoning the members of the society with pernicious principles, 
 no one is to interfere wath him, but the meeting which sent him 
 out for the very purpose of preaching these doctrines, it is in- 
 deed a serious and dangerous state of things. The society would 
 be the prey of every ambitious innovator, who had address 
 enough to insinuate himself into the good graces of his own meet- 
 ing. It appears from the evidence that at this meeting some of 
 the elders were deputed to wait on Mr. Hicks, before he came 
 to the city, to state to him the reports which were abroad re- 
 specting the nature of his doctrines, and to request of him an 
 explanation. This was all that was done ; the gentlemen apoint- 
 ed, however, did not obtain an interview with him, and here this 
 matter ended. Soon after this Elias Hicks came to Philadelphia, 
 and the elders thought it their duty again to endeavour to pro- 
 cure an interview with him. Two of their number accordingly 
 called on him, stated the charges of unsound doctrine which 
 were alleged against him, and desired him to give the elders a 
 select opportunity with him agreeably to the usages of the socie- 
 ty. It seems that he eluded this interview, he would give them 
 no opportunity of conversing with him, except in a pubhc man- 
 ner. He said they had no right to interfere in the business, de- 
 nied their jurisdiction, and all obligation to conform to any mea- 
 sures which they thought it necessary to adopt. They could ob- 
 tain no private conversation wdth him. They were willing to 
 have the interview in the presence of such persons as might be 
 
92 
 
 proper, but they could not consent to a public discussion in the 
 Green street meeting house. This was not calculated to benefit 
 the cause of religion, nor to advance the cause of religious truth. 
 They wished to confer with him, as brethren, as friends; but 
 they did not wish to do it in public, this was contrary to the 
 usages of the society ; nor did they wish to do it entirely in pri- 
 vate, but with as much privacy as the circumstances of the case 
 and the custom of the society required. 
 
 As he refused to grant them such an interview, the elders then 
 thought it their duty to address a letter to him, stating their un- 
 easiness and concern respecting his doctrines and ministry. He 
 replied to this, and they wrote a second letter in answer to his, 
 and here their proceedings ended. 
 
 Now suppose these gentlemen were mistaken, that the facts 
 did not justify the course they took, was there any thing in all 
 this to justify the separation ; any thing to form a ground for a 
 division, a secession from the society? There certainly was no- 
 thing. But will the court enquire into this matter; is it a subject 
 of which they can take cognizance? Is the court going to explain 
 the discipline of the society, for its members, or to put its own 
 construction as to what it does, or does not require, under such 
 circumstances? Will the court attempt to do this, or will it not 
 rather look at the proceedings of the elders simply as they affect 
 this controversy. If the Hicksite party can shew that the care 
 and concern of those elders tended to dissolve the bonds of the 
 society, that it rent in sunder the ties which united the members, 
 this is one ground; if they say merely, that it was a ground of 
 dissatisfaction, and discontent to their party, we admit this, it was 
 so, but then we trace it all back to Elias Hicks and his doctrines, 
 as the original cause; but for him and his principles, that dis- 
 satisfaction would never have existed, nor this schism occurred. 
 The proceedings of the elders cannot justify nor explain this 
 severance of the society, they are not sufficient to account for it. 
 It must come back to this point, that the whole cause of com- 
 plaint, the whole source of difficulty, was Elias Hicks, and the 
 doctrines he preached. These gentlemen, the elders, have been 
 much traduced, as being a faction, rich men, an aristocracy, and 
 as endeavouring to obtain power. These are strange charges 
 indeed against men of their habits, aqd of their religious princi- 
 
93 
 
 pies. Their whole course of life goes to exclude them from 
 power, to restrain them from grasping after the power of this 
 world. Is there any ground, in any thing they did, on which he 
 found such charges, or to impute to them improper motives 1 j\o, 
 the course they took was in obedience to their rehgious duty, as 
 guardians of the society, as overseers of the church, on whom a 
 serious and solemn responsibility was devolved by the discipline. 
 They are charged with being conspiratms, hut for what did they 
 conspire ? To promote the cause of truth and of the Christian 
 religion. 1 wish there were more conspirators of the same descrip- 
 tion. Their motive was not only justitiable, but laudable, every 
 christian man will sanction and approve it, will say they were 
 fully justified in taking the course they did. If any facts had 
 been laid before this court, to show that the conduct of the elders 
 proceeded from mere prejudice against Mr. Hicks, or from sinister 
 or malicious motives, and not from a sense of religious obligation, 
 there might be some colour of pretence for this complaint. But 
 when men of their character and religious standing, acting as 
 they did from conscientious motives, are thus groundlessly tra- 
 duced by a party in the society, it is a most unjustifiable and 
 wanton course. 
 
 We then come to the Extracts which were prepared by the 
 meeting for sulFerings, in the year 1822, about which we have 
 heard so much, and which have been declaimed against as an 
 attempt to impose a creed upon the society contrary to its prin- 
 ciples. This has been held here to be of so much importance, 
 that the gentlemen who first addressed the court on the opposite 
 side, made it the ground of separation, the primary ground, and 
 that all subsequent difficulties were to be traced to this act. It 
 was necessary to put his finger upon some one circumstance, as 
 the ground of separation, and he has chosen this as the strongest. 
 Aow I think it will not require a William Penn to shake this san- 
 dy foundation : the statement of a single fact will sweep it away. 
 These extracts were prepared in 1822, in 1823 the subject came 
 before the yearly meeting, and the publication of them was sus- 
 pended, they were laid by, and we hear no more of them after- 
 wards. If this then was the ground of division, why did not the 
 separation take place in 1823, when they were before the year- 
 ly meeting? They complain bitterly of this meeting for suffer- 
 
94 
 
 ings, as being an aristocracy, requiring the strong arm of the law 
 to put it down. Why did they not then take measures to put it 
 down, at that meeting i At that time the excitement had not 
 gone to the length w-hich it afterwards did, they could harmonize 
 and act in unison, and if this meeting for sufferings had been the 
 dangerous body which they would now make us believe, then 
 was the time to put it down and correct the evil. But no such 
 attempt is made or thought of. When the extracts came before 
 the yearly meeting, they were opposed; those in favour of pub- 
 lishing them yielded their opinion and they were laid by. Can 
 any man believe that this circumstance, (even giving it all the 
 characteristics which the imagination of the party has clothed it 
 with,) occurring in the year 1823, was the cause of the separa- 
 ration which took place in the yearly meeting of 1827. If it 
 was the cause, why was it not tlie immediate cause. The act 
 complained of was done in 1823, why did they not then sepa- 
 rate ? But they did not separate then, they met again the year 
 after, and in the year after that, and transacted their business in 
 the ordinary manner, until the year 1827, and yet that act is 
 now set up as a circumstance which dissolved the bonds of union 
 that existed in the yearly meeting. If this was the fact, then 
 from the year 1823 to 1827 the society was without a yearly 
 meeting in Philadelphia. How was it then that Friends met dur- 
 ing each of the intervening years, and transacted their business. 
 They either were a yearly meeting, or they were no yearly 
 meeting. If the act complained of, in 1823, burst the bonds of 
 the society, and dissolved the ties which held it together, it ter- 
 minated the existence of the yearly meeting ; but if the society 
 could and did meet as a yearly meeting for years after, and reg- 
 ularly transact its business, then that act did not dissolve the 
 bonds of the society, nor put an end to the existence of the 
 yearly meeting in 1827. 
 
 My object, if the court please, is to show that it was a separa- 
 tion which took place in 1827, not a dissolution of the yearly 
 meeting. I might have answered all the grounds relied on by 
 the other side, by saying, Gentlemen, they have nothing to do 
 with the subject, they cannot affect the existence of the yearly 
 meeting, and unless they put an end to the yearly meeting of 4th 
 month 1827, the " Hicksite" meeting must be a new one. Their 
 
95 
 
 witnesses speak of it, as a separation, as the formation of a new 
 yearly meeting, of a new society ; they speak of the measures 
 as measures designed to produce a separation. Their publica- 
 tions say that the time for withdrawing has fully come ; not that 
 the yearly meeting is dissolved. If then it was a separation, 
 and it cannot be any thing else, who are the separatists'? It is 
 impossible to impute that character to us; no one pretends that 
 we have separated from the society of Friends. They must 
 therefore be the separatists; they cannot avoid the imputation, 
 neither can they take the character of those they have separated 
 from ; they cannot be Friends, they have no claim to the title. 
 
 Another ground of complaint is, that the meeting for sufferings, 
 the great object of their hostility, wished to render itself a perma- 
 nent body; that they attempted to interfere with the quarters in 
 the appointment of their representatives in that meeting. That 
 when one of the quarters attempted to change its representa- 
 tives, the meeting for sufferings interfered and insisted that the 
 existing representatives must remain in office until removed by 
 death, or in some other mode prescribed by the discipline. Such 
 is their complaint. Now I would ask the court, whether it will 
 go into the enquiry, whether the meeting for sufferings be a 
 permanent or temporary body ? Will it undertake to give its 
 own construction to the discipline of the society, and tell the 
 members whether their meeting for sufferings is permanent or 
 not ? What bearing can this have on the cause now pending 
 before the court ? Supposing the meetingJbr sufferings to have 
 been mistaken in their views of this sub*ct, does that change 
 any one fact bearing on the case, now before the court ? I think 
 not. The meeting for sufferings appointed a committee to go 
 down to the quarter, and endeavour to terminate the business 
 amicably. The committee accordingly went down, and stated 
 the views of the meeting for sufferings in relation to the matter ; 
 and what was the consequence 1 The quarterly meeting adhered 
 to its course, and there the business ended. When the subject 
 came before the yearly meeting, which was the proper body to 
 settle the discipline in the case, it was dismissed at the sugges- 
 tion of the " Hicksite" party themselves, and with their "full 
 approbation. Is there any thing then in this circumstance 
 which tends to show that the yearly meeting of 1827 was 
 
96 
 
 dissolved, that it had no existence, or that a separation did not 
 take place between Friends and the " Hicksites ?" The gentle- 
 man considers the conduct of the meeting for sufferings as of the 
 most alarming character, that it was an innovation and intended 
 to concentrate all power in the hands of this body, and to give 
 them a control over the whole society. I am really at a loss to 
 perceive where the gentleman finds any ground for these sur- 
 mises. It is admitted on all hands that the change made by 
 the Southern quarter in its representatives, was entirely a new 
 attempt, that there is no precedent for it, since the establishment 
 of the discipline, that it was contrary to the general opinion of 
 the society as regards the powers of the quarterly meetings, the 
 meeting for sufferings therefore hesitated to recognize it ; they 
 were cautious of sanctioning a measure not recognized by the 
 discipline and usages of the society, and therefore appointed a 
 committee to confer with the quarter ; the quarter refused to 
 confer, and there the matter terminated. What is there in this 
 which furnishes ground for the gentleman's apprehensions? I 
 can see nothing. But suppose they are all well founded. What 
 right have they to bring it here as a subject of complaint ; the 
 yearly meeting was the proper place to correct the evil, if any 
 existed, and when it came there, they voluntarily dismissed it. 
 Your honours will find by examining the testimony, that all the 
 clamour which has been raised on this subject, grew out of the 
 fact, that it was connected with the opposition to the doctrines 
 of Elias Hicks. T\^ of the elders of Philadelphia, had been 
 chosen by the SoutlM-n quarter, to represent it in the meeting 
 for sufferings, and because they ventured to interfere respecting 
 the doctrines preached by Hicks, the Southern quarter under- 
 took to remove them from their station. That quarterly meeting 
 is one of the strong holds of Hicksism, the party have the major- 
 ity there. When therefore these elders attempted to interfere 
 with £. H. the quarter says, these men are no longer in union 
 with us; we will therefore displace them. The quarterly 
 meeting contended that it had a right so to remove them, while 
 the meeting for sufferings thought that by the discipline it had 
 no such right. Will the court undertake to settle the question 
 between them ? 
 
 These then are all the acts complained of by the " Hicksite" 
 
97 
 
 party previous to the year 1827, and I think it is evident there is 
 no circumstance occurring before the session of the yearly meet- 
 ing which can possibly be considered as putting an end to its ex- 
 istence. What then is the character of the new yearly meeting ? 
 Here are two yearly meetings, one held in the Arch street meet- 
 ing house, the other in Green street. The one in Arch street 
 has existed for a century and a half. The other has grown up 
 out of this controversy, and dates its commencement in tenth 
 month, 1827. In this separation which is to be considered as 
 the original yearly meeting ? This is an important enquiry, one 
 on which the whole cause may turn, and 1 insist that there can- 
 not be a doubt but that the meeting in Arch street, is the true 
 yearly meeting, the one which must be recognised as such by 
 this court, the one that has been acknowledged by other yearly 
 meetings of Friends, in fact by the whole society except those 
 persons who have united in the schism and separation which has 
 taken place. If nothing was done previous to that yearly meet- 
 ing, which extinguished it, nor any thing done during its session 
 which had that effect, it must still remain to be the original 
 yearly meeting. What then is the effect of this separation as it 
 respects the property now in question 1 This will lead me to con- 
 sider the division which has taken place in the subordinate 
 branches of the yearly meeting, and to trace it down to the pre- 
 parative meeting in Chesterfield. Our ground on this point is, 
 that a separation having taken place in the supreme head, there 
 being two meetings held by distinct bodies of people, assuming 
 different powers and control, those in the subordinate meetings 
 who have attached themselves to the new yearly meeting must 
 be considered as a part of it, and those who continue to adhere 
 to the old yearly meeting, must be viewed as a part of the soci- 
 ety to which they originally belonged. 
 
 I shall first call the attention of the court to a difficulty which 
 occurred in the Burlington quarter. After the call issued by the 
 " Hicksites" to those who were disposed to separate and aid in 
 the formation of a new society, in tenth month, 1827, this quar- 
 terly meeting took place. Permit me to remark here, that the 
 Burlington quarterly meeting was not represented in the new 
 yearly meeting of tenth month 1827. They had no representa- 
 tive there, and after its formation they had the option either to 
 
join with it or to remain with the other to which they had always 
 belonged. I stated yesterday that when (he new yearly meet- 
 ing was formed, only five out of eleven quarters were represen- 
 ted in it, the majority therefore was not represented. If they 
 have increased so as to form a majority now, this does not change 
 the state of facts then. There is no evidence that they had a 
 majority then, or that this yearly meeting was set up by a ma- 
 jority, but so far as there is any evidence it is directly against them. 
 John Gummere in his evidence gives a full and clear account 
 of what took place in the quarterly meeting of Burlington. In 
 answer to the question, " Have any difficulties and disturbances 
 occurred during the period within which you have been clerk of 
 Burlington quarterly meeting, either in that meeting or in any of 
 its subordinate branches, which have resulted in the secession of 
 a part of its members from the society of Friends ?" The witness 
 says, " I believe there have instances of disorder occurred in a 
 number of the subordinate meetings, but I can only speak from 
 personal knowledge in reference to two. In Burlington quarterly 
 meeting which was held at the usual time in eleventh month, 
 1827, a number of individuals attended who, it was stated, had 
 either been disowned or were under dealing in the respective 
 monthly meetings of which they had been or were members. It 
 being contrary to the order of our society for business to proceed 
 when individuals so circumstanced are known to be present, 
 these were divers times requested to withdraw ; they however 
 refusing to do so, and being supported in their intention of stay- 
 ing, by a number of the members of the quarterly meeting, the 
 meeting was under the necessity, in order that its business might 
 be conducted consistently with the order of the society, to make 
 an adjournment. It accordingly adjourned to the following sixth 
 day (of the week) at Burlington, where it was duly and properly 
 held. It was adjourned by regular minute. In a monthly meet- 
 ing held at Burlington, the latter part of the year 1827, or be- 
 gining of 1828, one or more individuals were present circum- 
 stanced as above mentioned ; these declining to withdraw 
 although repeatedly and affectionately asked to do so, the meet- 
 ing was under the necessity of adjourning. It adjourned to the 
 following day, when it was held in order and quietness. These 
 are the only two instances of disorder that I know of, from being 
 
99 
 
 present at the time." I. vol. Ev. p. 316. And again in p. 317, 
 of the sanne volume, in answer to the question whether those 
 members who thus advocated and supported the individuals 
 spoken of (as refusing to withdraw) have or have not since that 
 time separated themselves from the society of Friends, and gone 
 off in the secession ; the witness says, " I believe they have gen- 
 erally or all done so." In page 321, same volume, the witness 
 says, " By common repute it (a meeting at Chesterfield, which 
 they call the quarterly meeting of Burlington) acknowledges as 
 its immediate superior the meeting held at Green and Cherry 
 streets, Philadelphia, assuming the style of the yearly meeting 
 of Friends of Philadelphia, which meetings are held on the 
 second second day of fourth month annually." 
 
 From this evidence, as well as that of several other witnesses, 
 the manner in which the separation took place in the quarterly 
 meeting of Burlington appears. At the time it was held, the 
 new yearly meeting of the " Hicksites" had been established, 
 and it was now the moment of separation in the different 
 branches ; each party making choice of the head to which they 
 would be attached. When the quarterly meeting assembled, it 
 was found that a number of persons were there who had been 
 disowned, or were under dealing by the society, and who conse- 
 quently had no right to be present. They were affectionately 
 and repeatedly requested to withdraw. This they refused to do, 
 although it is an express rule of the society, never to transact 
 business in the presence of persons thus circumstanced. The 
 question then arose, what was to be done. These individuals 
 were encouraged by the " Hicksite" party to remain. This at 
 once produced a division ; the parties could not act together; 
 and the " Orthodox" meeting concluded to adjourn to another 
 place ; they did so, and with their clerk left the house. i\ow I 
 perfectly agree with the opposite counsel that the existence of 
 a meeting cannot depend on the place where they assemble, or 
 whether the clerk goes with them or stays behind. I admit that 
 this is immaterial. It depends upon the ?notive or object of the 
 withdrawal. If these gentlemen at the Burlington quarter could 
 not transact their business agreeably to the order of the society, 
 where they were, they certainly had a right to adjourn to ano- 
 ther place. The court will perceive how differently they acted 
 
100 
 
 from the " Hicksite" party in the yearly meeting. They make 
 no disturbance, but quietly withdraw for the purpose of trans- 
 acting their business in a regular manner ; not to form a new 
 society or a new meeting, hut to hold the quarterly meeting of 
 Burlington where they can transact business according to the 
 discipline and principles of the society. Again, the court will 
 perceive that this separation took place in consequence of that 
 which had before occurred in the head of that meeting, the yearly 
 meeting. One of the witnesses states, that a committee of the 
 new yearly meeting attended at the quarter, and when the meet- 
 ing was adjourned, remained behind wuth their party. The 
 " Hicksite" party make no complaint of any thing done by the 
 " Orthodox" in Burlington quarter ; they complain of no aristo- 
 cracy, no oppression there ; nothing but their withdrawing from 
 the meeting house, and holding the quarterly meeting at another 
 time and place. This, we insist, was in conformity with the 
 usages of the society, as well as its discipline. It is said, on the 
 other side, that we ought to have remained, that it is contrary 
 to custom to leave the meeting until all the business was done. 
 But, if it please the court, the meeting went along with them. 
 Suppose the " Orthodox" party had remained ; the argument 
 then would have been, that by remaining they sanctioned what 
 took place, and participated in what was done. The proposition 
 was distinctly made in the quarterly meeting, that as they could 
 not with propriety transact business among those who were pre- 
 sent, they had better adjourn to another place where they could 
 proceed in that harmony and order which ought always to pre- 
 vail in their meetings. They had then the power of deciding 
 whether to go or to stay, and having decided to go, they had a 
 perfect right to do so. Farther : I hold that if they had had no 
 opportunity ofadjourning ; if noise and clamour had prevented it ; 
 if the clerk had refused to accompany them ; still if they had 
 adjourned even under these circumstances, to transact their 
 business in the order of society, they would have had a right to 
 do so, and would have lost none of their rights as the quarterly 
 meeting of Burlington. It further appears from the testimony of 
 the witnesses, that the " Hicksite" party in this quarterly meet- 
 ing, have attached themselves to the Green street yearly meet- 
 ing as their head, and their separation must therefore be taken 
 
101 
 
 to be of the same character with that which took place in the 
 yearly meeting of 1827. The " Orthodox" remain connected 
 with, and subordinate to the Arch street yearly meeting, to 
 which Burlington quarterly meeting originally belonged. This 
 is the situation of the parties in the quarterly meeting. 
 
 We come then to the Chesterfield monthly meeting ; and I 
 will call the attention of the court to the testimony of Samuel 
 Emlen, for a detail of the circumstances which took place at 
 this meeting. I do not mean to go into all the evidence on this 
 head ; it is abundant, and mainly of the same character ; but 
 from the testimony of a single witness we shall obtain all the 
 important facts necessary for a clear understanding of v\'hat then 
 occurred. The witness says, vol. I. Ev. p. 324, *' Difficulties 
 and disturbances have arisen within the monthly and prepara- 
 tive meetings of Chesterfield, which have resulted in a secession 
 or separation of a number of persons there from the society of 
 Friends. I was present at Chesterfield monthly meeting in ninth 
 month, 1827. The business on minute was gone through with- 
 out collision, so far as I have any remembrance. But when, as 
 I hoped, the meeting was about closing quietly, a person, a 
 member of that meeting, made a request for a certificate of 
 removal for his son to the monthly meeting of Green street. As 
 far as I recollect, it was slated that that monthly meeting had 
 been dissolved or laid down, some time before, by Philadelphia 
 quarterly meeting, of which it had been a branch, and the mem- 
 bers thereof attached to the monthly meeting held for the Nor- 
 thern District, and this fact 1 suppose must have been known by 
 common repute to most or all present. I think it was proposed, 
 that the certificate should be addressed to the monthly meeting 
 for the Northern District ; but some persons present assuming to 
 question the fact, William Newbold gave information that he 
 was present at the quarterly meeting of Philadelphia in the pre- 
 ceding fifth month, when the monthly meeting of Green street 
 was dissolved, or laid down, by that quarterly meeting. Some 
 person or persons then present said, that no official notice had 
 been received of the laying down of that meeting, and still urged 
 the appointment of a committee to prepare the certificate to be 
 directed as first requested. This continued to be objected to, 
 and it was not done. The meeting was adjourned in the usual 
 
102 
 
 manner, but a number of persons staid behind in the house, and 
 from what afterwards appeared, I suppose undertook to act as 
 a monthly meeting. I was not present at the usual time of hold- 
 ing that meeting the succeeding month, but understood, either 
 the evening of that day or the next morning, that the business 
 of the meeting was not transacted owing to interruption, and 
 therefore the meeting was adjourned to next day. I went to the 
 adjourned meeting, which was held quietly and without opposi- 
 tion, although a few of those who had taken part in the opposi- 
 tion to the order of society were present. I was at that monthly 
 meeting in eleventh month, 1827. The regular clerk took his 
 seat without opposition, although those who had opposed the 
 order and discipline in that meeting were generally present. I 
 think it was in the course of reading the minutes of the preced- 
 ing month, that a person who had taken part in the disorderly 
 proceedings previously, on a minute being read naming Samuel 
 Bunting as agent of the monthly meeting at Chesterfield to the 
 Asylum in his stead, (he having been released at his own request, 
 as it appeared) rose and said, that, meaning the releasement, 
 was not all he had requested and desired, or to that effect, and 
 wished to know whether a certain bond which he, as agent for 
 Chesterfield monthly meeting, had given for securing payment 
 of the expenses of a person placed in the Asylum by that month- 
 ly meeting, had been taken up and cancelled ; thus appearing to 
 acknowledge the meeting then sitting, with David Clark as its 
 clerk, to be the real monthly meeting of Chesterfield. When 
 this monthly meeting was closed, a number of the persons dis- 
 posed to separate, or who had theretofore acted disorderly, re- 
 mained together. 1 should have observed before, that the usual 
 reports from the preparative meetings of Trenton, Stony Brook 
 and East Branch were handed in to the clerk, but those which 
 ought to have come from Chesterfield preparative meeting, and 
 Bordentown, were not produced. The person who acted as clerk 
 at Chesterfield preparative meeting, on (heir being asked for, 
 said, he did not consider this, meaning the present meeting, as 
 the proper monthly meeting of Chesterfield. I think I was also 
 at that meeting in the next month following, being twelfth 
 month 1827, and the regular clerk took his seat as before, as 
 far as 1 recollect. I do not now recollect any thing very parti- 
 
103 
 
 cular as occurring at that meeting. I believe the business went 
 on quietly, though I will not be very certain. 1 should have 
 stated, before alluding to the meeting of twelfth month, that 
 the members of Burlington quarterly meeting, convened at the 
 usual time in eleventh month, for the purpose of holding the 
 quarterly meeting ; but a number of persons being present, com- 
 ing»into the meeting, who were known to be under appointment 
 from the assembly then recently held at Green street, and also 
 some others of the same class, some of whom were known to be 
 under dealings or disowned by the respective monthly meetings of 
 which they were or had been members, and they refusing to 
 withdraw, when requested so to do, the meeting, of both men 
 and women, was adjourned to Burlington, to the following sixth 
 day, which I think was the 30th of the month, when and where 
 the quarterly meeting was quietly held, and among other busi- 
 ness then transacted, a committee was appointed to visit the 
 subordinate meetings." 
 
 From the testimony of this and other witnesses, it also appears 
 . that the " Hicksite" party in the Chesterfield monthly meeting, 
 who are spoken of as remaining behind in Oth and 11th months, 
 after the meeting had adjourned, organized themselves as a 
 monthly meeting of the new society, and one of their first acts, 
 as appears by their own minute under date of 9th month 1827, 
 was to appoint representatives to attend their " contemplated 
 yearly meeting," to be held in the month following. 
 
 The separation in the Chesterfield monthly meeting appears 
 to have taken place, pretty much as the other had. The " Hicks- 
 ite" party complain of the " Orthodox," that w-hen a certificate 
 was applied for, to be directed to the Green street meeting in 
 Philadelphia, the clerk did not make a minute, because it was 
 there repcesented that that monthly meeting had been laid down 
 by its quarterly meeting. This has been represented as a most 
 outrageous proceeding, and David Clark the clerk of the meeting, 
 has been denounced as a pope in consequence of it. David 
 Clark being the clerk of the Chesterfield meeting, he was in point 
 of fact, the presiding officer, for they have no presiding officer 
 unless it be the clerk. It was well known to the persons present, 
 that the Green street meeting was laid down, and that this pro- 
 position for preparing the certificate was brought forward for the 
 
104 
 
 purpose of producing a separation in the meeting. The clerk 
 therefore could not consistently with the discipline and order of 
 the society, make such a minute as the " Hicksite" party wished, 
 because no such monthly meeting as Green street existed as 
 a part of the society of Friends. He did not enter the minute, 
 and he could not have done it, without a violation of his duty and 
 of the order and discipline of the society. An immediate and 
 total separation does not appear to have followed, for though 
 the " Hicksite" party organized themselves as a meeting of the 
 new society, with Jediah Middleton as their clerk, yet they con- 
 tinued to meet with friends until the 12th month following, when 
 they became entirely distinct. The meeting of the " Hicksite" 
 party, united itself to their yearly meeting, held in Green and 
 Cheiry streets, and became a constituent member of it ; while 
 the Chesterfield monthly meeting of Friends remained a branch 
 of the Burlington quarter to which it always belonged, and which 
 is one of the quarters composing the Arch street yearly meeting. 
 The question now is, which is the original meeting ? This can- 
 not depend on the fact which party left the house. They say 
 that we are the seceders because we withdrew, that because we 
 left the house, we are separatists. This is a very convenient 
 argument for them; they work it both ways. In the yearly 
 meeting when they withdrew, it is a matter of no consequence, it 
 does not make them separatists, but when in the monthly meeting 
 we are compelled to leave the house in order to hold our meeting 
 in quietness and order, then it becomes all-important, and the 
 fact of our withdrawing makes us separatists and seceders. 
 The fact however is, that the separation took place in 9th 
 month, before Friends were obliged to leave the house, which 
 was not until the 12th month following. In the 10th month 
 1827, the " Hicksite" party staid behind after the monibly meet- 
 ing had been regularly closed, organized themselves as a meeting 
 of the new society, and sent representatives to " their contempla- 
 ted yearly meeting^* The truth is, that the question which is 
 the original meeting, does not depend on the withdrawal, the 
 place of meeting, or on the adjournment, nor on the clerk's going 
 
 » See minute of the monthly meeting of the " Hicksites" held 10th month 1827. 
 Exhibit, L. 2. 
 
105 
 
 with those who withdraw, or staying with those who remain ; 
 these are not nnaterial : but it depends upon the motive and ob- 
 ject of tiie withdrawal. If they withdraw, or remain behind to 
 form a new meeting, this is what gives an important character 
 to the act ; but if they withdraw merely to transact business 
 connected with the superior meetings to which they originally 
 belonged, this is not a withdrawing that can affect their rights. 
 It seems that the " Hicksite" party in the monthly meeting at- 
 tempted to remove Mr. Clark, and to appoint a new officer, 
 because he did not make a minute of the certificate which had 
 been applied for to Green street. This attempt was disorderly, 
 and contrary both to discipline and usage. Mr. Clark had been 
 regularly appointed for a year, he acted in the conscientious 
 discharge of his duly, according to the discipline, and they had 
 no right to remove him in this way. At the meeting in ninth 
 month, after the business of the monthly meeting had been regu- 
 larly closed, the " Hicksite" party got together and appointed a 
 clerk ; and when they met in tenth month, this new clerk 
 took his seat at the table, nearly one hour before the time of 
 gathering, and continued there, and acted in defiance of the 
 regular clerk of the monthly meeting. The whole of these pro- 
 ceedings are decidedly of a party character, and evince clearly 
 that the " Hicksite" party were acting as a new and distinct 
 society. 
 
 This leads us in the next place to the proceedings which took 
 place in the preparative meeting of Chesterfield ; and I refer the 
 court to the evidence of Samuel Craft for a full and fair narrative 
 of all the important facts which occurred there. The witness 
 says, "In twelfth month, 1827, a committee appointed at Bur- 
 lington quarterly meeting, and also a committee appointed in 
 Chesterfield monthly meeting to visit and assist their subordinate 
 meetings, both attended the preparative meeting held at Borden- 
 town at the usual time, where there were a considerable num- 
 ber of persons who were members of Chesterfield preparative 
 meeting present, comprising some of the same characters that 
 acted in the disorderly proceedings of the Chesterfield monthly 
 meeting of the tenth month ; and after the meeting had set a 
 considerable length of time, but before any friend on the upper 
 seat in the meeting had shaken hands, which is our usual mode 
 
106 
 
 of closing our meetings for worship, or before any friend had vo- 
 cally stated that it was the usual time to transact the concerns 
 of the preparative meeting, most of the members rose hastily from 
 their seats and went up stairs where the business of the prepar- 
 ative meeting is usually transacted. Those who were there in 
 attendance as committees, notwithstanding the unprecedented 
 manner in which the members of the meeting had retired, 
 believed it best to follow them. When the committees got up 
 stairs, the clerk had opened or was about to open the preparative 
 meeting. It was then stated to the meeting that there were two 
 committees then in attendance, viz. one from the quarterly and 
 the other from the monthly meeting, which had established that 
 preparative meeting, and if the clerk was acting as clerk of that 
 preparative meeting held in subordination to those meetings 
 mentioned, we had minutes of our appointment which we wished 
 to present to the meeting. They did not seem disposed to give 
 us any information respecting the character in which they were 
 acting, and urged the clerk to proceed with the business, which 
 they shortly went through and closed the meeting. But before 
 the meeting was closed, one or more of the committee in atten- 
 dance remonstrated against these disorderly proceedings. 
 
 " On the following day, these same committees, or most of them 
 who were then present, attended Chesterfield preparative meet- 
 ing, and after James Brown, who was then at the table, had 
 opened the meeting, and was about to proceed with the business, 
 one of the committee present, that was under appointment from 
 both quarterly and monthly meetings, stated to the meeting that 
 there were then present committees from Burlington quarterly 
 meeting, and Chesterfield monthly meeting, appointed to visit the 
 subordinate meetings thereof, and that if the person then at the 
 table, was acting as clerk of Chesterfield preparative meeting, 
 held in subordination to the quarterly and monthly meetings just 
 mentioned, they [the committee] had minutes of their appoint- 
 ment in these meetings respectively, which the individual was 
 ready to present, if the person [clerk] was so acting. The meet- 
 ing, or those who appeared to assume to transact the business, 
 declined giving any direct answer to the enquiry. Some indivi- 
 duals observed that they knew of no such appointment made in 
 Burlington quarterly meeting. A friend, one of the committee, 
 
107 
 
 then observed that ov.'ing to circumstances that had transpired in 
 the quarterly meeting in the preceding eleventh month, the quar- 
 terly meeting had been under the necessity of adjourning its 
 sitting to Burlington, and in the adjourned sitting so held, in 
 taking into consideration the painful circumstances that the mem- 
 bers within its borders were then in, it had then and there made 
 such an appointment. A person then replied that there was no 
 use in discussing the subject, for it was well understood. This 
 person I am pretty clear was Jediali Middleton. It was then 
 suggested whether it was not giving countenance to such disor- 
 ders, to remain in the meeting house, when the persons of this 
 description were transacting what they assumed to call the busi- 
 ness of Chesterfield preparative meeting. (I do not profess to 
 give the Avords verbatim, but the substance I do.) After several 
 sentiments being expressed, it was concluded that it would be more 
 consistent with the due support of good order, to retire to ano- 
 ther place and transact the business of Chesterfield preparative 
 meeting. This view of the subject anjong men friends was com- 
 municated to the women's meeting, with which they accorded, 
 and the members, both men and women, of that preparative 
 meeting, who were disposed to adhere to and support the estab- 
 lished discipline of the society, together with the committees in 
 attendance, withdrew from the meeting house and retired to a 
 private house not far off, and when there assembled the mem- 
 bers of that preparative meeting first appointed a clerk, and then 
 proceeded to transact the business of Chesterfield preparative 
 meeting ; after going through which, they took into consideration 
 where the next preparative meeting should be held, and it was 
 concluded either to hold it there, or that the subject should be 
 introduced into the monthly meeting for consideration, and that 
 it should be held at such place as the monthly meeting should 
 direct. But before we withdrew fi'om the meeting house, it was 
 distinctly and explicitly stated that we withdrew to avoid conten- 
 tion, and in order to transact the business consistently, and that 
 we considered that those, who had been accessary to our being 
 under the necessity of thus withdrawing, were intruding on our 
 rights, and by so retiring from the house, we did not thereby re- 
 linquish any rights that we were justly entitled to." vol. I. Ev.pp. 
 338-340. Here then we have a full development of all the cir- 
 
108 
 
 cumstances which took place at the preparative meeting of Ches- 
 terfield, when the separation occurred. Was there any act done 
 there by which we ceased to be that preparative meeting, or 
 admitted the right of the adverse party to this character? Cer- 
 tainly not. Friends withdrew from the house because they could 
 not, consistently with discipline, countenance the proceedings of 
 those persons who had seceded from the original and proper head, 
 and attached themselves to the new yearly meeting of the 
 " Hicksites," held in Green street. They withdrew for the very 
 purpose of maintaining and continuing their connexion with the 
 original monthly, quarterly and yearly meeting, of which the 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting was a constituent branch at 
 the time when the fund now in controversy was created. They 
 withdrew to maintain their subordination to these meetings, to 
 which the discipline of the society bound them to be subordinate. 
 The " Hicksite" party in that preparative meeting had deter- 
 mined to go over to the new society, and its new meetings, and 
 w^ere then acting in subordination to and as a part of it. What 
 then was to be done ? Must friends remain, and go over with 
 them to the new society ? There was no other alternative left, 
 but to withdraw, and they accordingly did so, stating at the same 
 time, that by so doing they relinquished none of their rights, but 
 that being compelled by the necessity of the case they retired 
 from the house for the purpose of transacting the business of 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting in connexion with its proper 
 yearly and quarterly and monthly meeting. Was there any 
 thing in this act by which they forfeited their character to the 
 true preparative meeting ? So far from it, that the facts are the 
 ver}-^ reverse. It is all important to look at the motive which 
 induced them to take this step, and in doing so, we find that it 
 was with the avowed object of maintaining that character, and 
 of transacting their business in harmony and order, and consist- 
 ently with the rules of their discipline. 
 
 Which then, I would ask, is the same preparative meeting 
 with that for whose use the fund was originally created ? Is it 
 the one which v^e represent, or is it the adverse party 1 They 
 cannot both be the same preparative meeting, one must be a 
 spurious meeting, the other the real preparative meeting of 
 Chesterfield. What have we done to lose our rights, or to 
 
109 
 
 change our character, or that they should assume the rights or 
 privileges which belong to us. They nnake no charge against 
 us of having changed our religious principles, or departed from 
 the society of Friends, or its discipline ; nor of having thrown 
 off our subordination or connection with the proper yearly 
 meeting. All that they can or do allege, is, that we would not 
 remain in the meeting house, and unite in the transaction of 
 business with men who were determined to withdraw from the 
 regular and established meetings of the society. But the charge 
 we make against them, and which, I think, we have proved to be 
 true, is a much more important one. We say they have attached 
 themselves to a monthly, quarterly, and a yearly meeting, which 
 have seceded, have separated themselves from the society of 
 Friends. We belong to the society and to the meetings to which 
 we always belonged. You have joined a new one. We adhere 
 to our old principles and to our old meetings, you have attached 
 yourselves to new ones. We do not pretend that they are to 
 lose their rights, in consequence merely of what passed in the 
 yearly meeting of 1827. But we contend that the loss they 
 have sustained, is in consequence of their own acts : of their own 
 free choice to join the new society and its meetings. After the 
 separation which took place from the society and the establish- 
 ment of the new meeting in tenth month 1827, they had their 
 option either to remain with the old society or to join the new 
 one. If they had not joined the new one, but remained firm 
 with the old society, and changed neither their principles nor 
 their connection, no blame could have attached to them, they 
 would have retained all their rights and privileges as members 
 of the Chesterfield preparative meeting. It is on account of their 
 own act, their own voluntary election, that we say they have 
 lost their rights. As individuals they have no right to this fund, 
 as members of the preparative meeting for whose use it was 
 created, they have rights to it, but when they cease to be mem- 
 bers of that preparative meeting subordinate to the monthly, 
 quarterly and yearly meeting, to which it belonged when the 
 fund was created, then those rights cease. We insist that by 
 separating from their head, and absolving themselves from its 
 authority, and taking a new one, they have ceased to be mem- 
 bers of the original preparative meeting of Chesterfield, and 
 
no 
 
 have lost their rights. It is not material to inquire whether 
 they have forfeited their rights, or lost them. I do not contend 
 that they have forfeited them, but that they have lost them, and 
 for our purpose the effect is the same. 
 
 A member of the society of Friends, has no rights which he 
 can transfer when he ceases to be a member; if he withdraws 
 from the society he ceases to have those rights ; if he returns 
 again, and unites with them, his rights are renewed. We do 
 not ask the judgment of this court, to forfeit the rights of the 
 " Hicksite" party ; we only ask the court to say that these men 
 having ceased to be members of the preparative meeting of 
 Chesterfield, for whose use the fund was created, cease to 
 have any right of control or disposition of it. The court have 
 no alternative but to give it to one party or the other. It belongs 
 to the same preparative meeting for which it was originally 
 designed. It cannot belong to both ; both cannot be that one 
 same preparative meeting ; one must be the true preparative 
 meeting, the other a counterfeit. If we are the true preparative 
 meeting it belongs to us ; if we are not we have no right to it. 
 But what can deprive us of our character, as the same prepara- 
 tive meeting ? It is not necessary that the same individuals or 
 the same number of individuals should remain, in order to consti- 
 tute the same preparative meeting, for the individuals may 
 change and the meeting remain the same. Nor does it depend 
 upon numbers; a majority, or a minority may separate and 
 unite with other societies or meetings under a new head, but 
 those who go away cannot deprive those who remain of the 
 character of the same preparative meeting. It matters not how 
 many go, or how many stay ; if five remain, or if only one 
 remain, the trust must remain for the benefit of that one. The 
 gentleman contends that the majority is with them, and that 
 the minority cannot have the character of the true preparative 
 meeting. They have yet to show that they are the majority, 
 but suppose they were, will the gentleman's argument hold 1 
 Suppose a majority of the meeting had become Presbyterians, 
 would they still be the same preparative meeting or could they 
 take the property with them ? If they had turned Roman 
 Catholics, would they still be members of the same preparative 
 meeting of Friends ? This would be absurd and preposterous. 
 
Ill 
 
 The whole matter depends on the question whether they continue 
 members of the same society, and attached to the same prepara- 
 tive meeting. If they have lost this character they have lost 
 their right to the property. If they may lose it by changing 
 their faith, their religious doctrines, they may lose it in any 
 other way by which they cease to be members of the same 
 society, and connected with the same head. If we have not 
 shown the fact that they are not members of the same prepara- 
 tive meeting, we have failed in making out our case and must sub- 
 mit. But we insist that there cannot be a right in any majority, 
 (even supposing the " Hicksite" party to have it,) simply because 
 they are a majority, to take the control and disposition of this 
 fund. It belongs to the same preparative meeting, for whose use 
 the fund was created, and the " Hicksite" party cannot be that 
 same meeting, because they have left it, and attached themselves 
 to a new yearly meeting, and a new head which did not exist 
 when the fund was created. 
 
 I do not think it necessary to follow the learned and eloquent 
 counsel over the ground which he took in examining the disci- 
 pline of the society, and endeavouring to elude the control which 
 the superior has over the inferior meeting. He mistook the 
 ground upon which we intended to rely ; he supposed we meant 
 to insist upon a forfeiture in consequence of the setting up and 
 establishing, by others, a new yearly meeting. Not so. We 
 set up against them their ovm acts : we rely on these to make 
 out our case. How can it affect this question, whether the 
 superior meeting have power over an inferior meeting to lay it 
 down or not? It is true the discipline of the society gives the 
 superior meeting unlimited control ; it sets no bounds to the au- 
 thority ; yet I do not mean to contend that the superior meeting 
 has original and absolute control over the property of the infe- 
 rior. We do not ask the court so to decide, nor whether they 
 have any control at all. It has no bearing at all on this ques- 
 tion. We are looking for the character of the claimants now 
 before the court ; what is the character they assume, and what 
 is the character which justly belongs to them. This does not 
 depend upon the power of superior over inferior meetings ; it 
 depends upon the acts of the respective parties, and when they 
 
112 
 
 cease to be members of the original society, tlieir rights to its 
 property cease, whether this inferiority exists or not. 
 
 The gentleman has extolled the beauty of the Quaker disci- 
 pline, and of their system of government. I agree with him. It 
 has many things in it worthy of admiration. I admire it for its 
 simplicity and beauty ; but I cannot admire it for its weakness, 
 and if the discoveries which the gentleman has made be correct, 
 it is, in one point, very weak. The gentleman has discovered, 
 it seems, that the superior meeting has no control or authority 
 over the inferior; his first position was that they had no control, 
 but to give advice. But he piesently grows bolder and says, 
 they cannot even give advice, vnless their advice is previo7isIy 
 asked. He tells your honours, that a monthly meeting cannot 
 advise a preparative meeting, unless the latter choose to ask 
 that advice. They may see them departing from the discipline, 
 from the principles of the society, or doing wTong in any other 
 way, yet they cannot interfere unless the preparative meeting 
 invite them to do so. If this be the case, it is certainly a great 
 defect. But does the discipline tell us any thing of this sort ? 
 Does it recognize this independence and irresponsibility in the in- 
 ferior meetings 1 Far otherwise ; the paragraph which I cited yes- 
 terday, speaks a language directly the reverse. It says in express 
 terms, " The connection and subordination of our meetings for 
 discipline are thus : preparative meetings are accountable to the 
 monthly ; monthly to the quartei'ly ; and the quarterly to the 
 yearly meeting. So that if the yearly meeting be at any time 
 dissatisfied with the proceedings of any inferior meeting, or a 
 quarterly meeting with the proceedings of either of its monthly 
 meetings, or a monthly meeting with the proceedings of either of 
 its preparative meetings, such meeting or meetings ought with 
 readiness and meekness to render an account thereof when re- 
 quired." Here is nothing like the inferior meeting asking advice, 
 but at any time when the superior meeting is dissatisfied with 
 the proceedings of an inferior, it may call it to account, and the 
 inferior is to answer that call with meekness and readiness. 
 Look at the practice of the society ; do they not constantly ap- 
 point committees to advise and assist the inferior meetings ? 
 Has not this been the custom from the earliest periods of its ex- 
 istence ? Fortunately for them, the counsel has discovered their 
 
113 
 
 error on this point. It is time they should leave every meeting 
 to its own control and pleasure; and if the inferior meetings 
 never choose to ask advice, the superior must not attempt to 
 give it; they are fiee from all control. Such an idea never was 
 entertained in the society. When the yearly meeting appointed 
 its committee in 1827, the " Hicksites" never started this as an 
 objection. No man in the yearly meeting had any idea of such 
 a thing. When that committee went down to the quarterly and 
 monthly meetings, v.'ere they told, that as they had not asked 
 the advice and assistance of the yearly meeting, it had no right 
 to send a committee down 1 Did the inferior meetings say, ' When 
 we ask the advice of the yearly meeting, it may send you, but 
 until then you have no right to advise us'? — no such thing. 
 Great as was the hostility of the " Hicksite" party to this com- 
 mittee, such an objection was never once advanced. They were 
 opposed to it on another ground ; they refused to receive the 
 advice of the committee on the ground that a separation had 
 taken place, and that it was not appointed by the yearly meet- 
 ing to which they vvere attached. If superior meetings can give 
 no advice but when they are asked for it, their superiority is 
 nominal, and the subordination and accountability prescribed by 
 the discipline are mere empty sounds. I cannot admire this sys- 
 tem for its weakness, though I may for its simplicity. When it 
 is represented to me as the tie which is to unite the society, and 
 hold it together as one body, and yet that there is no bond of 
 union, no responsibility, no subordination in its provisions ; when 
 the gentleman tells me, that the superior meetings have no au- 
 thority or control over the inferior ; that each one may act as it 
 pleases, independent of all the rest, and yet that this is a system 
 of church government, I cannot say I admire it. And I suspect 
 that the gentleman will never prevail, even with his own party, 
 to adopt these notions. Their superior meetings will not cease 
 to exercise control over the inferior, nor will they consent to ap- 
 point committees to give advice only when their advice is asked. 
 Halliday Jackson in his testimony, (vol. It. p. 142) tells us, that 
 since their separation in 1827, the " Hicksite" yearly meeting 
 has already appointed three such committees, and I presume 
 they will continue to do so, whenever they think it expedient, 
 without consulting the inferior meetings. 
 
 p 
 
114 
 
 It cannot be of any importance in the decision of this cause, 
 that the " Hicksite" party have got possession and control of this 
 school. The gentleman seems to think, that because the school 
 house and school are in their hands, they must be considered as 
 entitled to this money. This, if it please the court, is the very 
 right in question. If they are the same preparative meeting, 
 they are entitled to it ; but if they are usurpers, and have taken 
 from us our rights and property, without the authority of law, it 
 must be restored to us. It is idle to say, that as we have taken 
 possession of the property, and have it in our hands, it is ours, 
 and we will keep it. This is a very weak argument, and a very 
 bad one ; one which would cover almost any species of injustice. 
 The question before the court is one of right, and not of posses- 
 sion. Does not the right of the trustees of the school, and of the 
 treasurer, depend on the character of the persons who appoint 
 them ? The " Hicksite" party say, that they have trustees, 
 and that these trustees have appointed their treasurer ; that 
 these officers have been regulaily appointed, and that therefore 
 they are clothed with authority to demand this money. Be it 
 so ; their officers can only derive their authority from the meet- 
 ing which appointed them, and if that meeting has no right to 
 control the fund, its officers can have none. We also have trus- 
 tees, and a treasurer, and we want the money to use for the 
 purpose for which it was intended, to apply it to the use of those 
 who are entitled to it. The opposite party tell us, that the 
 school is doing great good ; that they apply the fund to the pur- 
 pose for which it was created. Supposing this to be the fact, 
 will it not be properly applied if they have to give it up ? We 
 wish to obtain the money for the purpose of using it as originally 
 contemplated in the trust, and if we do not so use it, there is a 
 power to compel us. The right of these trustees, and of the 
 treasurer, must depend entirely on the character of those who 
 appointed them. If the character of these is good, if they are 
 the same Chesterfield preparative meeting recognized in the 
 trust, then their title is good ; if they are not, they have neither 
 right nor title to this property. 
 
 I have one more remark to make on this part of my subject, 
 and then I have done with it. The trust cannot change, although 
 the trustee may change ; and if the trustee live in Philadelphia 
 
115 
 
 or in London, or elsewhere, the arm of this court is strong enough, 
 and long enough, to prevent the fund from being diverted from 
 the purpose for which it was raised. If the person who holds 
 this money, were to attempt to convey it away for the use of a 
 meeting in London, or in Philadelphia, or any where else, other 
 than for the Chesterfield preparative meeting, he could not do it. 
 If the attempt was made, this court would grant an injunction, 
 and annul the conveyance. The principle is a very simple and 
 safe one, the trustee may change, the trust cannot ; this court will 
 take care of the trust fund, will follow it into the hands of a third 
 person or wherever it may be conveyed, and see that it is faith- 
 fully applied to the purposes for which it was originally intended. 
 
 With these remarks I shall leave this part of the case, not 
 doubting but the industry of the court will supply any deficiency 
 which may have occurred in my examination of this subject. I 
 think I have now made out my first proposition, viz. that a 
 separation of the " Hie ksite" party from the society of Friends 
 has taken place ; that the meeting held annually in Green street, 
 is not a continuance of the original yearly meeting of Philadelphia, 
 but that it is a separate, independent and distinct meeting, en- 
 tirely unconnected with the other. This being the case, the 
 quarterly, monthly and preparative meetings, connected with and 
 composing it, must be of the same character, must be separat- 
 ists, and subject to all the legal consequences of that character. 
 
 I shall next contend that this schism which ha& taken place, 
 has been produced by a difference of opinion on religious doctrines. 
 Of the facts of the separation and t he circumstances under which 
 it occurred, we are already in possession ; we are now to look to 
 the cause which gave rise to it. We allege one cause, they 
 attribute it to others. W^e contend that it originated in a differ- 
 ence of religious doctrines, they say that it arose from violations 
 of the discipline. J>iet us then proceed to the investigation, and 
 see if we can ascertain the true source of the unfortunate state 
 of things which exist among them. 
 
 And here it will probably be supposed that I have a difficult 
 task to perform ; indeed, the gentleman who preceded me has 
 proclaimed that I am about to attempt a task, which is not only 
 difficult, but impossible ; that I cannot ascertain what are the 
 doctrines of the primitive Friends, nor the doctrines of the society 
 
116 
 
 now, nor of the parties before this court ; that there is neither 
 test nor standard by which their doctrines can be tried, and that 
 therefore it is impossible to ascertain what they are. But if I 
 am not much mistaken, I shall lay before this court a body of evi- 
 dence upon this point, which must carry conviction to every 
 mind. If credit is due to human testimony, to written documents, 
 to solemn declarations of faith, officially made, to the proceedings 
 of the yearly meeting, or to years of experience in religious soci- 
 ety, I think I shall satisfy the court, not only that the society of 
 Friends have fundamental doctrines, a belief in which is essential 
 to membership, but also a departure from these fundamental 
 doctrines on the part of the " Hicksites." Upon this branch of 
 the subject I shall, in the first place, lay before the court a doc- 
 ument proceeding from the party themselves, of a character 
 which must place them in an unenviable predicament. Fortu- 
 nately for the cause of truth, we have possession of a document 
 that can leave no room to doubt as to the real ground of the sepa- 
 ration. When that party thought lit to separate from the soci- 
 ety in the Philadelphia yearly meeting, " to make a quiet retreat," 
 in a moment of honest feeling and candour, witiiout knowing the 
 legal consequences of the act, the}' thought proper, in order to 
 justify their conduct to the world, and especially to the members 
 of their own society, to prepare and publish an address shewing 
 the true grounds of their secession. They issued this address 
 for the very purpose of telling the whole community what were 
 the causes which induced them to take the important step of 
 withdrawing from the society with which they had been con- 
 nected. It is their manifesto, and they must stand by it ; they 
 are solemnly bound by the declarations it contains. It is not a 
 hasty or sudden, but a deliberate and sober act ; it is not the act 
 of one individual, or of a few individuals, but the act of the whole 
 body there assembled, uniting in one common address, and thereby 
 solemnly declaring to the world the principles upon which they 
 have separated. The document to which 1 allude is the address 
 issued by the " Hicksite" party, at their meeting in Green street 
 meeting house, in fourth month, 1827. It is to be found in the 
 appendix to vol. II. of Ev. p. 453. It holds this language : 
 " With this great object in view, our attention has been turned to 
 the present condition of this yearly meeting, and its diiferent 
 
117 
 
 branches, and by evidence on every hand we are constrained to 
 declare that the unity of this body is interrupted ; that a division 
 exists among us, developing in its progress, views which appear 
 incompatible with each other, and feelings averse to a reconcili- 
 ation. Doctrines held by one •part of society, and which ice be- 
 lieve to be sound and edifying, are pronounced by the other part 
 to be unsound and spurious. From this has resulted a state of 
 things that has proved destructive of peace and tranquillity, and 
 in which the fruits of love and condescension have been blasted, 
 and the comforts and enjoyments even of social intercourse great- 
 ly diminished. Measures have been pursued which we deem 
 oppressive, and in their nature and tendency calculated to under- 
 mine and destroy those benefits, to establish and perpetuate 
 which, should be the purpose of every religious association." 
 Here is language too plain and explicit to be misunderstood or 
 evaded. It is a clear and positive declaration that doctrines 
 formed the original ground of the separation. Whatever subse- 
 quent difficulties they may complain of, or whatever " measures 
 may have been pursued which they deemed oppressive," they 
 declare them all to have resulted from the differences which ex- 
 isted in reference to religious doctrines. Doctrines which one 
 part considered sound and edifying, are considered by the other 
 to be unsound and spurious; and ^rom this cause, all the difficul- 
 ties took their rise. Can there be a doubt then, that here was 
 a division, a schism, in this religious society, arising from disunion 
 on matters of faith, on fundamental doctrines ? The seceders 
 themselves so declare it to the world ; it is now too late to deny 
 it, and attempt to find some other cause. Their declaration is 
 either true or false. Will they acknowledge it to be false? No. 
 I will not say, they dare not acknowledge it to be so, for I know 
 not what they dare not do, but they cannot now change their 
 ground, and the attempt to do so which has been made cannot 
 avail them any thing; they stand fully committed, and although 
 their ingenious counsel have used much adroitness in endeavour- 
 ing to make it appear that it was not doctrine which produced 
 the separation, but violations of the discipline, yet their own clients 
 fully admit the point for which we contend, viz. that doctrine is 
 at the foundation of this schism. It is in vain to go back to the 
 year 1819, to the appointment of a clerk in the yearly meeting of 
 
118 
 
 1827, to the preparation of the extracts by the meeting for suf- 
 ferings in 1822, or to any other period or fact, and endeavour to 
 manufacture one or all into the cause of the schism. Here is 
 their own admission, their own voluntary publication given to the 
 world as the solemn declaration by which they meant to stand or 
 fall. We have only to point you to that, to answer all that has 
 been said about violations of the discipline ; the party must stand 
 or fall by it, there is no possibility of escape. It is the standard 
 by which they must be tried ; a standard too of their own erec- 
 tion. A party cannot publish to the world one state of facts, 
 and then come before the court and rely on another state of facts. 
 It is proved then by their own voluntary confession that the con- 
 troversy was about doctrines, and that this produced the separa- 
 tion. I shall presently enquire what the doctrines were which 
 the " Hicksite" party held to be sound and edifying, and which 
 the others pronounced to be unsound and spurious. I might re- 
 fer the court to a great body of evidence in the depositions of 
 the witnesses, proving the same position, but when we are in pos- 
 session of a document so full and explict, and coming from the 
 party themselves, it is infinitely superior to the testimony of any 
 witness. There is, however, one part of the evidence to which 
 I will call your attention. Abraham Lower, one of their own 
 witnesses, a " Hicksite" preacher, infected with their new doc- 
 trines, and who has taken a very active part in the secession, 
 he informs us that the difficulties and divisions in the society did 
 arise from doctrines. As this is the testimony of one of their lead- 
 ers, and very short, I beg leave to read it. The witness having 
 stated that the address of the " Hicksite" party in fourth month, 
 1827, was united with and issued by their meeting, this question 
 was asked — " That address in alluding to the circumstances 
 which interrupted the unity of the yearly meeting, and produced a 
 division, describes, as one of the causes, in these w^ords, ' doctrines 
 held by one part of society and which we believe to be sound and 
 edifying are pronounced by the other part to be unsound and 
 spurious. From this has resulted a state of things that has 
 proved destructive of peace and tranquillity, and in which the 
 fruits of love and condescension have been blasted, and the com- 
 forts and enjoyments even of social intercourse greatly diminished.' 
 Will you please to state what these doctrines are to which the 
 
119 
 
 address here alludes?" The witness answers. "I think it not 
 very lii<ely that I shall. But the circumstances stated I believe 
 to be matter of fact. It was on account of doctrines that that 
 body of elders were organized as a party against Elias Hicks; 
 who were as before stated a part of that caucus held at the close 
 of the meeting for sulferings. The same individuals who were 
 most active in producing the rupture that then occurred in that 
 unwarrantable attack upon Elias Hicks, and more indirectly, 
 though really, upon the monthly meeting of Jericho, of which 
 Elias Hicks was a member, and had given him a certificate of its 
 unity with him, which of course included their approbation of 
 the doctrines he preached, and of Westbury quarter, of which 
 Jericho monthly meeting was a branch, and of the yearly meeting 
 of New York. It was on doctrines that Joseph Whitall arraign- 
 ed him before that self constituted body who thus arrayed them- 
 selves in opposition to Elias Hicks, and those who approved of 
 him," &c. Vol. I. Ev. p. 473, 4. 
 
 Here is a candid admission by one of their own preachers, a 
 member of the junto with whom the idea of separation originated, 
 that doctrine was the ground of the separation, and that it was 
 on account of Elias Hicks' doctrines, that the elders of Philadel- 
 phia, against whom so much complaint has been made, took the 
 steps they did in reference to him. 
 
 My next enquiry is, what are the doctrines held by one part 
 of the society, and which they believe to be sound and edifying, 
 but which the other part pronounce to be unsound and spurious. 
 The answer to this enquiry is already so obvious, that any remark 
 of mine would seem almost superfluous. Your honours will per- 
 ceive that Elias Hicks and the opposition to him and his doctrine, 
 is the great burden of complaint with all the witnesses of that 
 party ; their whole cause rests on him and his doctrines. But 
 here we are met with another difficulty ; the learned gentleman 
 who preceded me, gravely assures us that the society of Friends 
 have no doctrines; that the only thing necessary with them is a 
 belief in the light within. Is it not a most astonishing thing, will 
 any man believe it, that this society should be contending about 
 doctrines, that this controversy should actually be carried to such 
 an extent as to produce a severance of the society, and yet that 
 they should have no doctrines about which to contend 1 Have 
 
120 
 
 they doctrines to dispute about, to divide, to sever them, and yet 
 no doctrines to unite in, for the worship of God ? Can any man 
 credit such a contradiction as this ? A society holding no doctrine, 
 nothing but a profession of the inward Jight or divine spirit, 
 leaving every man to beHevc and worship as he thinks fit, with 
 no faith, no rule or test of conscience, or judgment in matters of 
 behef, and yet this very society disputing, contending and even 
 separating about doctrines! Can they suppose they will ever 
 convince this court, or any man of the truth of this allegation ? 
 No. The facts are too stubborn ; if they have doctrines to dis- 
 pute about, we want to hnd out what they are. If they diti'er 
 on points of faith, if the schism has arisen from this cause, one 
 party must have embraced new doctrines, while the other party 
 adhere to the ancient principles of Friends. Here then we have 
 clear ground for the position we have taken before the court. 
 What were these doctrines ? Was it the doctrine of the influ- 
 ence of the divine spirit on the mind of man ? This is not pre- 
 tended by any witness. It is no where alleged that this formed 
 tlie subject of controversy. No. It was the doctrines of Elias 
 Hicks — the doctrines promulgated by him to the world — which 
 he communicated in his letters, and in his public testimonies to 
 those who assembled to hear him, declaring the discoveries he 
 had made, the changes which his views had undergone, and the 
 sentiments he then entertained. It was the doctrine of Elias 
 Hicks which his party considered sound and edifying, and which 
 the other part of the society pronounced to be unsound and spu- 
 rious. The evidence of their own witnesses must satisfy any 
 man, that no other doctrine but Hicks's could have been the 
 subject of controversy. They do not pretend that the " Ortho- 
 dox" hold any doctrines which are unsound or spurious, or which 
 they, the " Hicksite" party, have ever pronounced to be so. 
 The difference must therefore be respecting their own doctrines; 
 the doctrines of Elias Hicks. Our object then, is to discover 
 what these doctrines are, about which the difficulty arose, to 
 show that they are not the doctrines of the society of Friends, 
 but that they have been pronounced by it to be unsound and 
 spurious. It is not necessary that we should put our finger on 
 the precise article of faith, which formed the point of dispute; it 
 is enough if the " Hicksite" party hold doctrines difiering from 
 
121 
 
 the doctrines of the society of Friends, if this fact is made out, 
 all is ascertained which is requisite for the decision of this cause. 
 
 The whole argument of the opposite counsel turns on this one 
 position ; they endeavour to protect and shelter themselves under 
 the idea that their doctrines cannot be tested and shown to be 
 contrary to those of ancient Friends, because, as they allege, the 
 society have no creed or written articles of faith ; this is their 
 whole dependence, they place themselves upon this ground, and 
 if they cannot maintain themselves here, they have no ground 
 whatever to stand upon. But before they took this position, 
 they ought first to have satisfied the court, that the religious 
 doctrines of a society cannot be arrived at, unless they have 
 certain written articles of faith publicly known and subscribed. 
 1 have never before heard any such principle contended for. I 
 have never understood that if you come into court to ascertain 
 the principles of a sect or party, or any other fact, that you 
 must of necessity show written proof If there were no written 
 standard at all, yet if we could show by witnesses that they have 
 a public approved minister or teacher, who is communicating to 
 them doctrines destructive of the fundamental principles of the 
 christian religion, do we not then show fully that the congrega- 
 tion are tinctured with his principles ? And if they remain with 
 him, attend upon his ministry, and officially declare their ap- 
 probation of him, are they not to be considered as holding his 
 doctrines ? Is it necessary in order to enable men to join in the 
 worship of their Creator, that they should have a written creed J 
 If they unite in the great fundamental doctrines of our holy 
 religion, it is sufficient, whether they have a creed or not. It is 
 usual I admit, to have them ; but is it essential 1 May not their 
 rights be as well protected without as with it 1 The question is 
 not whether the society has a creed, but whether they have 
 certain known and fundamental doctrines which they profess to 
 hold as essential, as fundamental. We are not going to pry into 
 the secrets of men hearts to enquire there what their belief is ; 
 our object is to ascertain from their own acts, and from 
 their own declarations, what their doctrines are. If we succeed 
 in this, and show that those doctrines are different from the faith 
 of the primitive Friends, we effect our object. 
 
 What is the Bible but a written creed 1 Is it not the creed of 
 
 Q 
 
122 
 
 every orthodox christian, and if he hold doctrines different from 
 those contained in that book, is there not a standard by which he 
 may be tried ? If then we try the doctrines of Elias Hicks, i)y 
 this standard, can we find a better ? The society of Friends have 
 again and again, declared their willingness that all their doc- 
 trines should be tried by the scriptures, and that whatsoever 
 they did or said, which was contrary thereto, should be condemn- 
 ed as a delusion. But when we attempt to apply this test to 
 Elias Hicks, w^e find that'he is unwilling to abide by it. He tells 
 us expressly, " I am not wilUng that my doctrines should be tried 
 by the scriptures, or the writings of ancient Friends." See vol. I. 
 Ev. p. 215. He thought he knew more than all the apostles, and 
 appears to have had a better opinion of himself, than of all the 
 saints in the calender. Reason, he says, is better than revelation, 
 and revelation good for nothings unless supported by reason. 
 
 He disclaims the revelation of the holy gospel, as a standard 
 to be tried by. He may disclaim, but it will be in vain. The 
 society which he founded may disclaim, but it is for this court 
 to say, whether they have not widely departed from the doctrines 
 and principles of the religious society of Friends, and are no lon- 
 ger to be considered as a part of its communion. 
 
 But we have other standards. Is not the teaching of the ap- 
 proved ministers of the " Hicksite" party a test of the doctrines 
 they hold ? Do we not judge men by the company they keep 1 
 and may we not judge a congregation by the teachers they lis- 
 ten to, and w ilh whom they declare themselves in perfect union 1 
 Would any congregation entertain among them, a minister of re- 
 ligion who preached sentiments adverse to those which they held 
 sacred ? Would they declare their union with, and approbation of 
 his ministry, unless they held the same religious opinions which 
 he delivered weekly, or daily, in their hearing ? The counsel 
 seem to think that in the society of Friends, an individual may 
 preach any doctrine he pleases ; that he may preach universal- 
 ism, or unitarianism ; or if he prefer it, he may preach trinitarian 
 doctrine ; he may select his own doctrine, and preach what he 
 pleases. This is what the opposite party contend for ; but it is 
 impossible that any society should exist upon such principles : 
 there never can be a religious society where the members do 
 not unite in faith, as to their great fundamental principles. We 
 
123 
 
 want no better evidence of the truth of this, than the sad state 
 of facts now before the court. Men cannot unite in worship 
 unless they agree in faith. I mean as to the leading and essential 
 doctrines of religion. This case proves it. What has been the 
 consequence of a contrary state of things ? and what will ever be 
 the consequence of it ? One minister holds forth one doctrine, 
 and another minister a contrary doctrine. Opposition sermons 
 are preached, one denying, and another advocating the doctrines 
 of the atonement and divinity of Jesus Christ. When the cir- 
 cumstances took place in the meetings in Philadelphia, of which 
 the " Hicksite" party complain as an interruption of Elias Hicks 
 and other of their ministers ; what occasioned it 1 It was because 
 they had avowed and preached Unitarian doctrines. The elders 
 felt it their duty to rise and declare that these were not the doc- 
 trines of the society, and to state to the audience what the prin- 
 ciples of Friends on those points of faith were. Let any man 
 seriously put the question to himself, whether he would be wil- 
 ing to belong to such a society, where he must be compelled to 
 hear doctrines, which he holds most sacred, and which he be- 
 lieves essential to his salvation, publicly denied and reprobated. 
 If your honors please, such a state of things is calculated to bring 
 religion itself into disgrace. We are told by the opposite party, 
 that it matters not what doctrines a man holds, or what doc- 
 trines he preaches in our meetings, or whether he holds no doc- 
 trines at all, if his moral conduct is good, and he professes to act 
 under the influence of the Spirit. But how are we to try wheth- 
 er he be under the influence of a true, or of a false spirit ? Is his 
 appealing to reason to satisfy us ? We all know that it is deceit- 
 ful. How often does it mislead ! Many who have been induced 
 by it to imagine themselves in the right way, have found in the 
 end that they were in the wrong. Yet there is a standard to 
 which we may safely appeal and by which we may try doctrines, 
 and this standard is the Bible. But this will not do for Mr. 
 Hicks : other societies may have standards if they choose, but 
 he, and those attached to him, and his doctrines, will have none. 
 But I contend that where a minister publicly communicates 
 to his congregation or meetings, certain rehgious doctrines, and the 
 society to which he belongs gives him a certificate that he is in 
 full unison with them, at the very time that he is preaching those 
 
124 
 
 doctrines, and with a full knowledge of them, that society is ac- 
 countable for his doctrines ; the principles he advocates must be 
 considered theirs, must attach to them, and they be held re- 
 sponsible for them. The society of which Elias Hicks was a 
 member, the society whicli he founded, acted thus towards him. 
 After the separation, after all the controversy respecting his 
 doctrines, and after the schism which those doctrines had occa- 
 sioned, in the year 1828, when he attended their yearly meet- 
 ing at Green street in Philadelphia, they gave him a certificate 
 declaring their full unity with him and his services, thereby iden- 
 tifying themselves with him and his doctrines. I refer the court 
 for proof of this, to the testimony of Thomas Willis, vol. I. Ev. 
 p. 112, 113, and to two of the witnesses of the " Hicksite" party, 
 viz. Abraham Lower, vol. I. Ev. p. 468, and Halliday Jackson, 
 vol. II. Ev. p. 167. From this evidence it is apparent that he 
 was in full union with this new yearly meeting, up to the time 
 of his decease, and that the}^ officially declared their approba- 
 tion of him. 
 
 The gentlemen on the other side, seem to have taken very 
 much the ground of Hicks himself; they disclaim all standards, 
 every thing by which their real opinions on religious doctrines 
 may be tested. If we want to try them by the scriptures, they 
 reject them ; if by the writings of the early Friends, they dis- 
 claim them also. Nothing will answer for them but a written 
 creed ; this they say we have not, and therefore it is impossible 
 for us to prove that their doctrines are not the doctrines of the 
 society of Friends. But this is a very strange and irrational 
 idea. Does not history give us the religious opinions of many 
 religious societies, whose creeds, if they had any, we have never 
 seen 1 Are not the different denominations of religious professors 
 readily distinguished from each other, by persons who have never 
 seen their respective creeds ? What has produced the various 
 denominations of professors? Has it not been a difference of 
 opinion as respects some points of doctrine 1 And are the society 
 of Friends alone an exception to this ? I should like to hear the 
 answer of the gentlemen to this enquiry. Why did Fox, Bar- 
 clay and Penn, leave the established church of England, if not 
 on account of a difference of opinion on some points of faith ? 
 This was one ground of their separation, though they had their 
 
125 
 
 peculiar testimonies on other points beside. It is almost univer- 
 sally the case, that where a separation takes place in a religious 
 society, it arises from a difference in doctrine. I could wish that 
 the present schism, which has given rise to this cause, had been 
 occasioned by different views of the discipline only. If there was 
 no other ground of difTerence, I might hope that the wall of sepa- 
 ration would eventually be broken down, and that the parties 
 would again unite. But if they are divided by adverse views 
 respecting essential doctrines of the christian religion, there is a 
 gulph between them as impassable as that between the rich 
 man and Lazarus. Here is their misfortune ; this is the rock on 
 which they have split. Neither party can expect the other to 
 surrender the doctrines they hold, and they must therefore endure 
 all the evils which result from this painful state of things. 
 
 I think the gentlemen spoke without book, when they told you 
 that the society of Friends had no doctrines which can be prov- 
 ed. I think it can be shown, that they have doctrines which are 
 essential and fundamental, even from the booK of Discipline by 
 which they profess to be governed. As I said before, we have 
 many standards, and I think we may find such standards in the 
 book of Discipline, in their Catechism and Confession of Faith, 
 in those works which have been approved and published by the 
 society for the purpose of setting forth their principles, and also 
 in the declarations of faith sanctioned and issued by the so- 
 ciety. If these cannot be considered as sutiicient evidence 
 of their doc trine.s, I know not what can. The introduction to 
 the book of Discipline, sets forth the object for which it was in- 
 stituted ; declaring that they " have been engaged to meet to- 
 gether for the worship of God in spirit, according to the direction 
 of the holy lawgiver ; as also for the exercise of a tender care 
 over each other, that all may be preserved in unity of faith and 
 practice," &c. How is it possible, I would ask, that the mem- 
 bers of this society should be preserved in unity of faith, if the 
 society has no faith, no doctrines that can be proved, or if, as the 
 gentlemen say, every member is to hold what religious opinions 
 he pleases ? I will now refer the court to page 23 of the book 
 of Discipline, where we find the following: " If any in member- 
 ship with us shall blaspheme, or speak profanely of Almighty 
 God, Christ Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, he or she ought early to be 
 
12G 
 
 tenderly treated with for their instruction, and the convincement 
 of their understanding, that they may experience repentance and 
 forgiveness; but should any, notwithstanding this brotherly la- 
 bour, persist in their error, or deny the divinity of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, the immediate revelation of the holy Spirit, 
 or the authenticity of the holy Scriptures, as it is manifest they 
 are not one in faith with us, the monthly meeting where the 
 party belongs, having extended due care for the help and benefit 
 of the individual, without effect, ought to declare the same, and 
 issue their testimony accordingly." 
 
 Now does not the book of Discipline, in these passages, clearly 
 require that the members should be in unity of faith ? It is the 
 very language used. It declares respecting those who deny the 
 divinity of Christ, or the authenticity of the holy scriptures, that 
 it is manifest they are not one in faith with the societ}^ and 
 therefore they ought to be dealt with, and if not reclaimed, they 
 should be disowned. Here is a full recognition of the belief of 
 the society in the divinity of our Saviour, and in the authenticity 
 of the holy scriptures — that these are fundamental doctrines — 
 and that those who persist in a denial of them, are to be dis- 
 owned. The gentleman who preceded me has told us, that all 
 that is to be found in this little book may be taken as true. We 
 have enough here then of the doctrines of the society of Friends, 
 to show what (hey hold, and have ever held to be fundamental. 
 We do not contend that those who unite ibr the purpose of so- 
 cial worship, must agree in all matters of religious opinion, but 
 we do hold that they must unite in regard to all cardinal princi- 
 ples — the fundamental doctrines and great landmarks of the 
 christian religion. If they differ in these, it will disunite and 
 drive them to different places of worship. 
 
 In page 12 of the same book, I find the following language: 
 " This meeting doth earnestly exhort all parents, heads of fami- 
 lies, and guardians of minors, that they prevent as much as in them 
 Hes, their children, and others under their care and tuition, from 
 hearing or reading books and papers tending to prejudice the 
 profession of the christian religion — to create the hast doubt con- 
 cerning the authenticity of the holy scriptures, or of those saving 
 truths declared in them, lest their infant and feeble minds should 
 be poisoned thereby, and a foundation laid for the greatest 
 
127 
 
 evils." And again in page 100, " We tenderly and earnestly ad- 
 vise and exhort all parents and heads of families, that they en- 
 deavour to instruct their children and families in the doctrines 
 and precepts of the christian religion, as contained in the scrip- 
 tures; and that they excite them to the diligent reading of 
 those excellent v^^ritings, which plainly set forth the miraculous 
 conception, birth, holy life, w^onderful works, blessed example, 
 meritorious death, glorious resurrection, ascension and mediation 
 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; and to educate their 
 children in the belief of these important truths, as well as in the 
 belief of the inward manifestation and operation of the holy 
 Spirit on their own minds, that they may reap the benefit and 
 advantage thereof, for their own peace and everlasting happi- 
 ness; which is infinitely preferable to all other considerations." 
 These passages not only show what great importance the so- 
 ciety of Friends attach to the belief of these doctrines, but they 
 evince that they considered them as fundamental, as all-impor- 
 tant to their members, and that whatever tended to create the 
 least doubt concerning them, was laying the foundation for the 
 greatest of evils. We have here, I think, from the book of Dis- 
 cipline itself, a full and most comprehensive creed — an acknow- 
 ledgment of all the essential articles of the christian faith — and 
 incorporated too in the code of laws agreed upon by the yearly 
 meeting itself, for the government of its subordinate meetings and 
 its members. But I will refer the court to another passage in 
 page 95 of the same book. It appears to me that this religious 
 society have taken uncommon pains to preserve their members 
 in the unity of faith. There is no religious body with which I 
 am acquainted, whose discipline has so carefully guarded against 
 the introduction of unsound doctrines. They have adopted one 
 method different from all other denominations, and which if car- 
 ried into effect, must produce unity in religious opinion. They 
 require that the quarterly meetings should answer certain que- 
 ries, at stated periods, in order that the yearly meeting may be 
 informed what is the state of every quarter under its charge. 
 One of these queries addressed to the select meetings is in these 
 words. " Second query. Are ministers sound in word and doc- 
 trine ?" Can your honours point me to such a provision as this 
 in the discipline of any other religious society ? Has any other 
 
128 
 
 denomination of christians ever taken so much pains to preserve 
 its ministers sound in word and doctrine, and to prevent its 
 members from being contaminated by the preaching of unsound 
 principles ? I know of none. Now is it not most strange that 
 this society should be at all this pains and care — that they 
 should so scrupulously guard against the inroads of antichristian 
 doctrines or principles adverse to their faith — that they should 
 call upon their quarterly meetings to answer whether their min- 
 isters are sound in faith, and yet, as the opposite counsel allege, 
 have no ascertained faith — no doctrines by w hich they can be 
 tested 1 How are they to answer 1 Suppose they answer that 
 thev are unitarians. According to the gentleman's ideas this 
 would not make them unsound in doctrine, nor would the 
 avowal of any other belief. It is in vain for him to say that the 
 society of Friends have no articles of faith — no written creed — 
 they have well-defined and settled doctrines, doctrines that are 
 fundamental, and for the disbelief of which, their members may 
 be disowned. We come here to try the *' Hicksite" party by 
 these doctrines, the acknowledged doctrines of the primitive 
 Friends. If that party hold these doctrines, we have no ground 
 of complaint against them. But if they do not, if they have se- 
 parated on the ground of a difference respecting these doctrines, 
 then they must abide by the consequences. 
 
 But I go further. In a Treatise on Church Government writ- 
 ten by Robert Barclay, one of the most eminent of the early 
 Friends, when describing the system of church government in 
 the society of which he was one of the founders, we find him lay- 
 ing down principles on the subject of unity in doctrines about 
 which there can be no mistake. In page 53 of this work, he 
 says, " As to the first, whether the church of Christ hath power 
 in any cases that are matters of conscience, to give a positive 
 sentence and decision which may be obligatory upon believers, 
 I answer affirmatively, she hath ; and shall prove it from divers 
 instances both from scripture and reason. For first, all princi- 
 ples and articles of faith which are held doctrinally are, in re- 
 spect to those that believe them, matters of conscience. We know 
 the Papists do, out of conscience, (such as are zealous among 
 them) adore, worship and pray to angels, saints and images, yea, 
 and to the euchanst, as judging it to be really Christ Jesus, and 
 
129 
 
 so do others place conscience in things that are absolutely 
 wrong. Now I say, we being gathered into the belief of certain 
 principles and doctrines, without any constraint or worldly re- 
 spect, but by the mere force of truth upon our understandings, 
 and its power and influence upon our hearts ; these principles 
 and doctrines, and the practices necessarily depending upon 
 them are, as it were, the terms that have drawn us together, and 
 the bond by which we became centred into one body and fel- 
 lowship, and distinguished from others. Now if any one or more, 
 so engaged with us, should arise to teach any other doctrine or 
 doctrines, contrary to those which were the ground of our being 
 one ; who can deny but the body hath power in such a case to 
 declare, This is not according to the truth we profess; and there- 
 fore we pronounce such and such doctrines to be wrong, with 
 which we cannot have unity, nor yet any more spiritual fellow- 
 ship with those that hold them. And so such cut themselves off 
 from being members, by dissolving the very bond by which they 
 were linked to the body. Now this cannot be accounted tyranny 
 and oppression, no more than in a civil society, if one of the so- 
 ciety should contradict one or more of the fundamental articles 
 upon which the society was contracted, it cannot be reckoned a 
 breach or iniquity in the whole society to declare that such con- 
 tradictors have done wrong, and forfeited their right in that so- 
 ciety ; in case by the original constitution, the nature of the con- 
 tradiction implies such a forfeiture, as usually it is, and will no 
 doubt hold in religious matters. As if a body be gathered into 
 one fellowship, by the belief of certain principles, he that comes 
 to believe otherwise, naturally scattereth himself; for that the 
 cause that gathered him, is taken away ; and so those that 
 abide constant in declaring the thing to be so as it is, and in look- 
 ing upon him, and witnessing of him, to others, (if need be) to 
 be such as he has made himself, do him no injury. I shall make 
 the supposition in the general, and let every people make the ap- 
 plication to themselves, abstracting from us ; and then let con- 
 science and reason in every impartial reader declare, whether or 
 not it doth not hold. Suppose a people really gathered into the 
 belief of the true and certain principles of the gospel, if any of 
 these people shall arise and contradict any of these fundamental 
 truths, whether have not such as stand, good right to cast out 
 
 R 
 
130 
 
 such an one from among them, and to pronounce positively, This 
 is contrarj'^ to the truth we profess and own, and therefore ought 
 to be rejected and not received, nor yet he that asserts it, as one 
 of us. And is not this obhgatory upon all the members, seeing 
 all are concerned in the like care as to themselves, to hold the 
 right and shut out the wrong. 1 cannot tell if any man of reason 
 can well deny this ; however 1 shall prove it next from the testi- 
 mony of the scripture." Barclay's Anarchy of the Ranters, pp. 
 53 to 56. 
 
 Here are the sentiments of one of the primitive Friends, when 
 speaking of the system of government adopted by the society. 
 This book has been recognized as a standard work by the society 
 everywhere. It has been published and republished by them, 
 by the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, and looked up to, as de- 
 scribing the government to which they must submit, and by 
 which they must be bound. In this work it is clearly laid down, 
 that they have certain fundamental doctrines, and that if a 
 man preach other doctrines contrary to, or incompatible with 
 those fundamental principles, they are bound to drive him from 
 them, to disown him and his doctrines. They are bound by their 
 duty to God, and by their duty to their fellow men, to do so. 
 What ! are they to hear one of their members openly deny the 
 divinity and atonement of their Saviour, when they themselves 
 hold those doctrines to be among the bonds, the fundamental prin- 
 ciples which unite them together, and yet to take no measures 
 to disown such members or to prevent the preaching of such 
 doctrines ! The gentleman must show not only that they have 
 no fundamental doctrines, but that they have no church gov- 
 ernment — no control over their members — no standard to ascer- 
 tain whether they were right or wrong in the doctrines they 
 promulgate. Barclay clearly points out the course which the 
 " Hicksite" party ought to have taken. They came into the 
 society on the ground of unity of faith, professing certain doc- 
 ■ trines, and if they became convinced that these doctrines were 
 ■wrong, or that other principles were better, they ought to hare 
 left the society peaceably and quietly — to have acknowledged 
 that they had departed from the terms of the contract, broken 
 the bond which united them to it. Here is the principle upon 
 which they ought to have withdrawn. In the language of Bar- 
 
131 
 
 clay " they scattered themselves" from the society, and they 
 ought to have left it. This evidently was their first intention ; 
 but when told that by thus withdrawing they would lose the 
 property of the society, they take another ground. And notwith- 
 standing all they have said and done to promote Elias Hicks and 
 his principles — notwithstanding the whole burden of their com- 
 plaint is made up of the opposition to him and his doctrines, they 
 now wish to deny their leader as they have denied their Saviour. 
 In page 57 of the same book, Barclay says; "If the apostles 
 of Christ of old, and the preachers of the everlasting Gospel in 
 this day, had told all people, however wrong they found them in 
 their faith and principles. Our charity and love is such, we dare 
 not judge you, nor separate from you ; but let us all live in love 
 together, and every one enjoy his own opinions, and all will be 
 well ; how should the nations have been, or what way can they 
 now be, brought to truth and righteousness : would not the 
 devil love this doctrine well, by which darkness and ignorance, 
 error and confusion, might still continue in the earth unreproved 
 and uncondemned." And again in the next page the same 
 author says, " Were such a principle to be received or believed, 
 that in the church of Christ, no man should be separated from, 
 no man condemned or excluded the fellowship and communion 
 of the body, for his judgment or opinion in matters of faith, then 
 what blasphemies so horrid, what heresies so damnable, what 
 doctrines of devils, but might harbour themselves in the church of 
 Christ ! What need of sound doctrine, if no doctrine make un- 
 sound 1 What need for convincing and exhorting gainsayers, if 
 to gainsay be no crime l Where should the unity of the faith 
 be '. Were not this an inlet to all manner of abomination, and 
 to make void the whole tendency of Christ's and his apostles' 
 doctrine, and render the gospel of none effect ; and to give a 
 liberty to the unconstant and giddy will of man, to innovate, 
 alter, and overturn it at his pleasure ? So that from all that is 
 above mentioned we do safely conclude, that where a people are 
 gathered together unto the belief of the principles and doctrines 
 of the gospel of Christ, if any of that people shall go from their 
 principles, and assert things false and contrary to what they have 
 already received, such as stand and abide firm in the faith, have 
 power by the spirit of God, after they have used christian en- 
 deavours to convince and reclaim them, upon their obstinacy, to 
 
132 
 
 separate from such, and to exclude them from their spiritual 
 fellowship and communion : for, otherwise if this be denied, 
 farewell to all Christianity, or to the maintaining of any sound 
 doctrine in the church of Christ." Barclay, &c. pp. 57-59. 
 
 Here then we have the sentiments of Robert Barclay, one of 
 the founders of the society, as to the consequences which would 
 result from the principle which the gentlemen on the other side 
 contend for, permitting every man in the society to hold what re- 
 ligious opinions he pleases, without accountability and without 
 restraint. He shows in strong terms the evils and confusion which 
 would arise from it, and the impossibility of maintaining any 
 christian society where such a principle is tolerated. We find 
 then, that the society has certain fundamental doctrines, which 
 are the terms of their communion, and the bond which binds 
 them together ; that they have a system of church government ; 
 that this government extends to the preservation of their members 
 in the belief of these principles, and that a denial or disbelief of 
 them forfeits their membership. If their ministers or members 
 undertake to promulgate false doctrines, they may, nay, it is their 
 duty, to exclude them from the society, if they persist in it. In 
 conformity with the principles laid down by Barclay, as well as 
 with its discipline, the society has been in the constant practice, 
 from the earliest periods of its history, of disowning those who 
 held and promulgated unsound doctrines. For proof of this, I 
 refer to the evidence of Samuel Bettle, vol. I. Ev. p. 60, Wil- 
 liam Jackson, lb, p. 99. Thomas Willis, lb. p, 108. Samuel 
 Parsons, lb. p, 170, 171. Thomas Evans, lb. p. 305, 306. 
 We were told by the gentleman yesterday, that if Hicks held 
 these doctrines, he ought to have been dealt with by the monthly 
 meeting of Jericho, that they might advise him, but if he did not 
 choose to take their advice (as I understood him) they could 
 deal no further with him, Barclay does not hold such language 
 as this, but directly the contrary; and we have already shown 
 that the monthly meeting of Jericho, could not, and would not, 
 deal with him, because they had embraced his doctrines and held 
 them to be sound. It is true that the society of Friends have 
 been cautious in the selection of terms when declaring their belief 
 on the mysterious doctrines of the christian religion, and have 
 rejected some of the school terms which are in common use, pre- 
 
133 
 
 ferring to express themselves in the language of the holy scrip- 
 tures, as being most proper and becoming. On this ground it was 
 that they objected to the creeds and forms of faith which were 
 commonly used when the society took its rise, and not because 
 they did not hold the doctrines intended to be expressed in them. 
 The society was frequently called on to come forward and make 
 known the religious principles which they held ; they did so, and 
 declared their belief in terms which cannot be mistaken. And 
 now, to tell us that there is no test by which they can determine 
 wJiethcr a preacher maintains sound doctrine or unsound, is con- 
 trary to the express letter of their discipline, to all the sentiments 
 of the society, and to these acknowledged declarations of their 
 doctrines which have existed, and been universally received 
 among them, for a century and a half 
 
 Wednesday, afternoon — 3. P. M. My present object is to 
 show that the unfortunate difference which exists between the 
 parties now before the court, respects doctrines. To show what 
 the doctrines of the ancient Friends, and which the society still 
 holds are, and also the difference which exists between them and 
 the doctrines held and promulgated by Elias Hicks and embraced 
 by his adherents. I have endeavoured to show that the society 
 of Friends hold certain doctrines which they consider fundamen- 
 tal, and for the disavowal of which their members may be dis- 
 owned and put out of their community. It has been asserted by 
 the gentleman on the opposite side, that this society as a body 
 had never published any declaration of their faith to the world, 
 except it was in the express language of scripture, and we were 
 challenged to produce any such document or authority. It was 
 admitted by the gentleman, at the time the challenge was given, 
 that if we could produce such a document, written in human lan- 
 guage, to use his phrase, he would concede that it was a creed, 
 and binding on the members of the society. I shall now under- 
 take to prove that the society of Friends have done this; that 
 they have issued such a document, and if I do so, then the gen- 
 tleman on his own ground stands fully committed. I understand 
 him to assert that the society never have done this, except in 
 scripture language; that there is no document which we can 
 produce, as an authentic act, authorized by them, containing a 
 declaration of their faith in human language. In order to prove 
 
134 
 
 that publications of this kind have been made under the sanction 
 of the society, as a community, I shall refer first to the declara- 
 tion of faith, contained in the 2nd vol. Sewel's History, p. 472, et 
 seq. This declaration was issued in 1693, in order to set forth 
 before the world what the doctrines of the society were, if I am 
 not much mistaken, (his document will furnish a complete answer 
 to the challenge which has been given by the gentleman on the 
 other side. It was published under the sanction of the society, 
 and approved by them. It is not written in scripture language, 
 but in human language. It was not only examined and approv- 
 ed in London, by the meeting there, which is authorized by the 
 discipline to make such publications, but it has been adopted by 
 the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, and sanctioned and approved 
 by it. I refer to the testimony ^f Thomas Evans, vol. I. Ev. pp. 
 288, 297, for proof of this fact. In this declaration we find the 
 following language, viz. " We sincerely profess faith in God by 
 his only begotten son Jesus Christ, as being ourlight and life, our 
 only way to the Father, and also our only Mediator and Advocate 
 with the Father. That God created all things, he made the 
 worlds by his Son Jesus Christ, he being that powerful and liv- 
 ing Word of God by whom all things were made ; and that the 
 Father, the Word and Holy Spirit are one, in divine being insep- 
 arable, one true living and eternal God, blessed forever. Yet 
 that this Word or Son of God, in the fulness of time took flesh, 
 became perfect man, according to the flesh, descended and came 
 of the seed of Abraham and David, but was miraculously con- 
 ceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary. And also 
 further declared powerfully to be the Son of God, according to 
 the spirit of santification, by the resurrection from the dead. 
 That in the Word or Son of God was life, and the same life was 
 the light of men ; and that he was the true light which enlightens 
 every man coming into the world ; and therefore that men are 
 to beheve in the light that they may become the children of the 
 light. Hereby we believe in Christ the Son of God as he is the 
 light and life within us; and wherein we must needs have sin- 
 cere respect and honour to, and belief in Christ, as in bis own 
 unapproachable and incomprehensible glory and fulness, as he is 
 the Fountain of life and light, and Giver thereof unto us ; Christ 
 as in himself, and as in us, being not divided. And that as man 
 
135 
 
 Christ died for our sins, rose again, and was received up into 
 glory in the heavens : he having, in his dying for all, been that 
 one great universal offering and sacrifice, for peace, atonement 
 and reconciliation between God and man ; and he is the propi- 
 tiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. 
 We are reconciled by his death, but saved by his life. 
 
 " That Jesus Christ, who sitteth at the right hand of the throne 
 of the Majesty in the heavens, yet he is our King, High Priest, 
 and Prophet in his church, the Minister of the sanctuary, and of 
 the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. He 
 is Intercessor and Advocate with the Father in heaven, and there 
 appearing in the presence of God for us, being touched with the 
 feeling of our infirmities, sufferings, and sorrows. And also by 
 his spirit in our hearts, he maketh intercession according to the 
 will of God, crying, Abba, Father. For any whom God hath 
 gifted and called, sincerely to preach faith in the same Christ 
 both as within us, and without us, cannot be to preach two 
 Christs, but one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, having respect 
 to those degrees of our spiritual knowledge of Christ Jesus in us, 
 and to his own unspeakable fulness and glory as in himself, in 
 his own entire being, wherein Christ himself, and the least mea- 
 sure of his light, or life, as in us, or in mankind, are not divided 
 nor separable, no more than the sun is from its light. And as he 
 ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things, his 
 fulness cannot be comprehended or contained in any finite crea- 
 ture, but in some measure known and experienced in us, as we 
 are capable to receive the same, as of his fulness we have re- 
 ceived grace for grace. Christ our Mediator received the Spirit 
 not by measure, but in fulness, but to every one of us is given 
 grace, according to the measure of his gift. 
 
 " That the gospel of the grace of God should be preached in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being one in pow- 
 er, wisdom and goodness, and indivisible, or not to be divided in 
 the great work of man's salvation. 
 
 " We sincerely confess and believe in Jesus Christ, both as he 
 is true God, and perfect man, and that he is the author of our 
 living faith in the power and goodness of God, as manifested in 
 his Son Jesus Christ, and by his own blessed spirit, or divine unc- 
 tion, revealed in us, whereby we inwardly feel and taste of his 
 
136 
 
 goodness, life and virtue, so as our souls live and prosper by and 
 in him ; and the inward sense of this divine power of Christ, and 
 faith in the same, and this inward experience, is absolutely ne- 
 cessary to make a true, sincere and perfect christian in spirit 
 and life. 
 
 " That divine honour and worship is due to the Son of God, 
 and that he is in true faith to be prayed unto, and the name of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ called upon, as the primitive christians 
 did, because of the glorious union, or oneness of the Father and 
 the Son, and that we cannot acceptably offer up prayers and 
 praises to God, nor receive a gracious answer or blessing from 
 God, but in and through his dear Son, Christ. 
 
 " That Christ's body that was crucified was not the Godhead, 
 yet by the power of God was raised from the dead, and that the 
 same Christ that was therein crucified, ascended into heaven, 
 and glory, is not questioned by us. His flesh saw no corruption, 
 it did not corrupt; but yet doubtless, his body was changed into 
 a more glorious and heavenly condition than it was in when sub- 
 ject to divers sufferings on earth, but how and what manner of 
 change it met withal, after it was raised from the dead, so as to 
 become such a glorious body, as it is declared to be, is too won- 
 derful for mortals to conceive, apprehend, or pry into ; and moi-e 
 meet for angels to see. The scripture is silent therein as to the 
 manner thereof, and we are not curious to enquire, or dispute it ; 
 nor do we esteem it necessary to make ourselves wise above what 
 is written, as to the manner or condition of Christ's glorious body 
 as in heaven, no more than to inquire how Christ appeared in 
 divers manners or forms, or how he came in among his disciples 
 the doors being shut, or how he vanished out of their sight after 
 he was risen." See Sewel's History, p. 475. vol. K. 
 
 Now, may it please the court, this declaration of faith has ac- 
 tually been adopted by this very society, and by the yearly meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia. Is there not here a full and explicit decla- 
 ration of their faith ? Is it not a creed according to the learned 
 gentlemen's own understanding, and upon their own terms ? Can 
 a religious denomination be more fully committed, than the soci- 
 ety of Friends are by this document 1 It was adopted and pub- 
 lished by that very society, of whom the opposite party now tell 
 us that they have no faith, no fundamental doctrines ; and it was 
 
137 
 
 adopted too, to put down and silence tlie charge of denying the 
 divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. The gentleman will not 
 say that this declaration is couched in scripture language. It is 
 in human language, to use his own expression, and therefore, ac- 
 cording to his own shewing, it is a creed, sanctioned and adopt- 
 ed by the society. How then can the gentleman tell us that 
 they have no creed. We have here a full and explicit answer 
 to the challenge he has given, and upon his own ground he stands 
 committed. It will appear from an examination of the testimo- 
 ny, that this declaration of faith was not only examined and ap- 
 proved by the morning meeting in London, which is a body au- 
 thorized to inspect and approve of writings declaratory of the 
 religious faith of the society, but that it was also adoj)ted and 
 published by the society here. It stands clothed therefore with 
 all the authority of a creed, or confession of faith, which any re- 
 ligious community can possibly issue to the world. 
 
 I will refer the court to another declaration of faith, contained 
 in Sewel's History, vol. II. p. 483, issued on behalf of the society 
 of Friends, and presented in their name to the British parliament, 
 as evidence of their belief in Jesus Christ. This declaration, no 
 more than the former, is clothed in scripture language ; it is in 
 human language ; it is a solemn declaration made to parliament 
 for the express purpose of satisfying them that the society do 
 believe in Jesus Christ our Saviour. It is impossible to evade it, 
 without imputing to the society dissimulation and insincerity ; 
 this will not be attempted ; it would be monstrous to suppose 
 that the society made a declaration of this solemn nature, as 
 evidence of their belief, and yet that they were not candid and 
 honest when they made it. It is for the " Hicksite" party to 
 show that these declarations do not contain the faith of the so- 
 ciety ; they stand recorded in its history, sanctioned by its meet- 
 ings, and looked up to by the members as the articles of their 
 belief. The opposite counsel referred the court to the Journal 
 of George Whitehead for the history of another declaration of 
 faith, the one prepared by the society, and inserted in the tole- 
 ration act. It is in these words : " I profess faith in God the Fa- 
 ther, and in Jesus Christ his eternal Son, the true God, and in 
 the holy Spirit, one God blessed forever ; and do acknowledge 
 the holy Scriptures of the old and new Testament, to be given 
 
138 
 
 by divine inspiration." The court will see by referring to tbe 
 passage, that Whitehead himself considers it a creed. The gen- 
 tlemen on the other side, deny that the society have any creed ; 
 Whitehead on the contrary considers that declaration as such, 
 and binding upon all the members of the society. We have 
 heard much said about the objection of this society to creeds ; 
 but that objection was not to a creed or declaration of faith 
 simply, nor did it arise from any unwillingness to put down in 
 writing the fundamental principles of their belief, their objec- 
 tion was to temporal powers prescribing articles of faith, and 
 compelling an assent to them, by the arm of the secular power. 
 The society has always been willing to abide by the articles of 
 faith, which they adopted ; they never wished to have it in their 
 power to say one thing one day, and another thing on another 
 day. They held that all men had a right to adopt such religious 
 opinions as they conscientiously believed to be proper, and that 
 no earthly power ought to control them in it ; but they also 
 maintained that when any body of men adopted and published 
 their belief, they must stand or fall by it. 
 
 It is strange indeed, that after all the declarations of faith 
 made by the society of Friends, after the many books published 
 by them in order to show their real principles, it should now be 
 contended that they have no standard of religious doctrines, that 
 they rely solely on the operation of the Spirit, and that the Spirit 
 dictated one thing at one time, and another thing at another 
 time. They refused, it is true, to admit of king, parliament, or 
 any earthly power to prescribe articles of faith for them, but 
 having solemnly adopted and declared their religious principles, 
 they never did refuse to be bound by them. Here then are 
 three instances in which the gentleman stands defeated on his 
 own ground, and with his own weapons. Here is a creed, au- 
 thoritative and binding on the members of the society, couched, 
 not in scripture, but in human language, adopted and published 
 to the world as tests of their religious faith. The society, as I 
 remarked this morning, have taken great pains that their prin- 
 ciples and doctrines might not be misunderstood by the world. 
 From their peculiar mode of worship, suspicions were entertained 
 by some, that they did not adopt the christian faith. To meet 
 these groundless suspicions, they have repeatedly, as a body, 
 
139 
 
 authorized publications to be made explanatory of their belief, 
 as may be seen by reference to the testimony of Samuel Bettle, 
 vol. I. Ev. p. 59, 60. The witness says, " For these doctrines, 
 [viz. the doctrines of the society of Friends] witness refers to 
 George Fox's letter to the governor of Barbadoes, contained in 
 his journal, to a declaration presented to a committee of the Bri- 
 tish parliament in 1689, a declaration presented to parliament 
 in 1693, to Barclay's Catechism and Confession of Faith, and to 
 Barclay's Apology ; this latter work was originally written in 
 the Latin language, and has been translated into different lan- 
 guages, and largely circulated, for the very purpose of making 
 known the doctrines of the society. We are bound by the doc- 
 trines contained in this work, and the society is every where 
 identified with the sentiments, opinions, and doctrines, laid down 
 in this work. Witness also refers to " Evans's Exposition" of the 
 doctrines of the society of Friends, as containing a true and com- 
 prehensive view of the doctrines of the society ; also Barclay's 
 " Anarchy of the Ranters," a work on church government. The 
 witness further saith, that these works here exhibited, as well 
 as all those mentioned by him, are regular standard works in 
 the society of Friends, and have been acknowledged and pub- 
 lished by them at different (imes in the regular way of publica- 
 tion established by their discipline. These doctrines have al- 
 ways been considered as fundamental, and promulgated as such 
 by their approved ministers. They were so reputed when the 
 witness first had knowledge of the society, and still continue to 
 be so. These books are circulated now by the society, as con- 
 taining its doctrines. A departure from, or disbelief in these 
 doctrines, is always considered by the society as an evidence of 
 unsoundness in the faith." 
 
 The court will perceive from the testimony of this witness, 
 that these works have been published from time to time, by the 
 society, as standard works, fully explaining their doctrines, and 
 as such they have circulated them. Can we then have better 
 evidence of their doctrines than these ? That they have doc- 
 trines which they consider fundamental and essential, their 
 discipline fully declares. Where can we find them better than 
 in their standard works ; their declarations of faith, written by 
 the venerable and pious fathers of their church to whom they 
 
140 
 
 all look up as high authority. It is impossible then that there 
 should be any truth in the idea that they have no fundamental 
 doctrines ; the evidence to the contrary is too strong and too con- 
 clusive. I beg leave also to refer the court to a publication made 
 by the society of Friends, by the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, 
 to be found in 4th vol. Mosheim Ecc. Hist. pp. 284-288. It is 
 proved by Samuel Bettlc, vol. I. Ev. p. 71, that this publication 
 was made under the sanction of the society. It is called " A 
 vindication of the Quakers" and holds this language, viz. " We 
 believe the scriptures of the old and new Testament to be of 
 divine original, and give full credit to the historical facts as well 
 as the doctrines therein delivered, and never had any doubt of 
 the truth of the actual birth, life, sufTerings, death, resurrection, 
 and ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as related by 
 the evangelist, without any mental or other reserve, or the least 
 diminution by allegorical explanation ; and there is not, nor ever 
 has been, any essential difference in faith or practice, between 
 Friends in Europe and America ; but a correspondence is regu- 
 larly maintained, and love, harmony and unity, have been pre- 
 served down to this day, and we hope and believe, under divine 
 favour, nothing will be able to scatter or divide us." 
 
 In the same book is a publication made by the society of 
 Friends in New England. It was deemed important that the 
 misrepresentations of Friends contained in Mosheim, should be 
 corrected, and the society in England having adopted this course, 
 for this purpose, it was also adopted by the yearly meetings in 
 New England and in Philadelphia. These publications all took 
 place before the present schism arose in this community. I do 
 not propose to refer the court to all the standard works, which 
 have been quoted by the gentleman associated with me : it would 
 be superfluous ; but from the evidence which we have produced, 
 I submit to the court, that the doctrine of the ancient Friends 
 and of the society down to the present day, is fully and fairly 
 made out to the satisfaction of every candid mind. 
 
 I shall, in the next (third) place, call the attention of the court, 
 upon this point, to the testimony of witnesses, of respectable 
 ministers, men who are perfectly acquainted with all the princi- 
 ples of the society, from their youth upwards. The first witness 
 is Samuel Bettle. If there is any man whose station entitled 
 
141 
 
 him to a knowledge of the doctrines of the society of Friends, it 
 is this witness. He has been clerk and assistant clerk of the year- 
 ly meeting, for twenty years. The witness says, Vol. I. Ev. p. 
 58. " The society have avoided the term trinity ; they however 
 hold the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as stated 
 in the New Testament, and they prefer confining their statements 
 of views in relation to that doctrine, to the terms used in the 
 New Testament. They have avoided the use of the word per- 
 son and three distinct persons, as not in their apprehension 
 scriptural, and as conveying, in their apprehension, an idea too 
 gross for so sublime and spiritual a subject. I have always 
 understood that in all other respects, the society hold fully the 
 doctrine as held by other protestant sects of christians, avoiding 
 the term person, being the only difference between them of 
 which I am aware in reference to this particular doctrine. 
 
 " The society of Friends do believe in the doctrine of the 
 atonement, and have always so believed. They believe, and 
 what they understand by the term atonement is, that our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ suffered without the gates of Jerusalem, 
 offering himself up a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the 
 whole world, and that by this offering, through faith, repentance 
 and obedience, man may become purified from sin. Their creed 
 on this doctrine is in the words of the New Testament ; they 
 take it as they find it. Witness uses the word creed here as 
 synonymous with belief. It is believed by the society that in no 
 other way than by the atonement of our Saviour can man be 
 purified from sin. This is the way appointed by God, that is, 
 by the offering up the body and blood of Jesus Christ, without 
 the gates of Jerusalem, by the efficacy of which, through faith, 
 repentance, and obedience, remission of sins is received. This 
 has always been fundamental with the society. 
 
 " They believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary; 
 •agreeably to the declaration of the evangelist John, in substance, 
 that " in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
 God, and the Word was God ;" that the Word was made flesh, or 
 took fiesh, and dwelt among men ; and that this Word, that was 
 made flesh, was the same Jesus that was born at Bethehem, mira- 
 cuously conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, for the great and 
 necessary, and holy purposes mentioned in the New Testament, 
 
142 
 
 indispensable through the inscrutable counsels of God, for the 
 salvation of man. This is also fundamental and always has been. 
 In addition to what the witness has said above, respecting the 
 trinity, he now further saith, that the society believe and hold, 
 and always have so believed, that the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, are one, these three are one ; they always express it in 
 that way. 
 
 " The society also believe in the resurrection and ascension of 
 the body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as it is clearly 
 expressed and taught in the scriptures, corroborated by his speak- 
 ing from heaven in his glorified state, declaring in his own words, 
 " I am Jesus of Nazareth." 
 
 " The society believe that the scriptures were given forth by 
 holy men as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and they have 
 always received them as the outward test and rule of doctrine, 
 and that all doctrines which are inconsistent with the doctrines 
 of the scripture are to be rejected. Barclay is very full and explicit 
 on this subject, and very strong language he uses. These doc- 
 trines are the ancient doctrines of the society, and have always 
 been held by them since my acquaintance with them. The 
 peculiar views of the society expose them to much objection, 
 suffering and misrepresentation. When speaking of their pecu- 
 liar views, the witness does not mean particularly their doctrines 
 above mentioned as differing so much from other societies of 
 christians, but more particularly their testimonies against wars, 
 oaths, and in relation to ministers, and other things, which have 
 exposed them to suffering and very frequently to misrepresentation. 
 Hence, witness believes, that no religious society whatever, has 
 published so frequently, and so fully, their religious doctrines to 
 the world, as the society of Friends, and this has arisen out of 
 the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, as I have 
 mentioned." It is unnecessary for me to go through all the ev- 
 idence on this subject. I will therefore only refer the court to . 
 the passages, viz. William Jackson, vol. I. Ev. p. 98, 99 ; Thomas 
 Willis, lb. p. 108, 109; Joseph Whitall, lb. p. 213; Thomas 
 Evans, lb. p. 291 to 306. 
 
 These witnesses express fully the belief of the society in the 
 inspiration of the holy scriptures, in the divinity and atonement 
 of Jesus Christ, and in the doctrine of the trinity substantially; 
 though they do not make use of the word trinity or person, they 
 
143 
 
 take the scripture language and adopt it without any attempt at 
 explanation by them. In this respect I think they have been 
 wise. It is impossible for man to comprehend this solemn and 
 mysterious subject. It is above human comprehension. We 
 know nothing of the nature of God, or of the mode of his existence 
 except what he has been pleased to reveal. He has revealed all 
 that it is necessary for us to know, and for man to undertake to 
 examine into the nature of the Godhead beyond that, is presump- 
 tuous; perhaps even the angels in heaven do not understand it. 
 It is beyond the comprehension of finite man. This attempt to 
 define the nature of the trinity, has produced more controversy 
 than any other subject. I do not mean as to the fact of the 
 existence of the three, but as to the manner of their existence 
 and the nature of their connexion. The Fi-iends therefore reject 
 the use of the words trinity and person. The word trinity, I 
 believe was not used till the second century, but from that time 
 to the present, controversies have continually arisen, not as to 
 there being three, or these three being one, but as to the mode 
 and manner of it. 
 
 It is certainly true that men cannot be expected to entertain 
 the same opinions as to all points in matters of religion, any more 
 than in human affairs ; but they must unite in all the essentials 
 of the religion they profess, in order to worship harmoniously. 
 They cannot exist as a religious society, they cannot unite in fel- 
 lowship and communion, unless they agree as regards all the 
 leading and fundamental principles of the christian religion. It 
 is sufficient then for us to show, that the society of Friends do 
 believe, and always have believed, in the doctrine of the three 
 that bear record in heaven ; in the divinity and atonement of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ; that the scriptures were written by inspired 
 men ; that those who penned them were guided by a divine in- 
 fluence, and that they were given for our instruction and correc- 
 tion. They hold these doctrines to be the great fundamentals of 
 the christian religion, and I believe I may say that the great 
 mass of christians so believe them ; for although some sects in 
 modern times have questioned some of those doctrines, yet few, 
 very few, have doubted the authenticity of the sacred scriptures. 
 When therefore we prove by witnesses, as well as by written 
 documents that the society does unite in these fundamental prin- 
 
144 
 
 ciples we must lake them as their received and standard doc- 
 trines, the test by which their members must stand or fall. 1 
 think I need not dwell longer on this branch of the subject. I 
 have now a more unpleasant duty to perform ; to show that these 
 fundamental doctrines of the christian religion are rejected by 
 Elias Hicks and his adherents. 
 
 I shall undertake to prove first, from the testimony of witness- 
 es, that Elias Hicks dei Jed these general doctrines not only in 
 conversation, but in his public ministry, in the meetings of the 
 society. He denied the authenticity and authority of the holy 
 scriptures, and a belief in the doctrines of the divinity and atone- 
 ment of our Saviour. He divided between Jesus and Christ, as- 
 serting that Jesus was a mere man, as any other good man, and 
 that Christ was the divine spirit by which he was actuated, that 
 this divine spirit is given to every man as it was to Jesus, that 
 Jesus having a greater work to perform, had five talents commit- 
 ted to him, that is, greater gifts of the spirit than most men, but 
 that he had no more than just what was necessary to finish his 
 work, and every man has as much as he, in proportion to the 
 work required ; he admitted him to be perfect, but still held that 
 he was onlv a fallible man. 
 
 Upon these points I shall refer in the first place to the testimo- 
 ny of William Jackson, vol. I. Ev. p. 100. Witness says : "It was 
 the common report, that Elias Hicks was in unity with and ac- 
 cepted by the Green and Cherry Street meetings, 1 understood 
 it so. I have held a conversation with Elias Hicks, on the subject 
 of the divinity of our Saviour, and the divine origin of the scrip- 
 tures. The conversation arose from this circumstance ; 1 was at 
 a meeting in New Fork, and in the course of what he said there, 
 in his public testimony, in a public meeting for worship, he utter- 
 ed such sentiments asl never heard from any Friend in the whole 
 course of my life. The substance of it, or that part that atfected 
 me most, was the manner in which he expressed himself with 
 respect to our Saviour, bringing him down to the level of a man, 
 saying, that " he was put to death by the hands of wicked men, 
 and suffered as a martyr, as many others since that time had 
 done." Never having heard such sentiments delivered either by 
 professor or profane, I thought it my duty, as a brother, to go 
 to his house, and have further conversation with him on the sub- 
 
145 
 
 ject ; accordingly I went a few days after, and had an opportu- 
 nity with him ; I don't recollect that there were any persons pre- 
 sent but ourselves. I let him know my uneasiness, and we had 
 considerable discourse on the subject. I cannot now pretend to 
 remember, so as to relate all of it, but so far he went, as to assert, 
 that " there was as much scripture testimony to prove that he 
 was no more than the son of Joseph and Mary, as there was to 
 prove to the contrary." I brought forward the testimonies of the 
 two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and he said " that they 
 were but fables, or fabulous ;" that " they were no more than 
 fables." I was exceedingly astonished at him, for as I said before, 
 I had never heard such language from either professor or pro- 
 fane. He said he was confident of what he said, it was a thing 
 impossible, spirit only could beget spirit, it could not beget ma- 
 terial matter. I said some things in objection, but cannot recol- 
 lect what I said. In the course of the conversation, he further 
 said : " It is believed God is a Spirit, Dost thou believe it, I be- 
 lieve it. Spirit can only beget spirit ;" and repeated it several 
 times, asserting that he was as confident of it, as that he was 
 standing there, talking with me. Then I said to him " Elias, if 
 this be thy belief, how came the creation of the world ?" His an- 
 swer to my question was, " What of the creation ?" I said to him, 
 " Why, the account of the creation we have in the bible." Then 
 he replies to me, " Why, that's only Moses's account." Then I 
 replied to him " Is it not a sufficient account for us to believe ?" 
 His answer to that was, " it is but an allegory ;" and there the 
 conversation ended." 
 
 If this is not denying the holy scriptures, and destroying the 
 christian's faith in them; if it is not denying the miraculous con- 
 ception of Jesus Christ, and making him a mere man, I know not 
 what is. 
 
 1 refer the court in the next place to the evidence of Thomas 
 Willis, vol. I. p. 109. He says, " I was acquainted with Elias Hicks 
 from my youth up, embracing a period of more than forty years ; 
 he was a member of the same monthly meeting with myself. He 
 is not now living, was not a member of the society of Friends at 
 the time of his death ; he had been disowned by them. The 
 causes of his disownment were, a departure from the doctrines 
 and principles of the society, and an avowal of antichristian sen- 
 
 T 
 
146 
 
 liments. The time of his disownmenl was in the year 1829, in 
 fifth month. He had for a number of years before his disovvn- 
 ment, and on different occasions, uttered sentiments and doctrines 
 that gave uneasiness to the society. I have a copy of the min- 
 ute of his disownment, which is taken from the minutes of the 
 monthly meeting to which he belonged, being the monthly meet- 
 ing of Westbury and Jericho. For some time before his disown- 
 ment, for a number of years, he had been frequently, and at va- 
 rious times, privately admonished by different individuals on the 
 subject of his departure. In regard to myself, in former years, I 
 esteemed him highly as a minister, and a useful member of socie- 
 ty, and although I sometimes heard expressions and some senti- 
 ments avowed by him, with which I could not unite, yet from the 
 esteem I always had for him, and the confidence which I had 
 placed in him, I was very loath to believe a want of integrity, 
 and soundness on his part, until about the years 1818 and 20. 
 When observing that he had embraced and began to promulgate 
 some views, that were not in accordance wilh the doctrines of our 
 society, I became seriously uneasy, and endeavoured to discharge 
 my duty towards him accordingly. In consequence of this unea- 
 siness I waited on him. The interview resulted rather in the 
 confirmation of my uneasiness. In general, I perceived his view 
 and belief of the scriptures to be not in accordance with the doc- 
 trines of our society, placing them on the same ground as any 
 other histor}^ exciting doubts of some important truths declared 
 in them, particularly in relation to the divine character and holy 
 offices of our blessed Redeemer, his miraculous conception, the 
 eflicacy of his sufferings and death as a propitiatory offering for 
 the sins of mankind, his intercession and mediation as our Advo- 
 cate with the Father. These were the principal points of doc- 
 trine. In relation to the character of our blessed Lord, he has 
 placed him on the same ground as other men. I have heard him 
 testify in public meetings, that " Jesus assumed nothing more to 
 himself than other prophets did, that he was very careful not to 
 do it, saving in a few instances calling himself the Son of God, 
 that as he steadily kept in view his entire dependent state, he 
 never called the people to himself, but only directed them to the 
 Spirit of Truth in their own minds ; and that this is all we want, 
 for when we once come to believe in this, then instrumental helps 
 
147 
 
 have done all they can do for us, their usefulness is very soon at 
 an end with the true christian, he is brought to the foundation, 
 he needs then no more ; although we value the scriptures which 
 are written and bound up in the book we call the bible, as well 
 as other scriptures written by other wise and good men, yet the 
 scriptures do not properlv belong to any, but those to whom they 
 were written ; they are so far from being any rule to the true 
 christian, that they are inconsistent and contradictory to them- 
 selves, and there is not an agreement in them in any general 
 way." Similar views of the scriptures have also been promul- 
 gated by him in conversation and by writing, and he has acknow- 
 ledged his departure from the belief of the society respecting 
 them, by saying, that his conscience had often smitten him when 
 he had been endeavouring to hold up the belief of the society of 
 Friends respecting them, in setting them so far above other books. 
 He has represented them as being the principal cause of the 
 apostacy in the primitive church, and that they w^ere not useful 
 in bringing about Jhe reformation, and in fine that they have 
 been the cause of fourfold more harm than good to Christendom 
 since the apostle's days. These and similar views respecting 
 the scriptures, being promulgated by him, were, among others, 
 introduced into my own family, by letters directed to my wife, 
 which I have now with me, in his own hand writing." 
 
 Again in p. Ill : " These sentiments which had been thus pro- 
 pagated by Elias Hicks in his public discourses, in his letters and 
 conversations, were in violation of what has always been held to 
 be fundamental upon those points, by the society of Friends. I 
 have a recollection of his expressions on those subjects, on 
 various occasions. I have heard him declare in public, when 
 speaking on the character and constitution of our Saviour, and 
 in allusion to his miraculous conception, " that tiesh must unite 
 with flesh to make a being, but flesh and spirit never can unite." 
 " God can create, but he cannot beget." " The Son must be of 
 the same nature with the Father." I have also frequently 
 heard him express his view^s on the subject of the atonement. 
 In relation to the sufferings or offering of Christ, he said that he 
 could not believe that it was an offering designed by the Father, 
 but that circumstances led to it in the same manner as they had 
 done in the case of many other martyrs. I have heard him use 
 
148 
 
 similar expressions many diaerent times. He continued to pro- 
 mulgate these sentiments in his public ministry up to the time of 
 his disownment, and was disowned for that cause. Pie was 
 a man to whom society generally was very much attached 
 in former years, whereby he gained great influence in the society. 
 I believe his popularity as a preacher owing in considerable 
 measure to the boldness of his conceptions, and originality of 
 thought. Although he was not disowned for his unsoundness 
 until lately, yet his departure from our principles was a subject 
 of general conversation and remark in the society for several 
 years. He had been the subject of admonition and care, on the 
 part of some of the elders of his own meeting, for a long time 
 before his disownment, but most of the elders of his own meeting, 
 were his adherents. This departure of his, was extensively 
 spread through the society, and it was a subject of general 
 remark and conversation in other yearly meetings, beside that to 
 which he belonged." 
 
 I shall next refer the court to the testimony of Samuel Parsons, 
 Vol. I. Ev. p. 173. He says, " The unsound opinions and doc- 
 trines promulgated by Elias Hicks, and for which he was 
 disowned were generally in relation to the holy scriptures and 
 to the character of the Saviour. In relation to the character of 
 the Saviour, I have heard him express in his public communica- 
 tions, the following sentiments : " The people must be totally 
 turned from any attention to the outward manifestation or suf- 
 ferings of Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, the design of whose 
 coming was to put an end to the law of Moses and its ordinan- 
 ces. He was an Israelite, and was not furnished with any 
 more ability than the other Israelites." " Jesus never gave him- 
 self a higher character than the son of man." " There is no me- 
 diator betwixt God and man : it would be unreasonable to believe 
 that he had ever directed one Son of God to reveal his will to all 
 the other sons of God." " Jesus was the first Son of God ; men- 
 tioning the name of Jesus Christ is a species of idolatry." " We 
 can all attain to the same state that Jesus did, to be equal vvith 
 God, as the sons of a family are equal with the father who takes 
 counsel with them. It was never designed nor intended that he 
 should suffer death by men, for what man would be saved by 
 the blood of an innocent brother !" " With regard to the Almigh- 
 
149 
 
 ty's speaking by his Son, what kind of a father, would that be, 
 that would speak to his children by his eldest son, instead of 
 speaking directly to them." " He was inferior, seeing there could 
 be but one that had no beginning, and that was the Almighty." 
 " With regard to the miracles which he wrought, it was the weak- 
 est evidence which could be aflbrded, only suited to that low 
 dispensation, and was no evidence to us ; if there would be any 
 use in it, men might work miracles now." 
 
 " On the subject of the holy scriptures he said, " The scriptures 
 say, one one thing, and one another, and it cannot be ascertained 
 from them, whether Jesus was the son of Joseph or not ;" " there 
 were thirty gospels written, and these we have left, were selected 
 in the dark night of apostacy." " The scriptures may be, and no 
 doubt are, in the early part of a religious life, yet as pointing to 
 something better ; they are of no use when an advanced state is 
 attained to. Amidst much good, there is a great deal that is 
 otherwise ; the narratives of the evangelists are full of inconsisten- 
 cies with each other ; it had been better there had been only one, 
 and then it could not, at least, have been charged with inconsis- 
 tency ; there was but one copy formerly extant, which the Pope 
 got and modelled to his mind." " There is no reliance to be placed 
 on books or men, all outward means are to be rejected, and all 
 external miracles had no effect in promoting the gospel." These 
 sentiments were publicly expressed by him in the meetings of 
 the society, and for persevering in preaching and teaching them, 
 he was disowned. After his disownment he was generally 
 reputed to be in full unity with the meeting in Green street, 
 and that spoken of in New York, in correspondence with it, and 
 was an accepted minister with them : it is well understood to be 
 the case." 
 
 I refer also to pages 142, 143. 150. 160, 101. of the same evi- 
 dence ; to the evidence of Joseph Whitall, lb. pp. 2i4, 215. This 
 witness is very explicit: he says, " For several years previous to 
 1822, I had no opportunity of hearing him [Elias Hicks] publicly. 
 But at the time of the yearly meeting in that year, in a public 
 meeting on tirst day immediately preceding the yearly meeting 
 at New York, he uttered these remarkable words, *' that the 
 same power which made Christ a christian, must rn;ikt us chris 
 
150 
 
 tians, and the same power that saved him must save us." 1 never 
 before had heard such sentiments advanced by any minister in our 
 society, and believing that it was a clear denial that Jesus was 
 the Christ, I felt it my religious duty to take a private opportu- 
 nity with him at his lodgings, i informed him that I had enter- 
 tained a high regard for him from the first of our acquaintance to 
 thepresent time ; and withal informed him of the great uneasiness 
 he had given me in his public communications by bringing Christ 
 down to the level of a mere man. He replied that" it was a mat- 
 ter of the greatest encouragement to him, to believe that Christ 
 was no more than a man, for if he were any thing more, it would 
 destroy the effect of his example, to him." I repeated to him 
 the text, that " the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," 
 as is stated in John. He said, " it was impossible." In the course 
 of the conversation with him, he further said, " that it was an 
 abomination to pray to Jesus Christ." As regarded the scrip- 
 tures he said, " they were the cause of more bloodshed and con- 
 fusion, than any other thing ; and that it was a pity the epistles 
 had ever been handed down to us." In the course of the conver- 
 sation, he asked me if I had ever seen a pamphlet called the 
 ' Celestial magnet.' I told him, that I had seen one number to 
 my great dissatisfaction, as the author attempted to show or 
 prove that Christ was the illegitimate son of Joseph and Mary. 
 He said, " not the illegitimate, but the legitimate son of Joseph and 
 Mary." I told him I thought I could not be mistaken, for I had 
 read it but a few weeks before. He then went into an argument 
 of considerable length, as I understood it, that Christ was the 
 son of Joseph. He said that " he had believed the account 
 traditionally, as contained in the scriptures, concerning the 
 miraculous conception, but on further examination of the evan- 
 gelists, there was in them, greater proof than otherwise, of his 
 being the son of Joseph." I have omitted one part that ought 
 to have come in before, respecting Christ, one assertion he made, 
 he said, " it was his belief that Christ was liable to fall like 
 other men." During that opportunity he also declared that " as 
 it was lawful and right for George Fox in his day, to differ in 
 sentiment from the prevailing doctrines of the age, and to make 
 advances in the reformation, so it was right for him, meaning 
 himself, Elias Hicks, to make further advances." In objecting 
 
151 
 
 to the propriety of his promulgating such opinions in the meet- 
 ings of Friends and imposing them as the doctrines of our society, 
 1 expressed my beUef that " if he persisted to do so, it would 
 produce in our society the greatest schism that had ever hap- 
 pened ;" he admitted it would produce a schism, but said it 
 would be of short duration, for his doctrines must and would 
 prevail." I laboured with him in great tenderness, to reexamine 
 the grounds he had taken, to which he replied, he would. After 
 the yearly meeting closed, still feeling my mind very uneasy on 
 his account, I went again to his lodgings, and proposed to him, 
 to have a few judicious friends invited to come together, to dis- 
 cuss those important subjects that we had conversed about, for 
 it was one in which the happiness and welfare of society not only 
 there, but everywhere, was involved. He said, " It was in vain 
 to reason with him on the subject, for his mind was so made up, 
 that he was determined to persevere, let the consequences be 
 what they might." 
 
 " In first month, 1823, he was at Woodbury, it was on the 15th 
 day of the month. I thought it proper for me then to take ano- 
 ther opportunity with him, relative to a communication in writ- 
 ing, which he had sent to a number of the elders in Philadelphia, 
 in which he had made some misstatement of my words ; in this 
 letter he charged me with acting unfriendly, contrary to disci- 
 pline, and putting an improper or false construction upon his 
 words. (I give the substance, but I do not pretend to give the 
 words verbatim.) I let him know that I did not consider it un- 
 friendly, or contrary to discipline, to make a statement of the 
 doctrines he published, as I considered it as a species of public 
 property. He said, he did not consider that it was an occasion 
 of offence, for what he preached publicly he would stand by. 
 He then referred to some remarks he had made in conversation, 
 and thought that unkind, as he considered it a confidential con- 
 versation. I told him I did not consider it so, neither had he 
 requested it, and I think held up to him the inconsistency of 
 wishing me to be silent on doctrines he was spreading both pub- 
 licly and privately. He then gave up the point entirely, as act- 
 ing towards him unfriendly, or contrary to discipline, when I 
 reminded him of what had passed at New York. I then wanted 
 
 to know wherein I had wrested his words, or put an improper 
 
 y 
 
152 
 
 construction upon them. He took out of his pocket a letter 
 addressed to him by some of the elders of Philadelphia, and point- 
 ed to one paragraph, which they informed him I had asserted as 
 what he had declared as his doctrines. It was the declaration 
 1 heard him make at New York, that Christ was no more than 
 a man, &c. He remarked, that I ought to have stated as his 
 words, that " Christ was no more than an Israelite," and that 
 with that he would have been satisfied. I informed him, it was 
 my decided belief, that I had repeated the words rerhatim, hav- 
 ing made a memorandum of them shortly after. He then stated, 
 that " Christ was like the other Israelites, and differed from them 
 in fulfilling the law, having had a sufficient portion of the Spirit 
 so to do, as every other Israelite had. He considered " that Christ 
 was like a son who was dutiful and faithful in all things to his 
 father, in such a manner as to be entrusted with the keys of his 
 treasury." I informed him that I did fully believe his views 
 throughout, on the points we had discussed, were at variance 
 with the scriptures of truth, and the doctrines of ancient Friends ; 
 and that we, as a religious body, had published to the world, 
 that we were willing that our doctrines and practices should be 
 tested by the scriptures of truth. He said, " he was not willing 
 that his doctrines should be tried by the scriptures, or the writ- 
 ings of ancient Friends; and that he believed George Fox, Wil- 
 liam Penn and Robert Barclay thought as he did, but they were 
 afraid to come out." 
 
 It appears to me impossible that this witness should be mista- 
 ken. It was no accidental or transierit conversation that he 
 had with Mr. Hicks, but one sought for the very purpose of 
 speaking with him, relative to his doctrines, and to the uneasi- 
 ness which they excited. Mr. Hicks enters into an argument 
 to prove that his doctrines are right, and expresses a determina- 
 tion to persist in the promulgation of them, let the consequences 
 be what they might. He admitted that it would produce a 
 schism, but it would be of short duration ; and subsequently, 
 when the witness stated to him the disagreement between his 
 views and those of the founders of the society, he expressly says, 
 that he is not willing his doctrines should be tried by the scrip- 
 tures, or the writings of ancient Friends. Here is a distinct 
 admission, that he differs from the fathers of the church, from 
 
153 
 
 the primitive Friends ; that he was holding out new Hghts, and 
 setting up for a new guide ; that he was better qualified to in- 
 struct in ills day, than Fox and Barclay were in theirs, and that 
 although he knew his conduct would produce a schism, yet he 
 was determined to persist in it, though he saw it must rend the 
 society in sunder. 
 
 Without detaining the court with reading more of the testi- 
 mony, I think the doctrines of Elias Hicks are fully made out by 
 the evidence of these witnesses. But we have not to rely on the 
 testimony of witnesses only, we have his own letters, under his 
 own hand, in which he states his doctrinal views distinctly ; there 
 are several of (hese letters and there can be no doubt as to their 
 meaning. The first of these to which I shall call the attention 
 of the court, is from Elias Hicks to Phebe Willis, dated the 19th 
 of fifth month, 1818. Vol. H. Ev. p. 416. In this letter he says, 
 " But having for a considerable time past, found from full con- 
 viction, that there is scarcely any thing so baneful to the present 
 and future happiness and welfare of mankind, as a submission to 
 tradition and popular opinion, I have therefore 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 best and greatest of men, or 
 angels, and not to set 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, and which has led me to 
 see how very far all the professors of Christianity are from the 
 real spirit, and substance of the gospel ; and among other subjects, 
 T have been led, I trust carefully and candidly, to investigate 
 the effects produced by the book called the scriptures, since it 
 has borne that appellation, and it appears from a comparative 
 view, to have been the cause of fourfold more harm than good 
 to Christendom, since the apostles' days, and which I think must 
 be indubitably plain to every faithful honest mind, that has in- 
 vestigated her history, free from the undue bias of education, 
 and tradition." 
 
 "To the family of Abraham he dispensed a very peculiar 
 system of rituals and outward shadows, to which he required 
 obedience, in order to bring them back to a submission to his will, 
 as manifested by his spirit in their hearts, but he dispensed them 
 
154 
 
 to no other people but to Israel, and those that came of their 
 own accord and joined them, and as soon as the effect was pro- 
 duced, by bringing them back to their inward guide, all those 
 outward means became obsolete, and useless. So likewise he 
 made use of the ministry of Jesus Christ, and his apostles, for the 
 same end, to turn from darkness to the inward light, and when 
 that was effected, their ministry had done all it could do, and to 
 such, as they continued to walk in the light, their doctrine be- 
 came obsolete and useless ; and so in every age, where any real 
 reformation has been produced, it has always been by instruments 
 newly raised up, by the immediate operation of the spirit. And 
 where any people have depended upon what has been wTitten 
 to former generations, such make no advancement, but just sit 
 down in the labours of their forefathers, and soon become dry 
 and formal, and fall behind those they are copying after, or 
 propose to follow." 
 
 " And how much more reasonable it is to suppose, that an in- 
 spired teacher in the present day, should be led to speak more 
 truly and plainly to the states of the people to whom he is led to 
 communicate, than any doctrines that were delivered seventeen 
 hundred years ago, to a people very differently circumstanced 
 to those in this day, I leave to any rational mind to judge. And 
 that the doctrines of George Fox and our primitive Friends 
 should be easier to understand, and plainer, being written in our 
 own language, than the doctrines of the primitive christians, ap- 
 pears very reasonable, but 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 to be investigated, but bound to receive them as we have 
 been taught ; hence we have all been more or less dupes to tra- 
 dition and error. I well remember how oft my conscience has 
 smote me when I have been endeavouring to support the society's 
 belief of the scriptures, that they so very far excelled all other 
 writings, that the fear of man had too great a share in leading 
 me to adopt the sentiment, and custom rendered it more easy, 
 but I never was clear in my own mind as to that point, and had 
 I carefully attended to my own feelings I should have been pre- 
 served 1 believe in a line of more consistency, in that respect." 
 It will be perceived that in this letter Elias Hicks declares 
 
 1 
 
155 
 
 that the holy scriptures have heen productive of fourfold more 
 harm than good ; that to those who turn to the inward light 
 the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his apostles is obsolete and useless ; 
 that it is reasonable to suppose that inspired teachers of the pres- 
 ent day would be led to speak more truly and plainly to the 
 states of the people than any doctrines delivered seventeen hun- 
 dred years ago. And moreover that his conscience has often 
 smitten him when he has been endeavouring to support the belief 
 of the society of Friends, that the scriptures so much excelled 
 all other writings. Holding such sentiments as these, could Elias 
 Hicks, I would ask, believe that they were written by inspired 
 men, or that they weregiven for our guide and instruction] He 
 seems to have believed and esteemed them in his youth, but when 
 he unhappily became a convert to these new doctrines, doctrines 
 so adverse to the whole testimony of the bible, then he rejected 
 and undervalued them. What standard of faith then does he 
 leave for christians ? what rule for their guide, what test for doc- 
 trines 1 What becomes of" those precious and consoling hopes 
 that we derive from that sacred volume. 
 
 There is another letter to Phebe Willis, dated 23rd of ninth 
 month, to which I will now refer the court. It is to be found in 
 vol. n. Ev. p. 419. In this letter he says, "The next thing I 
 would observe is, that I have said that it would be better that 
 they were entirely annihilated, but this is not the case, as I have 
 never said it, as I remember, except I might when in pleasant 
 conversation with my particular friends who are in full unity, 
 and knew how to understand me, I might have said, that I did 
 not know but it might be as well that they were entirely done 
 away, but never expressed as my settled belief, but I may add 
 that I sometimes think that if they are really needful and useful 
 to a few who make a right use of them, yet as 1 believe they are 
 doing great harm to multitudes of others, whether it would not 
 be better for the few who find some comfort and help from them 
 to give them up for a time until the wrong use and abuse of them 
 are done away, in the same manner as in a moral relation it 
 might be better for the inhabitants of the world if distillation and 
 the means of making spirituous liquors was for a time given up 
 and done away, until the wrong use and abuse of it was done 
 away and forgotten, although it might deprive some of the bene- 
 
156 
 
 fit of it who use those articles only to their comfort and help, for 
 if after a time it might he thought right to renew the making it, 
 when the intemperate use and abuse was done away, it would be 
 a very easy thing for man to make it again. Just so in respect 
 to the scriptures, it would be a very easy thing for divine wisdom 
 and goodness to raise up and qualify some of his faithful servants 
 to write scriptures if he should think best, as good and as com- 
 petent for the generation in w^hich they lived, and likely would 
 be much better than those wrote so many hundred years since, 
 for would not some of us be very glad if we could have immedi- 
 ate access to Paul, and some other of the apostles, who contradict 
 one another and sometimes themselves, by which means we 
 might be informed of the true meaning of what they have wrote 
 and cause us all to understand them alike." 
 
 " I shall notice one thing more in thy letter, that respecting 
 the atonement ; and as time will not admit me to write much 
 more, I shall in a short way give thee my view on the subject : 
 and first I may say, that our primitive Friends stopt short in that 
 matter, not for want of faithfulness, but because the day that 
 was in some respects still dark, would not admit of further open- 
 ings, because the people could not bear it, therefore it was to be 
 a future work. But to suppose in this day of advanced light, 
 that the offering of the outward body of Jesus Christ should 
 purge away spiritual corruption, is entirely inconsistent with the 
 nature and reason of things, as flesh and spirit bear no analogy 
 with each other, and it likewise contradicts our Lord's own doc- 
 trines, where he assured the people that the flesh profiteth noth- 
 ing ; and many other of his sayings it contradicts. And I believe 
 nothing ever did, or ever will, atone for spiritual corruption, but 
 the entire death of that from whence that corruption originated, 
 which is the corrupt will, and the life that the creature has ge- 
 nerated in him by that will, both which must be slain by the 
 sword of the Spirit, which stands in the way to Eden, and must 
 die and be annihilated on the cross; and that is the true atone- 
 ment which the creature cannot effect for himself, only as he 
 submits to the operation of the life and spirit of Christ, which 
 will enable the willing and obedient to do it ; and the outward 
 atonement was a figure of it, which with the outward example 
 of Jesus Christ, in his righteous works and pious death, gives 
 
157 
 
 strength to the faithful to make this necessary offering and sa- 
 crifice unto, by which his sins is blotted, and he again reconciled 
 to his maker." 
 
 It is apparent, I think, from the tenor of this letter, that Elias 
 Hicks entirely rejected the holy scriptures. He admits that he 
 may have said to his friends that he did not know but it would 
 be as well that they were entirely done away, asserts that they 
 are doing great harm to multitudes, and even descends to a de- 
 grading comparison of them with spirituous liquors ; he also holds 
 out the idea, that if they were entirely destroyed, it is most 
 likely if any scriptures at all should afterwards be necessary per- 
 sons would be qualified to write such as would be much better 
 than those penned so many hundred years ago. It would seem 
 that he was vain and simple enough to imagine that he could 
 write better scriptures than Peter or any other of the apostles. 
 
 We have another letter addressed to Thomas Willis, dated 
 tenth month, 1821. It is to be found in vol. 11. Ev. p. 421, and 
 contains the following expressions. " Thine of the 27th instant I 
 have duly considered, and although, like thyself, I was brought 
 up and educated in the historical and traditional belief that the 
 conception of Jesus of Nazareth, in the womb of Mary his mother, 
 was effected by the power of God, and this has been my behef 
 as far as history could produce a belief, for more than fifty years ; 
 and although I read or have heard the scriptures read, many 
 times over, yet as I read them, or heard them read, under the 
 prejudice of a traditional belief, I never observed any thing that 
 appeared to militate against it; but having in the compass of a 
 few years past, been led into an examination of the ancient his- 
 tory of the professed christian church, wlierein I discovered, that 
 many who made profession of the christian name, believed other- 
 wise, and these at times stood foremost in esteem." 
 
 " Now, in his creed, [the Bishop of Rome] to which he made 
 all the nations of Europe bow, by the dint of the sword, was this of 
 the miraculous birth ; therefore, all children, for several hundred 
 years, were brought up and educated in this belief, without any 
 examination in regard to its correctness. 
 
 " Finding this to be the case, I examined the accounts given on 
 this subject by the fwur Evangelists, and according to my best 
 judgment on the occasion, I was led to think there was consider- 
 
158 
 
 able more scripture evidence for his being the son of Joseph than 
 otherwise ; although it has not yet changed my belief, are the 
 consequences which follow much more favourable ; for as the 
 Israelitish covenant rested very much upon external evidence, 
 by way of outward miracle, so I conceive this miraculous birth 
 was intended principally to induce the Israelites to believe he 
 was their promised Messiah, or the great prophet, Moses had 
 long before prophesied of that should come, like unto himself. 
 But, when we consider that he was born of a woman that was 
 joined in lawful wedlock with a man of Israel, it would seem 
 that it must shut the way to the enforcing any such belief, as all 
 their neighbours would naturally be led to consider him the son 
 of Joseph, and this it appears very clear they did, by the scrip- 
 ture testimony : and although it has not, as above observed, given 
 cause as yet, to alter my views on the subject, as tradition is a 
 mighty bulwark, not easily removed, yet it has had this salutary 
 effect, to deliver me from judging my brethren and fellow-crea- 
 tures who are in that belief, and can feel the same flow of love 
 and unity with them, as though they were in the same belief 
 with myself: neither would I dare to say positively that it would 
 be my mind, they should change their belief, unless I could give 
 them much greater evidence than I am at present possessed of, 
 as I consider in regard to our salvation, they are both non-essen- 
 tials; and I may further say, that I believe it would be much 
 greater sin in me, to smoke tobacco that was the produce of the 
 labour of slaves, than it would be to believe either of these posi- 
 tions." 
 
 In a letter to Dr. N. Shoemaker, dated third month 31st, 1S23, 
 he writes thus : " Thy acceptable letter of 1st month last, came 
 duly to hand, but my religious engagements, and other necessary 
 concerns, have prevented my giving it that attention that its con- 
 tents seem to demand. Thou queries after my views of the suf- 
 fering of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and what w^as the object 
 of the shedding of his blood on the cross, and what benefits re- 
 sulted to mankind by the shedding of this blood, &c. I shall 
 answer in a very simple way, as I consider the whole subject to 
 be a very simple one, as all truth is simple when we free our- 
 selves from the improper bias of tradition and education, which 
 rests as a burthensome stone on the minds of most of the children 
 
159 
 
 of men, and which very much mars the unity and harmony of 
 society. 
 
 " ]st. By what means did Jesus suffer? The answer is plain, 
 by the hands of wicked men, and because his works were right- 
 eous and theirs were wicked. Query. Did God send him into 
 the world purposely to suffer death by the hands of wicked men ? 
 By no means ; but to Uve a righteous and godly hfe, (which was 
 the design and end of God's creating man in the beginning,) and 
 thereby be a perfect example to such of mankind as should cc-me 
 to the knowledge of him and of his perfect life." 
 
 " But, 1 do not consider that the crucifixion of the outward bo- 
 dy of flesh and blood of Jesus on the cross, was an atonement for 
 any sins but the legal sins of the Jews ; for as their law was out- 
 ward, so their legal sins and their penalties were outward, and 
 these could be atoned for by an outward sacrifice ; and this last 
 outward sacrifice, was a full type of the inward sacrifice that 
 every sinner must make, in giving up that sinful life of his own 
 will, in and by which he hath from time to time, crucified the 
 innocent hfe of God in his own soul ; and which Paul calls " the 
 old man with his deeds," or " the man of sin, and son of perdi- 
 tion," who hath taken God's seat in the heart, and there exal- 
 teth itself above all that is called God, or is worshipped, sitting 
 as judge and supreme. Now all this life, power, and will of man, 
 must be slain, and die on the cross spiritually, as Jesus died on 
 the cross outwardly, and this is the true atonement, which that 
 outward atonement was a clear and full type of." 
 
 "Surely, is it possible, that any rational being that has any 
 right sense of justice or mercy, that would be willing to accept 
 forgiveness of his sins on such terms!!! V/ould he not rather 
 go forward and offer himself wholly up to suffer all the penalties 
 duejo his crijnes, rather than the innocent should suffer ? JVay — 
 was he so hardy as to acknowledge a willingness to be saved 
 through such a medium, would it not prove that he stood in direct 
 opposition to every -principle of justice and honesty, of mercy and 
 love, and show himself to be a poor selfish creature, and unworthy 
 of notice ! ! ! 
 
 " Having given thee a sketch of my views on the subject of thy 
 queries, how far thou may consider them correct, I must leave to 
 thy judgment and consideration ; and may now recommend thee 
 
160 
 
 to shake of all traditional views that thou hast imbibed from ex- 
 ternal evidences, and turn thy mind to the light within, as thy 
 only true teacher: wait patiently for its instruction, and it will 
 teach thee more than men or books can do ; and lead thee to a 
 clearer sight and sense of what thou desirest to know, than I 
 have words clearly to convey it to thee in." 
 
 In this letter he not only expresses the opinion that the suffer- 
 ings and death of Jesus Christ were not an atonement for any 
 sins, but the legal sins of the Jews, but he goes further, and asks 
 whether it is possible that any rational being, who has any right 
 sense of justice or mercy, would be willing to accept salvation 
 or forgiveness of sins, upon such terms. It is impossible to make 
 use of stronger terms, in the rejection of the doctrine of the 
 atonement, than he has done in this letter. I might detain the 
 court by reading numerous passages from his printed sermons 
 delivered in public meetings, within the limits of the Philadelphia 
 yearly meeeting, and in other places, in which he promulgates 
 sentiments similar to those which I have already exhibited, but 
 it would be superfluous, the fact of his holding and preaching 
 these doctrines is notorious, and has been so for years past. 
 
 We have then, written declarations, under the hand of Elias 
 Hicks, declaring the doctrines which he holds. What is there to 
 overcome all this body of oral and written evidence, and induce 
 us to believe, that he held the doctrines of the primitive Friends, 
 and that he did not hold the doctrines which he thus repeatedly 
 and deliberately declares that he did hold? There is nothing to 
 contradict all this evidence, except his answers to certain queries 
 that were put to him in 1829, after this difficulty and schism had 
 occurred in the society. There is no doubt but these queries 
 were addressed to him for the very purpose of procuring such 
 answers, as should induce his friends to think that he did not go 
 so far, as his former letters and sermons clearly imply. To per- 
 sons unaccustomed to his views, and modes of expression, it might 
 seem that these answers were more orthodox. But knowing his 
 evasive manner of speaking, and the contradictions which he 
 frequently ran himself into, we can find no difficulty in under- 
 standing his real meaning. They contain no clear and direct 
 acknowledgment of those doctrines, which he was so well known 
 to deny, and in several points they fully confirm his denial of 
 
161 
 
 them. One of these answers is professedly given with the view 
 of declaring his behef in the divinity of Christ. In the first part 
 of his answer he says, very artfully, that no man had ever incul- 
 cated that doctrine more frequently than he had done. But he 
 no where, in his answer admits, or alleges his belief in the doc- 
 trine of the divinity of Christ, as understood by all orthodox sects. 
 The divinity to which he alludes, is the divinity of the spirit that 
 was in Christ ; this and this only, he considered to be the Christ. 
 He says Jesus was truly the Son of God, endued with power from 
 on high, but he held this to be true, as regarded every true 
 christian. He explains his meaning to be, that Jesus had a larger 
 measure of this spirit than other men, because he had a greater 
 work to perform, and illustrates it, by referring to the parable of 
 the servants, one of whom had five talents, another two, and a 
 third only one talent. But he no where admits that in Jesus 
 Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, he no where 
 ascribes to him complete and underived divinity. 
 
 Giving to this testimony all the credit which the opposite 
 counsel claim for it, can we believe that it is entitled to more 
 weight than his repeated public testimonies, in the character of 
 a minister, and his numerous letters to, and conversations with 
 his brethren ? And here permit me to remark, that Elias Hicks 
 justified and defended an evasive policy ; there is evidence be- 
 fore this court, that he contended for the propriety of such a 
 course. There is evidence, that Elias Hicks declared of Fox and 
 Barclay, that if they had honestly spoken out, they would have 
 agreed with him, but that they kept silence from motives of poli- 
 cy, in which he justified them, because the temper of the times 
 would not bear an open declaration of their real sentiments. He 
 quotes the saying of the apostle Paul, that he became all things 
 to all men, as a pretext for dissimulation and falsehood. If then 
 he held the sentiments attributed to him, and which he declared 
 he did hold, and entertained these views of the lawfulness of eva- 
 sion, can we doubt, but that in penning these answers, he would 
 use such language as would deceive others, and at the same time 
 satisfy his own conscience. The evidence of the unsound doc- 
 trines of Elias Hicks, and his admission that they were diflferent 
 from the principles of the early Friends, is proved so conclusive- 
 ly, that there can remain no doubt respecting them. Neither 
 
 X 
 
162 
 
 can there be any question, that these were the doctrines refer- 
 red to by the new society, in their address of fourth month, 1827, 
 when they say, that " doctrines held by one part of society, and 
 which they [the Hicksites] believe to be sound and edifying, are 
 pronounced by the other part, to be unsound and spurious." The 
 fact is proved by their own witnesses, as well as by the circum- 
 stance, that there were no doctrines in controversy between 
 them, but those of Elias Hicks. The whole evidence shows, that 
 his doctrines, and those of the new society, are the same. They 
 espoused his cause, and undertook to defend him against the el- 
 ders, when these attempted to call him to account for spreading 
 these doctrines, and from that opposition to the elders, and sup- 
 port of Elias Hicks, all these difficulties arose. They all arose 
 from the attempts of the elders to prevent the spreading of these 
 doctrines, and from a party in the society rising up to defend Elias 
 Hicks in spreading them. The leading men belonging to this 
 party, their public ministers, the particular friends of Hicks, 
 Lower and Jackson, so far as we can ascertain from the evidence, 
 hold the same doctrines. When they come to be examined, 
 they refuse to answer, because they know that they could not 
 disclose their doctrines, without shewing a departure from the 
 doctrines of Friends, and their unity with Hicks. I repeat again, 
 there were no other doctrines than those of Elias Hicks in contro- 
 versy ; there were none other but his about which the dispute 
 could hove arisen, because no other were controverted. When 
 therefore we ascertain what the doctrines of Hicks are, we show 
 the doctrines respecting which all the controversy, and^difficulty, 
 and schism arose. 
 
 But we do not rest here. After all this separation had occurred, 
 after the controversy respecting the sentiments of Hicks had 
 existed for years, and his sermons containing them had been 
 preached and published, and extensively circulated; and this 
 " Hicksite" party gave him certificates of their unity with him, 
 did they not thereby adopt his doctrines ? We find from the 
 evidence, that Hicks attended the new yearly meeting in Green 
 street in the year 1828, after the separation, and that that 
 meeting then gave him a certificate of unity and acceptance 
 with them. Was not this a clear and full admission that they 
 adopted and approved his doctrines ? I refer for proof of these 
 
163 
 
 facts to the testimony of Abraham Lower, vol. I. Ev. p. 4G8, and 
 of Halliday Jackson, vol. IT. £v. p. 167. After an examination 
 of the evidence in this cause, it cannot be pretended by any man, 
 that this unhappy breach arose about discipline ; the whole 
 difficulty proceeded from the controversy about the doctrines of 
 Elias Hicks. The alleged violations of the discipline were the ef- 
 fects not the causes of the controversy. Hicks himself well knew, 
 and he admitted, that his doctrines were not the same as those of 
 the original Friends, of Fox and of Barclay. 
 
 But can we have a douht of the fact, when we see the same 
 schism occurring on the same grounds in other places. In New 
 York as in Philadelphia, it was a dissention about doctrines. 
 The separation in Philadelphia took place before that in New 
 York. That in New York occurred in the following year. 
 Elias Hicks was there. We tind that a scene of tumult and 
 confusion attended it, which could not be surpassed by a town 
 meeting; Hicks calling out and encouraging his adherents, tell- 
 ing them not to let the clerk proceed. His name is not peculiar 
 to the party in this state or in Pennsylvania, but attaches to 
 them wherever the separation has taken place. In Ohio and 
 Indiana the same state of things exists, there they are greatly in 
 the minority. Here they allege they are a majority, but that is a 
 matter of doubt as appears from the evidence ; their majority is 
 not proved. The same separation having taken place in New 
 York, Philadelphia, Ohio and Indiana, and Hicks being in concert 
 and union with the seceding party in all these places, the con- 
 clusion is irresistible, that the same ground of separation exists in 
 all, and that this ground is the doctrines which he promulgated. 
 I think therefore the court can have no difficulty in deciding 
 that the schism arose about religious doctrines, and about the 
 doctrines inculcated by him. 
 
 I have now gone through the evidence on this head, as fully 
 as is necessary to place this case in its true light. I have omit- 
 ted many topics which might have been introduced, but I have 
 no doubt that this cause will be fully and carefully examined by 
 your honours, and that the investigation which you will give it, 
 "will more than supply any deficiency of mine. It only remains 
 to enquire, what is the law on the subject before the court, if I 
 have succeeded in establishing the propositions which I have 
 
1G4 
 
 endeavoured to maintain. The principles of law applicable to 
 this cause have been so long and clearly settled, that there can 
 be but little question about them now. Whenever a schism 
 takes place, and a separation follows, the party seceding can 
 have no claim to the property, as against the congregation from 
 which they separate. Whenever they cease to be members of 
 the society, they cease to have any right to control its proper- 
 ty. The property is held for the benefit of the society, and if 
 Ihey separated and withdrew, even if there is no dispute upon 
 doctrines, there is no principle upon which they could take the 
 property with them. The gentlemen on the opposite side con- 
 tend, that there must be a dissension on the ground of religious 
 faith, or else the party seceding would have a right to the 
 property in case they were a majority. But if they withdraw 
 and establish a new society, whether doctrines are the ground 
 of dispute and withdrawal or not, they cease to be members of 
 the original society, and they cease to have any claim to the 
 property when they cease to be members, their claim being 
 merely as members, not as individuals. The cases in the books 
 clearly support this position. This is the principle of the de- 
 cision in 5 Mass. Rep. 554. Wherever a new township, or 
 corporation, or new parish is erected out of an old one, the new 
 can have no claim to the property of the old one. The same 
 principle is recognized in 8 Mass. Rep. 96. 4 lb. 389. 7 Ibid. 
 435. All these decisions go upon the principle of a separation, 
 not upon the ground of religious doctrine. If therefore this new 
 society have separated from us ; if they have withdrawn ; if they 
 cannot show that the original meeting was dissolved, they can 
 have no claim to the property. The yearly, quarterly, monthly, 
 and preparative meetings, all stand upon the same footing in this 
 respect. If they have separated from their brethren and gone over 
 to a new head, they can have no claim to any part of this property. 
 And the decisions of the court of chancery in respect to trust pro- 
 perty, are all upon the same principles. A property held in trust 
 for a religious community, must be held in trust for that commu- 
 nity, and for promoting those doctrines that the community held 
 at the time the trust was created. If part of them change their 
 doctrines, whether the majority or the minority, it is impossible 
 that they can take the property belonging to the society with 
 
165 
 
 them. If part of an Episcopal church join a Presbyterian church, 
 they cannot carry any part of the property with them ; they 
 cannot require the others to change their opinions. If a change 
 of doctrines takes place in all the members of a society, there 
 may be more difficulty about it. Lord Eldon, however, seemed 
 to think, that even then the property could not be used to sup- 
 port a different doctrine from that held at the time it was given. 
 But where there is a majority merely who change, there can be no 
 doubt according to the principle of trusts, it must be considered 
 as held solely for the benefit of the congregation who remain, and 
 for those principles for which it was originally intended. In 2 
 Jacob & Walker, 245, this principle is fully recognized, that 
 the property must be considered as held for the benefit of that 
 community, and of those doctrines, which existed at the time the 
 trust was created. The same doctrine is recognized in Merivale, 
 353. The trust in that case was a very general one. It was 
 expressed to be for the benefit of a congregation worshi]»ping 
 Almighty God. A reference was there made to a master, to 
 ascertain the doctrines of the society at the time of the creation 
 of the trust. It was there held, that if they were then trinita- 
 rians, and those who now held it were unitarians, it could not 
 be held by them ; but must be held for the benefit of those for 
 whom the trust was originally created. 
 
 The case in Dow, and in 2 Bligh, 529, contains the same prin- 
 ciple, and goes also to establish theother principle, that if a divi- 
 sion takes place in a congregation, and a part separate from the 
 original head, and go to a new one, and a part do not, whether 
 doctrines form the ground of separation or not, the part which 
 go over to the new head lose their rights. If the superior church- 
 es change their doctrine, the subordinate ones are not bound to 
 change theirs. If a part of the head changes its doctrines, and a 
 part of the subordinate branches change theirs also, then those 
 who separate and form a new head, will lose their right to the 
 property ; but if there is no dispute about doctrine, those who 
 separate from the head will be considered as seceders, and will 
 lose the benefit of the property. If the whole head changes its 
 religious principles, the society which separates from it, and ad- 
 heres to the religious principles of the society, will not lose their 
 rights. These decisions are all in conformity to, and all go upon 
 
166 
 
 the same principle. The principle of majority has never been 
 made tiie ground of decision in the case of a schism in a congrega- 
 tion or religious society. Such a principle is not to be found in our 
 law books or systems of equity. Upon what principle can the 
 majority claim the property, if they absolve themselves from the 
 head of their church, and voluntarily withdraw ? They cannot 
 take away the right of property from those who adhere to the so- 
 ciety to which they originally belonged. If they hold in their indi- 
 vidual capacity, each will receive an individual portion according 
 to his right. If they hold as members, they can control the prop- 
 erty no longer than they continue in membership ; the right 
 cannot be affected by a change of trustees. 
 
 These principles as laid down in Dow and Bligh, are highly 
 important, and will govern the court in this case. 
 
 It would be strange indeed, if property belonging to a religious 
 community, was to be divided every time a schism takes place ; 
 this would be a great encouragement to schismatics. There can 
 be but one uniform principle. When a division takes place by 
 consent of parties, they may divide the general property, but the 
 court will never suffer property held in trust for a particular 
 charity to be divided, and a part diverted to another object. 
 The idea of the gentlemen opposed to us was, that if the trust 
 was explicitly declared in the deed of trust, the court must be 
 governed by it, and if not so expressed, the majority must govern. 
 In reply, I refer to the case in 3 Merivale, and the one in Bligh. 
 There the most general terms were used in the creation of the 
 trust, and yet the court held that they must look back, and if 
 they could discover the original intention of the trust, they would 
 be governed by it. The cases I have quoted furnish full an- 
 swers to all the distinctions attempted to be raised by the oppo- 
 site counsel. It v^'ill be found that his positions are all unten- 
 able, and that there is but one uniform principle running through 
 and governing all the decisions of the courts. This question is 
 highly important, not only to the society of Friends, but to every 
 religious community; what is the law in regard to one, must also 
 be as respects all ; we are now to know whether the principle 
 is to be sanctioned, that a majority is to prevail over a minority, 
 and to divest them of their rights. The decision of this cause 
 then is a subject of great interest and importance to every reli- 
 
167 
 
 gious community, and at the hands of this court it doubtless will 
 receive that careful and deliberate consideration which its mag- 
 nitude demands. 
 
 With these considerations, 1 submit the case to the court, not 
 doubting but a decision will be made that shall promote the 
 interests both of the society of Friends, and the community at 
 large. It is highly desirable that this question should be settled 
 on its real merits; no technical objections have been raised, and 
 great pains have been taken to ascertain the true character and 
 rights of the respective parties. They are placed in an unhap- 
 py situation, and the question must, sooner or later, be deter- 
 mined. The sooner it is done the better it will be for all parties ; 
 and we trust such a decision will be given, as shall put the 
 matter entirely at rest. 
 
■i 
 
 i 
 
THE DECISION. 
 
CHAIVCERY OF XEW JERSEY. 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson, complainant, "^ 
 
 and I On bill for relief, 
 
 Thomas L. Shotwell and Elizabeth j &c. 
 
 his wife, defendants. J 
 AND BETWEEN 
 
 Thomas L. Shotwell, complainant, '\ ^ ,■■,^ r 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson and Stacy De- jo " ' 
 
 cow, defendants, J 
 
 On the 10th July, 1832, Chief Justice Ewing and Justice Drake 
 came into court, and delivered their opinions in this cause. 
 Opinion of Chief Justice Ewing. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson exhibited a bill of complaint in this court, 
 stating that on the second day of April, one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and twenty-one, being the Treasurer of the School Fund of 
 the Preparative Meeting of the Society of Friends of Chesterfield, 
 in the county of Burlington, he loaned the sum of two thousand 
 dollars, part of that' fund, to Thomas L. Shotwell, who thereupon 
 made a bond to him, by the name and description of Joseph Hen- 
 drickson, Treasurer of the School Fund of Crosswicks Meeting, 
 conditioned for the payment of the said sum, with interest, to him, 
 treasurer as aforesaid, or his successor, on the second day of 
 April, then next ensuing, and also a mortgage of the same date, 
 by the like name and description, on certain real estate, with a 
 condition of redemption, on payment of the said sum of money, 
 with interest, to the said Joseph Hendrickson, or his successor, 
 treasurer of the school fund, according to the condition of the 
 aforesaid bond. He farther states, that Thomas L. Shotwell, refu- 
 ses to pay the money to him, being treasurer as aforesaid, on divers 
 unfounded and erroneous pretensions ; and he seeks relief in this 
 court by a decree for the foreclosure of the mortgage, or for a 
 
sale of the mortgaged premises, and an appropriation of the pro- 
 ceeds to the payment of the debt. 
 
 Sometime after the exhibition of this bill, Thomas L. Shotwell 
 filed here a bill of interpleader, wherein Joseph Hendrickson and 
 Stacy Decow are made defendants ; in which he admits the above 
 mentioned bond and mortgage, and the source from which ema- 
 nated the money thereby intended to be secured, the school fund 
 of the Chesterfield preparative meeting. He admits also, the lia- 
 bility of himself and the real estate described in the mortgage, and 
 avows his readiness and willingness to pay whatever is due. But 
 he says Stacy Decow has warned him not to pay to Joseph Hen- 
 drickson, alleging that Hendrickson is no longer treasurer of the 
 fund, and has therefore no right to receive ; and that he is the 
 treasurer and successor of Hendrickson, and as such claims the 
 money mentioned in the bond and mortgage. Seeking, then, the 
 protection of this coUrt, and offering, on being indemnified by its 
 power, to pay to whomsoever the right belongs, he prays that Jo- 
 seph Hendrickson and Stacy Decow may, according to the course 
 and practice of this court, interplead, and adjust between them- 
 selves their respective claims. 
 
 Joseph Hendi'ickson answered this bill ; and insists, as in his 
 original bill, that he is, as he was when the bond and mortgage 
 were executed, the treasurer of the school fund of the Chester- 
 field preparative meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, and is entitled 
 to the bond and mortgage, and to receive the money due thereon, 
 
 Stacy Decow has also answered the bill of interpleader. He 
 admits the loan of the money, part of the school fund, to Shotwell, 
 and the due execution and delivery, and the validity of the bond 
 and mortgage, and that when they were made, Joseph Hendrick- 
 son was the treasurer of the school fund, duly appointed by the 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting at Crosswicks; in whom, as all 
 the parties in this cause admit, was vested the right of appointing 
 the treasurer of the fund. But he says that before the filing of 
 the original bill by Joseph Hendrickson, and " on the thirty-first 
 day of the first month, 1828, at a lawful meeting of tlie said Ches- 
 terfield preparative meeting of Friends, held at the usual time and 
 place of meeting at Crosswicks, he was appointed, in due and law- 
 ful manner, treasurer of the said school fund, to succeed the said 
 Joseph Hendrickson ; and as such successor, became entitled to 
 
all the books, obligations and other papers, which he had in his 
 possession, and also to the funds then in his hands, and more par- 
 ticularly to the bond and mortgage in the original bill and bill of 
 interpleader mentioned, and the money due thereon ; and the said 
 Joseph Hendrickson ceased to have any right, title or claim there- 
 to." He farther insists " that he always has continued since his 
 appointment, and is the lawful treasurer of the said school fund, 
 and as the successor of the said Joseph Hendrickson is lawfully 
 entitled to have and receive all such bonds, obligations and mort- 
 gages, and the money due thereon, as had been taken for the loan 
 of any part of the said fund in his name as treasurer of the said 
 school fund, or payable to him, as such treasurer, or his successor." 
 
 This brief view of the pleadings is here presented, in order dis- 
 tinctly to exhibit, in a clear and naked manner, divested of auxilia- 
 ry and explanatory matters, and especially of forensic forms, the 
 grounds of the respective claims of the interpleading parties. And 
 hence, we may discern, the great outlines of the enquiries which 
 an investigation of this cause will lead us to make. For accord- 
 ing to these pretensions, and to these alone, thus set forth in the 
 pleadings, as they are respectively supported or subdued by the 
 proofs, the decree of this tribunal must be made, whatever other 
 points favorable or unfavorable to either party may become mani- 
 fest by the evidence. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson claims the money, because originally made 
 payable to him, and because he is, as he then was, the treasurer 
 of the fund. 
 
 Stacy Decow claims the money, because payable by the terms 
 of the bond to the successor of Joseph Hendrickson in that office, 
 and because he became, and is such successor, and the present 
 treasurer. 
 
 A slight sketch of the history of the estabHshment and organi- 
 zation of the Crosswiclis school, and of the fund, may be interest- 
 ing, and will, perhaps, shed light on some step in the progress of 
 our investigations. 
 
 The education of youth and the establishment of schools, attrac- 
 ted the care and attention, and brought out the exertions, of the 
 yearly meeting of Philadelphia, at an early day. Most earnest and 
 pressing recommendations of these interesting duties, to the consid- 
 eration and notice of the society were repeatedly made; and to 
 
6 
 
 render these more effectual, committees were appointed to attend 
 and assist the quarterly meetings. In the year 1778, the yearly 
 meeting adopted the report of a committee " that it be recom- 
 mended to the quarterly, and from thein to the monthly and pre- 
 parative meetings, that the former advice, for the collecting a 
 fund for the establishment and support of schools, under the care 
 of a standing committee, appointed by the several monthly or par- 
 ticular meetings, should generally take place, and that it be re- 
 commended by the yearly meeting, to friends of each quarter, to 
 send up the next year, an account of what they have done here- 
 in." And the report suggests the propriety of "a subscription 
 towards a fund, the increase of which might be employed in pay- 
 ing the master's salary, and promoting the education of the poor- 
 er Friends' children." 2 vol. Evid. 387. 
 
 The quarterly meeting of Burlington appear-to have faithfully 
 striven to promote the wise views and benevolent purposes of the 
 yearly meeting. In 1777, and 1778, appropriate measures were 
 adopted, 2 vol. Evid. 436. In 1783, the subject was " afresh 
 recommended to the due attention of their monthly and prepara- 
 tive meetings, and to oroduce renewed exertion," a committee 
 previously appointed, was discharged, and a new one raised ; and 
 " it is desired," says the minute, " that accounts of our progress 
 herein, may be brought forward timely, to go from this to the en- 
 suing yearly meeting." 2 vol. Evid. 436. 
 
 Within the bounds of the Chesterfield monthly meeting, al- 
 though a committee had been for some time charged with the sub- 
 ject, there appears no practical result, until after the meeting in 
 April, 1788, when a new committee was appointed, "to endeavor 
 to promote the establishing of schools, agreeably to the directions 
 of the yearly meeting." 2 vol Evid. 349. In August, 1780, the 
 committee reported, that they had agreed on a place to build a 
 school-house, and had obtained subscriptions to a considerable 
 amount, and had agreed " to lay the same before the montlily 
 meeting for their approbation." The minute of the meeting ap- 
 proves, " and empowers them to proceed." 2 vol. Evid. 349. To 
 the monthly meeting of August, 1791, "The committee ap- 
 pointed for the establishment of schools, agreeabl}^ to the direc- 
 tion of the yearly meeting, reported, there is a house at Cliester- 
 field, so far finished, that a school might be kept in it, but it is not 
 
yet occupied for that purpose ; neither is there any such school 
 within this monthly meeting." The clerk was directed " to send 
 up" this report " to the ensuing quarterly meeting." 2 vol Evid. 
 349. No other action on it took place by the monthly meeting, 
 until December, 1791, when they recommended to the prepara- 
 tive meeting of Chestertield, " and they are hereby authorized," 
 says the entry on the minutes, " to open a school in the said house, 
 and appoint a suitable number of Friends, as trustees, to take the 
 care and oversight thereof, and to make rules and regulations for 
 the government and promotion of the institution ; which rules and 
 regulations shall always bo inspected by the monthly meeting 
 committee, for their approbation or disallowance; and said meet- 
 ing are likewise authorised to appoint a treasurer, to receive sub- 
 scriptions and donations, for accumulating a fund." 2 vol. Evid. 
 349, exhih. 51. 
 
 The fruit of these discreet and vigorous measures soon appear- 
 ed. The house built, provision made for trustees and a treasu- 
 rer, and the accumulation of a fund thus earnestly resolved, a 
 subscription was opened, and numerous and generous donations 
 were obtained. The original instrument of writing has been pro- 
 duced before us. It is an interesting record of liberality. The 
 subscribers describe themselves to be " members of the prepara- 
 tive meeting of the people called Quakers, at Crosswicks." They 
 engage to make the payments to the " treasurer of the school at 
 Crosswicks, begun and set up under the care of the preparative 
 meeting." And the purpose is thus declared. " The principal 
 whereof, so subscribed, is to be and remain a permanent fund, 
 under the direction of the trustees of the said school, now or 
 hereafter to be chosen by the said preparative meeting, and by 
 them laid out or lent on interest, in such manner as they shall 
 judge will best secure an interest or annuity, which interest or 
 annuity is to be applied to the education of such children as now 
 do, or hereafter shall, belong to the same preparative meeting, 
 whose parents are, or shall not be, of ability to pay for their edu- 
 cation." Exhih. 1, 2 vol. Evid. 411. 
 
 This subscription was the basis of the school fund. Accessions 
 to it were afterwards made, by other individuals of the society; 
 and the quarterly meeting of Burlington, who held and owned a 
 stock, composed of donations, bequests, and the proceeds of the 
 
8 
 
 sale of some meeting houses, resolved, in 1792, to divide a portion 
 of it among the monthly meetings, " for the promotion of schools, 
 answerable to the recommendation of the yearly meeting, by es- 
 tablishing permanent funds within such of the meetings where 
 none have been heretofore, or in addition to such as are alrea- 
 dy established." 2 vol. Evid. 437, exhib. 32. The share of 
 Chesterfield monthly meeting having been received, was subdivi- 
 ded, and a part of it paid over to the treasurer of the school fund 
 of the preparative meeting of Chesterfield, " to be applied to the 
 use directed by the minute of the quarterly meeting." 2 vol. 
 Evid. 347, exhib. 51. In 1802, a farther sum, arising from the 
 sale of " an old meeting house," was paid to the treasurer, by the 
 monthly meeting, to be appropriated in the same manner. Ex- 
 hib. 02, 2 vol. Evid. 347. 
 
 In this way, and by discreet and prudent management, a fund 
 was accumulated, a school house erected, and, as we learn from 
 one of the witnesses, " Friends, for many years, generally had a 
 school kept therein, under their superintendence, and frequently 
 appropriated a part of the proceeds towards paying the teacher's 
 salary, and for the education of children contemplated in the ori- 
 ginal establishment of the fund." Samuel Craft, 2 vol. Evid. 
 350. 
 
 A part of this fund, as we have already seen, was loaned to 
 Thomas L. Shotwell, and is the subject of the present controversy. 
 
 For the direction of the school, and for the care, preservation, 
 and management of the fund, provision, as has been shewn, was 
 made, as well by the terms of the subscription, as by the resolu- 
 tion of the monthly meeting. The oflicers,* were accordingly ap- 
 pointed by the preparative meeting, from time to time, as occasion 
 required. The trustees were usually chosen in the first month of 
 every year. 2 vol. Evid. 287. No fixed term of office appears 
 to have been assigned to the treasurer ; so that the incumbent re- 
 mained until removed by death, resignation, or the will of the ap- 
 pointing body. The person who held that station when the sub- 
 scription was made, continued there until 1812, when another 
 Friend succeeded him, and remained in office until Joseph Hen- 
 drickson was duly appointed, in 1816. 
 
 The facts thus far presented are not, and from the jileadings 
 and evidence in the cause, cannot be, the subject of dispute. There 
 
are some positions, deducible from tliem, which are equally clear 
 and incontrovertible. 
 
 First. The money mentioned in the bond being payable to 
 Joseph Hendrickson, as treasurer, he has an indisputable right to 
 claim and receive it, if he remains in that office. 
 
 Second. Inasmuch as he was duly appointed, which is une- 
 quivocally admitted by the pleadings, and inasmuch as the term 
 of office of treasurer does not cease by efflux of time or by pre- 
 vious limitation, the legal presumption is that he remains in office 
 until competent evidence of his due removal is given. 
 
 Third. Such being the case, Joseph Hendrickson is not re- 
 quired to produce farther evidence of his right to receive the mo- 
 ney, or of his continuance in office, or that he has been retained 
 there by the competent authority ; but whoever denies that right, 
 or seeks to sustain any claim on the ground that he has ceased 
 to be treasurer, ought to establish the ground by lawful and suffi- 
 cient proof. 
 
 Fourth. Inasmuch as Stacy Decow alleges that Joseph Hen- 
 drickson was removed from office, and that he was appointed his 
 successor and treasurer of the school fund, (and upon this remo- 
 val and appointment, he rests, in his answer, for the entire sup- 
 port of his claim,) it is incumbent on him to establish the fact and 
 legahty of this removal and appointment. 
 
 The power of appointment and removal, as the litigating par- 
 ties unqualifiedly admit, is vested in the Chesterfield preparative 
 meeting at Crosswicks, meant and mentioned in the original sub- 
 scription paper or agreement of the donors; which is distinguish- 
 ed as Exhibit No. 1, and which I have already referred to as the 
 basis of the school fund. The parties also admit, or rather, in- 
 sist, in their pleadings, by their evidence, and in the arguments of 
 their counsel, that the preparative meeting is one and undivided; 
 or in other words, that there is and can be but one body entitled 
 to be called the Chesterfield preparative meeting, to exercise its 
 power and authority, and especially, the prerogativ^e of removal 
 and appointment. It farther appears from the evidence, that a body 
 calling themselves, and claiming to be. the Chesterfield preparative 
 meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, did on the thirty-first day of Jan- 
 uary 1828, adopt a resolution and enter it on their minutes, to 
 the following effect : "■ This meeting being now informed by the 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 trustees who have the hnmediate care and trust of the school fund 
 belonging to this meeting, that the person who w^as sometime since 
 appointed treasurer thereof, refuses to settle the account of the said 
 fund with them, this meeting, therefore, now think it best to ap- 
 point a Friend to succeed him as treasurer of the said fund, and 
 Stacy Decow being now named to that service and united with 
 by this meeting, is appointed accordingly." 
 
 We are now brought to the issue between these parties, and 
 are enabled to propound for solution, the question on wdiich their 
 respective claims depend ; was this body the Chesterfield prepara- 
 tive meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, meant and mentioned in 
 the estabHshment of the school fund ? If it was, Stacy Decow 
 is the successor and ti*easurer. If not, Joseph Hendrickson re- 
 mains in office, and is entitled to the money. 
 
 The meetings in the society of Fiiends are of two kinds, for wor- 
 ship, and for discipline, as they are sometimes called, or in other 
 words, for business. This distinction is sufficiently correct and 
 precise for our present purposes, and it is not necessary to pause 
 to consider of the suggestion, I have read somewhere in the tes- 
 timony or documents in the cause, or perhaps, heard from the 
 counsel in argument, that every meeting for discipline, is in truth 
 a meeting for worship, since he who cordially and faithfully per- 
 forms any ecclesiastical duty, does thereby pay an act of adora- 
 tion to the Almighty. 
 
 The meetings for business are four in number, marked and dis- 
 tinguished by peculiar and characteristic differences ; preparative, 
 monthly, quarterly and yearly. These are connected together, 
 and rise in gradation and rank in the order of their enumeration. 
 Each yearly meeting comprehends several quarterly meetings ; 
 each quarterly meeting several monthly meetings ; and every 
 monthly meeting embraces several of the lowest order, prepara- 
 tive meetings. The preparative meeting is connected with, 
 and subordinate to, some monthly meeting; the monthly meet- 
 ing, to some quarterly meeting; the quarterly meeting, to its 
 appropriate yearly meeting. The connection and subordination 
 are constitutional and indispensable ; insomuch, that if any quar- 
 terly meeting withdraws itself from its proper yearly meeting, 
 without being in due and regular manner united to some other 
 yearly meeting, it ceases to be a quarterly meeting of the society 
 
11 
 
 of Friends. In like manner of the other meetings, down to the 
 lowest. So that if a preparative meeting withdraws from its pe- 
 culiar monthly meeting, and does not unite with another of the 
 same common head, or some other legal and constitutional head, 
 or in other words, some acknowledged meeting, it does, from the 
 moment, and by the very act of withdrawal, cease to be a pre- 
 parative meeting of the society of Friends. 
 
 The truth of the position I have thus laid down, respecting con 
 nection and subordination, will not, I presume, in the manner and 
 to the full extent which I have stated, meet with any denial or 
 doubt. Yet, as it is of considerable importance in the present 
 cause, I shall show that it is established; first, by the constitution 
 or discipHne of the society ; second, by their usages, or as they 
 might be called, in forensic language, cases in point, or prece- 
 dents ; and lastly, by the opinion of the society at large, so far as 
 may be learned from the views of well informed members. 
 
 In the first place, then, as proposed, let us look into the 
 book of discipline. We find there the following clear and expli- 
 cit language. " For the more regular and effectual support of 
 this order of the society, besides the usual meetings for the purpo- 
 ses of divine worship, others are instituted, subordinate to each 
 other ; such as, first, preparative meetings, which commonly con- 
 sist of the members of a meeting for worship ; second, monthly 
 meetings, each of which commonly consists of several prepara- 
 tive meetings ; third, quarterly meetings, each of which consists 
 of several of the monthly meetings ; and fourth, the yearly meet- 
 ing, which comprises the whole." " These meetings have all dis- 
 tinct allotments of service." The connection of the several meet- 
 ings, and their subordination, in the manner I have suggested, are 
 here most plainly and unequivocally shown and established. The 
 place which this clause occupies in the discipline or constitution, 
 (and the latter name seems more familiar, or at least to convey to 
 pi'ofessional minds, more distinct ideas,) serves to illustrate its im- 
 portance. It is mentioned at the commencement; as if, one of the 
 first truths to be taught and known ; as if, the very foundation of 
 the structure of discipline raised upon it. The article on appeals 
 speaks the same idea. A person aggrieved may appeal from the 
 monthly meeting to the quarterly meeting, and the monthly meet- 
 ing are in such case, to appoint a committee to show the reasons 
 
12 
 
 of their judgment and submit it there, where the judgment is to 
 be confirmed or reversed. From the quarter!)' meeting, an ap- 
 peal may be taken to the yearly meeting, whei'e a committee are 
 to attend with copies of the records of the monthly and quarterly 
 meetings, and where the matter is to be finally determined ; and a 
 copy of the determination is to be sent to the meeting from which 
 the appeal came. In the article on meetings for discipline are 
 contained the following clauses. " The connection and subordina- 
 tion of our meetings for discipline are thus, preparative meetings 
 are accountable to the monthly ; monthly to the quarterly ; and 
 the quarterly to the yearly meeting. So that if the yearly meet- 
 ing be at any time dissatisfied with the proceedings of any infe- 
 rior meeting, or a quarterly meeting with the proceedings of ei- 
 ther of its monthly meetings, or a monthly meeting with the pro- 
 ceedings of either of its preparative meetings, such meeting or 
 meetings ought with readiness and meekness, to render an ac- 
 count thereof when required." "It is agreed, that no quarterly 
 meeting be set up or laid down without the consent of the yearly 
 meeting ; no monthly meeting without the consent of the quarterly 
 meeting ; nor any preparative or other meeting for business or 
 worship, till application to the monthly meeting is first made, and 
 when there approved, the consent of the quarterly meeting be al- 
 so obtained." 
 
 Another clause requires monthly meetings to appoint represen- 
 tatives to attend the quarterly meetings; and that at least, four of 
 each sex be appointed in every quarterly meeting to attend the 
 yearly meeting. Another clause is in these words : " The use 
 and design of preparative meetings is, in general, to digest and 
 prepare business, as occasion may require, which may be proper 
 to be laid before the monthly meeting." 
 
 The connection and subordination of these meetings, and their 
 relative rank or station in ecclesiastical order, being thus plainly 
 and conclusively shown and established by the highest authority, 
 the revered and respected rule of government for this whole re- 
 ligious community, we may naturally expect, what accordingly 
 we find, numerous instances of the exercise of authority, of the 
 subsistence of this connection, and of the fruits of tiiis subordina- 
 tion, in the conduct toward each other, of the respective meetings. 
 From the examples which are abundnntly furnished us in the evi- 
 
13 
 
 dence, I shall select a very few, and I prefer, for obvious reasons, 
 to take them from the minutes of Burlington and Chesterfield 
 meetings. The constant intercourse by representatives, and the 
 frequent appointment and attendance of committees from the 
 yearly to the quarterly, and from the latter to inferior meetings, 
 need only to be mentioned in general terms, to be brought fresh 
 to the remembrance of all who know any thing of the ecclesiasti- 
 cal history of their own times or of their predecessors, or who 
 have perused the testimony and documents before us. In second 
 month, 1778, the quarterly meeting of Burlington directed the 
 times of holding certain preparativa meetings, so as to be conve- 
 nient to a committee who were to visit them. In second month, 
 1820, the quarterly meeting refused to allow the holding of an af- 
 ternoon meeting for worship, in Trenton, and directed their clerk 
 to inform the monthly meeting of Chesterfield of their determina- 
 tion. In 1821, the Trenton preparative meeting requested of the 
 monthly meeting, permission to continue their afternoon sittings, 
 and leave for one year was given. In fifth month, 1825, the quar- 
 terly meeting declared, that certain persons admitted into mem- 
 bership in Chesterfield monthly meeting, were not members, and 
 the clerk was directed to communicate this conclusion to that 
 meeting and to the individuals. In fifth month, 1825, the quarter- 
 ly meeting annulled the proceedings of the Chesterfield monthly 
 meeting respecting the reception of a person as one of its mem- 
 bers. In eleventh month, 1825, Trenton afternoon meetings were 
 discontinued by order of the monthly meeting. In fourth month, 
 1826, the Trenton preparative meeting requested permission to 
 hold an afternoon sitting, which, at the next monthly meeting, was 
 refused. In 1826, Thomas L. Shotwell, one of the parties in this 
 cause, was disowned by the monthly meeting of Chesterfield. He 
 appealed to the quarterly meeting of Burlington, where the dis- 
 ownment was confirmed. In the Chesterfield preparative meet- 
 ing of sixth month, 1827, the extracts from the yearly meeting of 
 fourth month, 1827, were produced and read. Contributions of 
 money are statedly made, according to a prescribed ratio, and 
 forwarded by the inferior to the superior meetings, and thus a 
 stock, as it is called, is maintained in the yearly meeting. Occa- 
 sional, or ex re nata, contributions have also, at 'times, been 
 made. The yearly meeting of 1827, recommended the raising 
 
14 
 
 of a large sum, three thousand dollars, for a work of benevolence, 
 and the preparative and monthly meetings of Chesterfield pursued 
 the recommendation, and bore their usual and proportional part 
 in carrying it into eifect. 
 
 A brief reference will show that individuals, as well as meet- 
 ings and the book of discipline, recognise and maintain the con- 
 nection and subordination of the several bodies in the society. In 
 the pleadings of the parties in this cause, the position is stated by 
 each of them, especially by the interpleading parties, Hendrickson 
 and Decow. To these documents, as far as the cause is concern- 
 ed, it might suffice to refer, since whatever is admitted by both 
 parties, is, as respects them, incontrovertible. But a recurrence 
 to the following parts of the testimony, will show that what is 
 said on this topic in the pleadings, is the very language and sen- 
 timent of this whole religious community. For the sake of brevi- 
 ty, I will content myself with mentioning the names of the wit- 
 nesses, and the pages of the printed volumes, whither any one 
 will resort who is disposed to examine them at large. Samuel 
 Bettle, 1 vol. 62, 63, 83; Samuel Parsons, 1 voh 170; Thomas 
 Evans, 1 vol. 271, 272, 311 ; John Gummere, 1 vol. 316 ; Samuel 
 Craft, 1 vol. 334 ; Abraham Lower, 1 vol. 379, 405 ; Halliday 
 Jackson, 2 vol. 144, 178, 191; Charles Stokes, 2 vol. 218, 229; 
 Josiah Gaskill, 2 vol. 297 ; James Brown, 2 vol. 321, 322. 
 
 From this view, it seems to me, estabhshed beyond the reach 
 of doubt, that according to the constitution of the society of 
 Friends, a preparative meeting must be subordinate to and con- 
 nected with a monthlv meeting, which is connected with and sub- 
 ordinate to a quarterly meeting, which again is connected with and 
 subordinate to a yearly meeting. There can be no preparative 
 meeting which is not so connected and subordinate. To descend 
 from generals to particulars, every preparative meeting within the 
 bounds of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, is, and must be con- 
 nected with, and subordinate to, a monthly meeting connected 
 with, and subordinate to, a quarterly meeting, which is connected 
 with and subordinate to, that yearly meeting. There can be no 
 preparative meeting within those bounds, which is not so connec- 
 ed and subordinate. From this constitutional principle, the fol- 
 lowing rule results as a corollary. Every preparative meeting 
 within those bounds, which is, through and by its appropriate links, 
 
15 
 
 connected with, and subordinate to, the yearly meeting of Phila- 
 delphia, is a " preparative meeting of the people called Quakers ;" 
 and any preparative meeting or assemblage of persons, calling 
 themselves a preparative meeting, not thus connected and subor- 
 dinate, is not a preparative meeting of that people. 
 
 In laying down these propositions, I expressly avoid, and do not 
 propose to examine or decide, unless in the sequel I find it ne- 
 cessary, a question much agitated and discussed, whether a pre- 
 parative meeting can be laid down without its consent. There is, 
 however, another proposition connected therewith, which, so as 
 to make use of it hereafter, if necessary, I shall state barely, with- 
 out a protracted or tedious enquiry', because I believe no one will 
 gainsay it. A preparative meeting, cannot be made or constitu- 
 ted within the bounds of its superior, the quarterly, or to speak 
 more definitely, a new preparative meeting cannot be set up, 
 within the bounds of the Burlington quarterly meeting, without 
 the sanction of the latter body ; that is to say, of the Burlington 
 quarterly meeting, which is connected with, and subordinate to, 
 the yearly meeting of Philadelphia. I avoid, for the present at 
 least, another topic, or rather, I mean, in the propositions above 
 stated, to express no opinion upon it, whether a superior meeting 
 may control an inferior, in matters of property, or of a pecuniaiy 
 nature ; and also, another topic somewhat discussed in the exami- 
 nation of the witnesses, if not by the counsel on the argument, 
 whether a superior meeting can, without appeal, reverse the de- 
 cision of an inferior, or take cognizance directly and originally, 
 of matters not coming, by way of appeal, through the subordinate 
 meetings. 
 
 The general doctrine of the connection and subordination of 
 meetings for business, I shall now proceed to show, lias been ex- 
 pressly applied to the preparative meeting of Chesterfield. And 
 as this topic bears much upon the result of our enquiries, I must 
 enter into some detail. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson, in his answer, says, " There have been 
 for many years past, a monthly and preparative meeting, of the 
 the said society of Friends of Chesterfield — at Crosswicks : . . . 
 that the said meeting at Crosswicks, is under the control and ju- 
 risdiction of the said yearly meeting of Philadelphia: that 
 
 some of the members of a number of quarterly and monthly meet- 
 
16 
 
 ings, which were under the control and jurisdiction ol the regu- 
 lar and constitutional yearly meeting, at Philadelphia aforesaid 
 
 met at Philadelphia, on the third Monday in October, 1827, 
 
 and then and there, irregularly, and contrary to discipline, 
 
 formed a new yearly meeting of their own, which was adjourn- 
 ed by them, to the second Monday of April, 1828; just one w^eek 
 before the time of the sitting of the regular constitutional yearly 
 meeting : . . . . that these religious dissentions and divisions found 
 their way into the meeting of the society of Friends, at Cross- 
 wicks aforesaid : that the ' Hicksite ' party, and ' Orthodox " 
 
 party there, hold separate and distinct meetings, for business 
 
 and worship, the former being under the jurisdiction and control 
 of the new yearly meeting of Philadelphia aforesaid, to which they 
 have attached themselves, having renounced the jurisdiction and 
 control of the ancient yearly meeting- aforesaid ; the latter, being 
 under the jurisdiction and control of the ancient yearly meeting," 
 Stacy Decow, in his answer, says, " that for many years, there 
 
 has been established, at Crosswicks, a preparative meeting of 
 
 the religious society of Friends, or people called Quakers, called 
 and known by the name of the Chesterfield preparative meeting 
 of Friends, held at Crosswicks. There is also a monthly meet- 
 ing of Friends established at the same place. That this defend- 
 ant is now, and has been for twenty years and upwards, a mem- 
 ber of the said several meetings : .... that the said Chesterfield 
 preparative meeting of Friends, at Crosswicks, to which he be- 
 longs, is the same preparative meeting of Friends, at Crosswicks 
 
 under whose care, the said school fund was placed : that the 
 
 said Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends, at Crosswicks, 
 of which this defendant is a member, holds communication with 
 the yearly meeting of Friends established in Philadelphia, which the 
 said Joseph Hendrickson in his original bill, improperly calls the 
 ' Hicksite' party, and which yearly meeting this defendant in- 
 sists, is the yearly meeting of the ancient and true society of 
 Friends. He denies that the society of Friends to which he be- 
 longs, have seceded from the faith, the religious institutions or 
 government of the ancient and religious society of Friends, or 
 from the ancient legitimate yearly meeting at Philadelphia; but 
 the time of holding it has been changed from the third second 
 day in the fourth month, to the second second day of the same, 
 
17 
 
 there being no constitutional time for the assembling of the year- 
 ly meeting, the time of holding it was changed to the time it is 
 
 now held The said yearly meeting assembled again on the 
 
 said second second day in the fourth month, 1828, and is now 
 settled on its ancient foundations and principles. This defendant 
 therefore denies that it is a new yearly meeting within the pale of 
 one already in existence." 
 
 The testimony on this subject, of some of the witnesses, is to 
 the following effect. John Gummere, 1 vol. Evid. 315, " Bur- 
 lington monthly meeting, is a subordinate branch of Burlington 
 quarterly meeting, which quarter is subordinate to the Philadel- 
 phia yearly meeting." Ibid. 318, " That yearly meeting is held 
 
 annually, on the third second day of the fourth month, at Ai'ch street 
 meeting house, in Philadelphia." Samuel Craft, 1 vol. Evid. 334, 
 says, " From my earliest recollection, I have been a member of Bur- 
 lington quarterly meeting, and for about thirty-six years past, I 
 have been a member of Chesterfield monthly meeting. This 
 monthly and quartei'ly meeting, now ai'e, and have been, during 
 all that period, subordinate branches of Philadelphia yearly meet- 
 ing, held for many years past in the meeting house on Arch 
 street, on the third second day in the fourth month, annually." 
 Josiah Gaskill, 2 vol. Evid. 297, says, " The monthly meeting, 
 which I am a member of, does consider itself members of Bur- 
 lington quarterly meeting, which considers itself members of the 
 yearly meeting of Friends held in Philadelphia, on the second se- 
 cond day of fourth month, at Green street." Ibid. 301, "The 
 
 Burlington quarterly meeting held at Chesterfield have sent 
 
 representatives to the yearly meeting of Friends held in Philadel- 
 phia, in fourth month ever since .... the second second day iii 
 
 fourth month at Green street, instead of Arch street. The 
 
 yearly meeting at Green street, I consider the yearly meeting of 
 
 Friends and because it is the same yearly meeting which, 
 
 prior to 1827, had been held in Arch street." James Brown, 2 
 vol. Evid. 321, says, "These quarterly, monthly, and preparative 
 meetings, are but parts of the one great whole, the yearly meeting. 
 
 The Chesterfield monthly and preparative meetings were 
 
 component parts of the Burlington quarterly meeting. The Bur 
 lington quarterly meeting, was a branch of the yearly meeting, 
 which, in fourth month, 1827, was, and for many years before 
 
18 
 
 had been held m Arch street, Philadelphia." He ■" attended 
 
 most part of the yearly meeting in Arch street, 1827, as a mem- 
 ber of the society, and belonging to Chesterfield monthly meet- 
 ing." Ibid. 322, " We have not attached ourselves, as I apprehend, 
 to any other yearly meeting than the yearly meeting of Philadel- 
 phia, that is reorganized, and held on the second second day in 
 fourth month, annually We do not consider ourselves mem- 
 bers of the yearly meeting held there (in Arch street) since 1827." 
 " That portion of the Chesterfield preparative meeting which .... 
 continues to hold that meeting at the usual times and places ;" 
 ( that is to say, the preparative meeting M'hereby Decow was ap- 
 pointed treasurer of the school fund, as is elsewhere shewn and 
 expressed) " acknowledge themselves, or claim to be, a part of the 
 
 monthl}- meeting which still continues a member of the Green 
 
 street yearly meeting." The testimony of the last witness, James 
 Brown, demands peculiar attention from the station he held, as 
 clerk of the preparative meeting of which Decow is a member, 
 and from the confidence reposed in that ofiicer by the usages of 
 the society, and the intimate knowledge he must acquire and pos- 
 sess of the acts, connections, and sentiments of the meeting. 
 
 It thus appears there were and are, two distinct bodies, each claim- 
 ing to be the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends at Cross- 
 wicks, and each claiming to be the same meeting under whose care 
 the school fund was placed, and yet, de jure^ remains. I stop here a 
 moment, to fix the time when these bodies were distinctly and 
 separately organized, in order to ascertain whether it was before 
 the appointment of Decow, as treasurer of the school fund. And 
 on account of the connection, it may be useful to look also, to the 
 higher meetings. The separation in the Burlington quarterly meet- 
 ing appears to have occurred in the eleventh month, 1827. Sam- 
 uel Emlen, 1 vol Evid. 325; Josiah Gaskill, 2 vol. Evid. 301 ; 
 Charles Stokes, 2 vol. Evid. 207. The latter witness says, he 
 "attended the Burhngton quarterly meeting in the eleventh month, 
 1827. At that jneeting a separation did take place." And in 
 answer ( 229) to this question, " After the separation of which 
 you have spoken, in 1827, did your quarterly meeting consider 
 itself as a constituent branch of the yearly meeting held at Arch 
 street, Philadelphia, on the third second day of fourth month ? " 
 He answered, " The quarterly meeting considered itself a constitu- 
 
19 
 
 ent branch of the yearh' meeting of Philadelphia, which had been 
 held some years previously at the Arch street house, on the third 
 second day of fourth montli ; but which, owing to the circum- 
 stances which had grown out of the unsettled and divided state 
 of society, it was concluded, should be held on the second second 
 day of fourth month." 
 
 The separation in the monthly meeting of Chesterfield, or the 
 session of two distinct bodies, and the transaction of business sep- 
 arately by these bodies, took place as early as ninth or tenth 
 month, 1827. Samuel Emlen. 1 vol. Evid. 324, 328, 331 ; Sam- 
 uel Craft, 1 vol. Evid. 336, 337; Josiah Gaskill, 2 vol. Evid. 284. 
 He fixes the time, the tenth month, 1827, and says " There did a 
 separation take place in Chesterfield monthly meeting in that 
 month." He farther states, (296) that the Chesterfield monthly 
 meeting with which he was united, did at their meeting in that 
 month, appoint representatives on behalf of that meeting, to at- 
 tend the contemplated yearly meeting to be held in Philadelphia, 
 in that same month ; and in this respect he is fully supported by 
 the book of minutes, which is before us as an exhibit ; and he far- 
 ther testifies, that the representatives, with one exception, attended 
 the yearly meeting in the tenth month, 1827. 
 
 The separation in the preparative meeting of Chesterfield, bears 
 date in the twelfth month, 1827. Samuel Emlen, 1 vol. Evid. 
 325 ; Samuel Craft, 1 vol. Evid. 339, 347 ; Josiah Gaskill, 2 vol. 
 Evid. 286. The latter witness says, (287) that after those who 
 separated, left the preparative meeting, the meeting proceeded in 
 first month, 1828, to appoint trustees of the school fund, and that 
 Decow was appointed treasurer at the same meeting. The testi- 
 mony of James Brown is very exphcit and satisfactory on this 
 topic, and its importance, from the station he held as clerk of the 
 meeting, has been already suggested. He says, 2 vol. Evid. 323, 
 that the appointment of Stacy Decow as treasurer of the school 
 fund, was made after the time when the separation of the prepar- 
 ative meeting of Chesterfield into two bodies or meetings, each 
 calling themselves the Chesterfield preparative meeting, took 
 place. 
 
 It thus clearly appears, that before the appointment of Decow 
 as treasui'er, there were formed and existed, two distinct bodies, 
 claiming to be the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends ; 
 
20 
 
 the one of them connected with a body calling itself the ancient 
 yearly meeting of Friends of Philadelphia, which holds its ses- 
 sions on the third second day of April in a meeting house on Arch 
 street, and the other, and by which Decow was appointed, which 
 disclaims all connection with the above mentioned yearly meeting, 
 is connected with another body calling itself the ancient yearly 
 meeting of Friends of Philadelphia, w^iich holds its sessions on the 
 second second day of April in a meeting house on Green street. It 
 also appears there are two sepai'ate bodies, styling themselves 
 and claiming to be, the ancient and constitutional yearly meeting 
 of Friends of Philadelphia. There is, however, and there can be, 
 as is asserted and admitted by all, but one ancient yearly meet- 
 ing, and but one body entitled to that appellation. This truth is 
 distinctly admitted by the pleadings of the parties ; it is plainly 
 asserted by the book of discipline, which all who claim to be of 
 the society of Friends, as do all the parties, and if my memory 
 is correct, all the witnesses, in the cause, unqualifiedly admit to 
 be their standard and their guide ; and it is testified by several of 
 the witnesses, whose depositions I have already noticed ; to which 
 may be added that of Halliday Jackson, an intelligent and well 
 informed witness examined on the part of Decow. 2 vol. Evid. 
 155. 
 
 We are now brought to the enquiry, which of these two bodies 
 or meetings is the ancient yearly meeting of Friends of Philadel- 
 phia ; an enquiry which, if I may judge from my own feelings 
 and reflections, is of the deepest interest and importance. There 
 is, and can be but one Chesterfield preparative meeting of the so- 
 ciety of Friends. There is, and can be but one yearly meeting. 
 A preparative meeting must be connected with the yearly meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia, and without such connection, no assemblage 
 is a preparative meeting. One of these bodies, or preparative 
 meetino-s, is connected with the one, and the other with the other 
 of the yearly meetings. Which then is the yearly meeting? Or 
 to confine our enquiry within the only requisite range, is the meet- 
 inof or body assembling on the second second day of the fourth 
 month at Green street, the ancient yearly meeting ? If it is, De- 
 cow is the treasurer. If not, as I have already shown. Hendrick- 
 son, once the acknowledged treasurer and the obligee, named 
 as such in the bond, is entitled to the money. When such con- 
 
21 
 
 sequences hang on this question, may I not call it interesting and 
 important? May I not stand excused, if I approach it with great 
 anxiety and deep solicitude? 
 
 In the latter part of the seventeenth century, and at a very 
 early period in the progress of the settlement of New Jersey and 
 Pennsylvania, the number and condition of the followers of 
 George Fox, or the people called Quakers, rendered it desirable 
 they should be brought under a common head, according to the 
 form of ecclesiastical government adopted in England and al- 
 ready existing in some of the more ancient colonies. In the year 
 1681 or 1685, (the precise time seems to be controverted, and 
 cannot influence our present pursuits,) a yearly meeting was es- 
 tabhshed, comprehending the provinces of New Jersey and Penn- 
 sylvania, and the members of that religious society and their al- 
 ready organized meetings and judicatories of inferior grades. 
 This body was not a mere incidental, casual, disconnected assem- 
 blage, convening without previous arrangement, ceasing to exist 
 when its members separated, and formed anew when individuals 
 came together again at some subsequent time. It was a regular- 
 ly organized and established body, holding stated sessions, corres- 
 ponding with other bodies of the same religious denomination, 
 consulting together for the welfare of a portion of theii; church 
 and its members, the ultimate arbiter of all differences, and the 
 common head and governor of all belonging to the society of 
 Friends, within its jurisdiction, which extended over the territo- 
 ries just mentioned, while they were called provinces, and since 
 they assumed the name and rank of states. The meetings of this 
 body were held annually, as its name imports, and as long and 
 steady usage has wrought into a part of its essential structure. 
 The time and place of convention are subject to its control, 
 and have, accordingly, in several instances, been fixed and alter- 
 ed by it. The time and place, however, when and where only 
 the body can constitutionally assemble and act, must, when fixed, 
 so remain, until "the voice of the body," " in a yearly meeting 
 capacity," which alone has the power and right " to govern its 
 own proceedings," shall resolve on and enact a change. Such, 
 is certainly the rule of constitutional law, as applicable to this body; 
 and such was their own practical construction of it, in the year 
 1798, when in the conscientious discharge of duty, they assem- 
 
22 
 
 bled, undeterred by the ravages of pestilence and the arrows of 
 death. From the year 1685, for nearly a century and an half, 
 this body held its periodical sessions ; for years, alternately at 
 Burlington and Philadelphia, and finally in the latter city alone ; 
 and there, successively, at their houses on Pine street, on Keyes' 
 alley, and on Arch street. Changes in time and place have oc- 
 curred ; but always by a previous resolve, by " the voice of that 
 body," "in a yearly meeting capacity." In 1811, the place 
 w'as fixed in the meeting house, on Arch street. In 1798, the 
 time was changed to the third second day of the fourth month of 
 each year ; and by the book of discipline, promulged by the year- 
 ly meeting in 1806, and as already observed, the acknowledged 
 constitution of this religious community, the latter day is declared 
 the period for its convention. No other day is mentioned ; no 
 other day is provided for under any circumstances ; nor is any 
 occasional, intermediate, or special meeting authorised. 
 
 In the year 1826, at the prescribed time and place, a meeting 
 was held. After the transaction of its business, it adjourned, 
 according to the ancient and wonted form, " to meet in the next 
 year at the usual time." This body thus convened and thus ad- 
 journed, was, without dispute, the Philadelphia yearly meeting of 
 Friends. On the third second day of April, 1827, at the house 
 on Arch street, the designated time and place, a meeting assem- 
 bled. It was composed of the representatives from the several 
 quarterly meetings, and of all sucli individuals as inclination or 
 duty had brought together. The regular constituent parts w^ere 
 there. Those w^ho ai-e since so openly divided by name, perhaps 
 by feeling, peradventui-e by principles, then sat down together ; 
 one in form, if not in spirit : in unity of body, if not of mind. The 
 clerk of the preceding year, according to ancient rule, opened 
 the meeting in due order, for however simple, there was, never- 
 theless, an established ceremony. The representatives were call- 
 ed, certificates of ^^siting strangers were received, epistles from 
 corresponding bodies were read, committees were arranged, the 
 usual affairs of the occasion were transacted in unity and peace. 
 The representatives were, in wonted manner, desired to abide for 
 the next step in the progress of business. This body thus con- 
 vened, was assuredly the yearly meeting; and up to the close 
 of the forenoon, it sustained its constitutional existence. If thai 
 
assemblage ceased to be the Philadelphia yearly meeting, some- 
 thing which occun'ed subsequent to the close of the first sitting 
 must have wrought out that result. 
 
 Such result was produced, say the defendant, Decow% and the 
 meeting whereby he was appointed treasurer. This body ceased 
 to be the yearly meeting of Friends, was dissolved, broken up 
 "into its individual elements," {Abraham Lower, 1 vol. Evid. 421,) and 
 reorganized, in the ensuing autumn, in the yearly meeting which 
 assembled in Green street, which became invested with the con- 
 stitutional powers and rights incident to the Philadelphia yearly- 
 meeting, and, the successor, or rather the continuance of the same 
 body, which had been formed in the seventeenth century, at Bur- 
 lington, and had from thence conducted and governed the affairs 
 of the society, and connected wdth itself the subordinate meetings, 
 and this whole religious community. 
 
 Our next duty then, is to examine the causes Avhich are alleged 
 to have deprived this body of constitutional existence. And these 
 ai'e, first, the acts of the body in a collective capacity ; second, 
 the omission of the body to perform certain collective duties ; and 
 third, the designs, plans, views, feelings and acts of individual 
 members. Under one or another of these, is comprehended, it 
 is believed, every operating cause suggested in the pleadings, in 
 the testimony of the witnesses, and in the arguments of the coun- 
 sel. 
 
 The only acts alleged against the body in a collective capacity, 
 are two in number. First, the appointment of a clerk of the 
 meeting; and secondly, the appointment, near the close of the 
 session, of a committee to visit the subordinate meetings. 
 
 First, the appointment of clerk to the meeting. To regard the 
 act against which this complaint is directed as the appointment of 
 a clerk, is an entire misapprehension. It was, in truth, no more 
 than the continuance in office of the former clerk ; and as it seems 
 to me, so far from an act of the body in its collective capacity, in 
 violation of any rule, it was a strict, and under the circumstan- 
 ces in which the meeting was placed, an unavoidable compliance 
 with, and adherence to, the ancient custom and order of the so- 
 ciety. 
 
 According thereto, the nomination of clerk is to be made, not 
 in or by the meeting at large, but by the representatives, as tliey 
 
24 
 
 aY6 called, or in other wordsj the persons deputed by the several 
 quartei'ly meetings to attend, not merely as individuals, but as the 
 organs of those meetings, in their official character. 
 
 Tile representatives, pursuant to the request already mention- 
 ed, remained at the close of the forenoon session, to discharge 
 this duty. It is not my purpose to enquire into, or relate in de- 
 tail, what passed among them. In the result, they could not 
 agree, or did not agree, on the names of any persons to be pro- 
 posed for the offices of clerk and assistant; and a report to this 
 effect was made to the yearly meeting, when it opened in the af- 
 ternoon. No nomination was offered. Put, now, the case in the 
 strongest view ; suppose the representatives had wantonly, or in 
 neglect of their trust, omitted to propose names to the meeting ? 
 Was all further proceeding at an end ? Was the meeting closed ? 
 The Book of Disciphne, it is true, prescribes no guide or directo- 
 ry under such circumstances. But ancient custom, founded on 
 the obvious dictates of reason, had estabhshed in this respect an 
 operative law. The clerk and his assistant, of the preceding 
 year, were to act, and without any new appointment or induc- 
 tion, were authorised to continue to discharge their appropriate 
 functions, until the names of other persons were regularly brought 
 forward, and united with, or in other words, appointed. In ac- 
 cordance therewith, and in view of the condition of the meeting, 
 and of the difficulty which existed, an aged member ( William 
 Jackson) who had attended more than sixty years, and had thus 
 acquired experience, perhaps beyond any individual of the assem- 
 bly, rose and stated, that "it had been always the practice for the 
 old clerks to serve until new ones were appointed;" and he pro- 
 posed to the meeting, " that the present clerks should be contin- 
 ued for that year." ( Thomas Evans, 1 vol. Evid. 265.) Some differ- 
 ence of opinion occurred and w^as expressed, as to the course 
 most eligible to be pursued. Some persons wished to refer the 
 subject again to the representatives, for farther consideration. 
 " Sevei'al of the representatives gave it as their opinion, there would 
 be no advantage in so referring it, as there was not the smallest 
 probability that they could agree. The first person who ex- 
 pressed this opini()n,was one of those who have since" united with 
 the meeting in Green street, " and he added, that although he 
 should have been in favor of a change in the clerk, if it could 
 
25 
 
 have been satisfactorily accomplished, yet as tliat was not likely 
 to be the case, he thought the meeting had better proceed with its 
 business. Several others of the same party expressed similar 
 sentiments. Meanwhile a considerable number of those " who re- 
 main attached to the Arch street meeting, " expressed their ap- 
 probation of the continuance of the present clerks, and a minute 
 desiring the old clerks to continue to serve the meeting," ( Samuel 
 Bettle, 1 vol. Evid. 68,) was made and read. " On the reading of the 
 minute, some of those who" now belong to the Green street meet- 
 ing, " still continued to object, when one of their number remark- 
 ed, he believed it was the best thing the meeting could do, under 
 all the circumstances, and advised them to submit to it, as he did 
 not think it would make so much difterence to them, as some of 
 them might imagine. Similar sentiments were expressed by one 
 or two others of that party, and all objections to the appointment 
 having ceased, John Comly, the assistant clerk, was requested to 
 come to the table. He did not immediately do so, nor until seve- 
 ral of his friends expressed that they thought that the business of 
 the meeting *had better go forward." The usual business then 
 proceeded. This view, is chiefly extracted from the testimony of 
 Thomas Evans. It is fully sustained by the depositions of Sam- 
 uel Bettle and Joseph Whitall, and is, in no material point, im- 
 pugned by any contradictory evidence. Some other witnesses, 
 who speak of these transactions, are not so full and minute in de- 
 tail, and some, it is to be regretted, do not recollect the occur- 
 rences of very interesting moments ; as, for example, one of them, 
 speaking of the afternoon of the first day, and having related 
 some of the events, added, " The meeting proceeded on that af- 
 ternoon. I don't remember particularly what took place." (Halli- 
 day Jackson, 2 vol. Evid. 54.) In their opinions, in their inferences, 
 in their feelings, we observe, as might be expected, a dilTerence 
 among the witnesses, but it is pleasing to meet with no such col- 
 lision of facts, as to render necessary the delicate and arduous du- 
 ty of weighing and comparing evidence. 
 
 It is however said, the greater number of the representatives 
 wished to release the former clerk, and to nominate another in 
 his stead ; that a proposal was made to take their sense by a vote ; 
 and that this measure, which would have resulted in a majority 
 
26 
 
 for a new clerk, was prevented and defeated, by the conduct of 
 those who sought to retain the services of the former officer. 
 
 One of the peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of this 
 people, consists in their mode of transacting business and arriving 
 at conclusions ; in which, rejecting totally the principle that a ma- 
 jority, as such, is to rule, or decide, or govern, they arrive at an 
 unity of resolution and action, in a mode peculiar to themselves, 
 and entirely difTercnt from that common to all civil or political, 
 and to most ecclesiastical bodies. They look and wait for an 
 union of mind ; and the result is produced, not by a vote or count 
 of numbers, but by an yielding up of opinions, a deference for 
 the judgment of each other, and an acquiescence or submission to 
 the measure proposed. Where a division of sentiment occurs, 
 the matter is postponed for farther consideration, or withdrawn 
 or dismissed entirely ; or, after sometimes a temperate discussion, 
 and sometimes a silent deliberation, those who support, or those 
 who oppose a measure, acquiesce in the sense of the meeting as 
 collected and minuted by the clerk ; and they believe the " spirit of 
 truth," when the meeting is " rightly gathered," will be transfused 
 through their minds, and they will be guided and influenced " by 
 a wisdom and judgment better than their own," and that their 
 clerk will be led to act under " the overshadowing of that power, 
 which is not at his command, and which will enable him to make 
 proper decisions." One of the witnesses examined on the part of 
 Decow informs us, the clerk, " collects, not by an actual count of 
 numbers, or recording the yeas and nays, yet by an estimate of 
 the prevailing sense, which the meeting, after discussion, usually 
 settles with sufficient distinctness, one way or the other." (Charles 
 Stokes, 2 vol. Evid. 249.) The account given by Clarkson, in his 
 Portraiture of Quakerism, is represented to be correct, although 
 never expressly recognized by the society. " When a subject is 
 brought before them, it is canvassed to the exclusion of all extra- 
 neous matter, till some conclusion results; the clerk of the meet- 
 ing then draws up a minute, containing, as nearly as he can col- 
 lect, the substance of this conclusion ; this minute is then read 
 aloud to the auditory, and either stands or undergoes an altera- 
 tion, as appears by the silence or discussion upon it, to be the sense 
 of the meeting ; when fully agreed upon, it stands ready to be re- 
 corded." (1 Clarksoris Portrait. Quah. 157.) The world at large. 
 
27 
 
 and especially those who have not closely observed the practical 
 operation of these principles, in the peace and harmony and pros- 
 perity of the internal affairs of this religious community, may be 
 strongly inclined to call in question their expediency. A republi- 
 can spirit may see no just rule, but in the voice of a majority. A 
 jealousy of power may suspect too much confidence in the fair- 
 ness and candor of the clerk. But the conclusive answer to all 
 such suggestions and suspicions is, that they are free to act as 
 their judgments and consciences may dictate. We are not to in- 
 terfere with their church government any more than with their 
 modes of faith and worship. We are to respect their institutions, 
 and to sustain them. Nor can any individual be hereby aggriev- 
 ed. He is under no restraint to remain among them. When- 
 ever he is persuaded that either their faith or their pi*actice, does 
 not accord with his own views of reason and Scripture, he is at 
 liberty to leave them, and to seek elsewhere, more purity, more 
 spirituality, more christian and Scripture order, more safety, more 
 republicanism, or more peace. The constitution of this society, 
 neither recognizes nor makes provision for a vote, or a decision 
 on the principle of numbers, in any instance or predicament. 
 The minutes and journals of the various meetings, not merely 
 within the bounds of this yearly meeting, but within the pale of 
 the whole society, do not furnish, so far as we are able to 
 learn, a single record of a vote taken, or a count of numbers. 
 The instances of reports made by the major part of committees, 
 form no exception to the universality of this rule of action. Nor 
 do the few, I say few enaphatically, compared with the myriads 
 of decisions standing on their records, nor do the few minutes, 
 which industry has gleaned up, of expressions like these: "the 
 greatest part of Friends think it best," or " it appears to be the 
 most general sense," serve to shew that a vote was. taken, or that 
 numbers, as such, prevailed, or that the minor part did not freely 
 relinquish their views, and cordially acquiesce in those of the 
 greater part. Let us, for example, look to the minutes of Ches- 
 terfield monthly meeting, of sixth month, 1691, because it is, of 
 Chesterfield, and of very ancient date. " The building of the 
 meeting houses being taken into consideration, a meeting house 
 on this side is generally agreed upon to be built, and the greatest 
 part of Friends think it best to have it at the grave yard." Here 
 
28 
 
 is no allusion to a vote, nor any thing to indicate that all did not 
 acquiesce in what the greatest part thought best. Barclay, in his 
 treatise on church government, gives the following explanation, 
 and most pointedly condemns the rule of the greatest number. 
 " The only proper judge of controversies in the church, is the 
 spirit of God ; and the power of deciding lies solely in it, as hav- 
 ing the only unerring, infallible and certain judgment belonging 
 to i-t ; which infallibility is not necessarily annexed to any per- 
 sons, person or place, whatever, by vii'tue of any office, place or 
 station any one may have, or have had, in the body of Christ ; 
 that is to say, that any have ground to reason thus, because T am, 
 or have been, such an eminent member, therefore my judgment 
 is infallible, or because we are the greatest number." ( Barclay 
 on Church GovernmRnt, 78.) Hence then, I think, we are not 
 called to inquire how far the allegation as to the relative numbers 
 of the representatives is correct, and we may justly dismiss from 
 farther consideration, the objection that the old clerk would not 
 have received a majority of votes. The very proposal to take a 
 vote, was an overture to depart, and the consummation of it 
 would have been a departure, from an ancient and unvarying 
 practice, which had not only grown up to an overshadowing 
 tree, but had its root in religious faith, and was nourished and 
 sustained by religious feeling. 
 
 The enquiiy too, is of little importance, since, as I have shewn, 
 the omission of the representatives to agree in, and propose a 
 nomination, only resulted in a continuance of the former officers, 
 and did neither abridge, impair or destroy, the power of the 
 meeting to provide for collecting and recording their acts and 
 proceedings. 
 
 Let us, then, return to the yearly meeting. Here again it is 
 said, a majority was opposed to the farther service of the former 
 clerk, and his continuance contrary to their will, was not only 
 an oppression of the few over the many, but was in fact a disso- 
 lution of the body. I am not able to say, from the evidence, if in 
 any wise material, that even at the outset, this continuance was 
 inconsistent with the wishes of the greater part of the meeting. 
 But if such were the truth, it is abundantly shewn, there was an 
 acquiescence in the measure, even if an unAvilling one. And this 
 acquiescence was brought about by the agency and recommen- 
 
29 
 
 dation of some of those, who are now the members of ihe rival 
 yearly meeting. The following facts are stated by the witnesses. 
 "A proposition came from a leading member," (Joseph Whitall, 1 
 vol. Evid. 218.) After the minute was read, "one of their num- 
 ber expressed his belief it was the best thing the meeting could do 
 under all the circumstances, and advised them to submit to it." 
 (Thomas Evans, 1 vol. Evid. 266.) " One, and perhaps, there 
 were others, stated as their belief, it would be right, and encou- 
 raged his friends to accede to the proposition" for the continu- 
 ance of the former clerks. (Joseph Whitall, 1 vol. Evid. 217.) "Ef- 
 forts were made by persons, who have since" united with the 
 Green street meeting, " to induce an acquiescence with the min- 
 ute. At length, all opposition ceased." (Samuel Bettle, 1 vol. Evid. 
 69.) Here, then, might have been opposition and dissatisfaction 
 at the outset. But it is clear there was an ultimate acquiescence. 
 And it is too much for any one, especially for those who took an 
 active and influential part in bringing about this result, perhaps 
 we may say, actually induced the peaceful result, to make it the 
 subject of complaint, or to insist that the existence of the body 
 was thereby destroyed. 
 
 There is another fact worthy of much consideration, in look- 
 ing into the propriety of these proceedings, which is, that no per- 
 son, save Samuel Bettle, the former clerk, was proposed for the 
 office. The impoitance of this circumstance in civil aflairs, is 
 thus shown in the recent American treatise on the law of corpo- 
 rations. "Where a majority protest against the election of a pro- 
 posed candidate, and do not propose any other candidate, the mi- 
 noi'ity may elect the candidate proposed." Angel and Ames on 
 Corp. 67. 
 
 After all these events, I can have no hesitation in yielding to 
 the entire and unqualified conviction, that the body remained in 
 its pristine vigor, and proceeded to business as the Philadelphia 
 yearly meeting of the society of Friends. 
 
 The other act, whereby it is said, the discipline was violated, 
 the society separated, and the constitutional existence of the year- 
 ly meeting destroyed, is the appointment of a committee to visit 
 the subordinate meetings. 
 
 It would be very difficult, I think, to demonstrate, that an act 
 of this nature, if not warranted by the discipline, or even if in- 
 
30 
 
 consistent with it, could work such sweeping resuhs. The pur- 
 pose and authority of this committee, were simply to visit, coun- 
 sel and advise the inferior meetings, with no power, whatever, to 
 act upon or control the rights or interests of any one, save by 
 measures of persuasion. How far the temper or motive, which 
 led to the appointment of this committee may have been repre- 
 hensible, I shall examine under another head. It is to the act 
 alone, that my attention is now directed ; and the act itself, was, 
 in its nature, harmless. Let us, however, look more closely into 
 the circumstances. They are thus represented by one of the wit- 
 nesses. " A proposition was brought from the women's meeting 
 
 to appoint a committee to visit the quarterly and monthly 
 
 meetings. This called forth a great deal of excitement, and 
 
 great opposition was made to it. Even some few of the * Ortho- 
 dox' party themselves did not, at first, appear to approve of it. 
 But there were others of that party that strenuously urged the 
 propriety of such a committee being appointed, and as they 
 seemed to understand one another pretty well, apparently, they 
 pretty soon united in urging the measure. It was, however, 
 strongly opposed by much the larger part of the meeting, I can- 
 not undertake to state the proportions, but I should think myself 
 safe, in saying two thirds of those that spoke. But it seemed all 
 of no avail, .... and having a clerk at the table subject entirely to 
 the dictates of his party, he made a minute and took down the 
 names of the committee that were offered to him. No Friend, I 
 believe, undertook to mention a name." (Halliday Jackson, 2 vol. 
 Evid. 56.) Another witness gives the following representation. 
 " At the last sitting on seventh day morning, a proposition was 
 introduced from the women's meeting to appoint a committee to 
 visit the respective subordinate meetings for their strength and 
 encouragement. To this there was a decided objection made ; 
 some Friends then in the meeting and now attached to each of 
 the parties, opposed it. The doubt of some was, that it had bet- 
 ter not be decided at that time ; with others, there was a decided 
 opposition to the measure. At this juncture, a Friend stated to 
 the meeting the out door proceedings, the private meetings, and 
 opened the whole subject. It appeared to me evidently, to create 
 uneasiness and alarm on the part of those who had been concern- 
 ed in those meetings; some of them called in question the accu- 
 
.'Jl 
 
 racy of the statement that had been made, and seemed disposed 
 to deny it; some did deny it; others, ho\vevei% said that the gene- 
 ral statement was correct, and acknowledged it. The propriety 
 of appointing a committee under such circumstances, appeared 
 so very obvious, that the opposition, in a great measure, ceased for 
 that time ; after which there was a greater and more general ex- 
 pression of unity with the measure, than" the witness, a clerk of 
 several year's experience, " had often, if ever, seen or heard." " I 
 had," says the witness, " been watching the course of events, as 
 clerk of the meeting, to know how to act, and w hen all opposi- 
 tion had ceased, and it was very apparent it was the sense of the 
 meeting that the appointment should be made, I rose and stated 
 that I had had my doubts, when this proposition was first brought 
 in, whether it was expedient to adopt it at that time, but as the 
 servant of the meeting, it being manifestly its sense, I should now 
 proceed to make the minute, and accordinly made it, and united 
 with them in their views ; and a committee was appointed pursu- 
 ant to the minute." (Samuel Bettle, 1 vol. Evid. 69'.) Whatever 
 diflerewce may be in these statements as to matters of opinion ; 
 whatever suspicions may have been enkindled ; whatever motives 
 or designs may be imputed, here is no substantial discrepancy as 
 to points of fact. 
 
 Was then, the appointment of such a committee, a novel, and 
 therefore, an alarming occurrence ? More than one witness tes- 
 tifies, and no one denies, that it was an ancient custom of the so- 
 ciety. (Samuel Bettle, 1 vol Evid. 70. Halliday Jackson, 2 vol 
 Evid. 13.3.) Had the meeting power to make such appointment? 
 Aside of the multitude of unquestioned precedents, a witness says, 
 "during the discussion of the proposition, there was no sugges- 
 tion of a doubt of the right and power of the yearly meeting to 
 appoint such committee ; the difference of opinion was confined 
 to the expediency of making the appointment at that time." (Sam- 
 uel Bettle, 1 vnl. Evid. 70.) Was the purpose of the appointment 
 laudable ? It was to advise and counsel the inferior meetings, 
 in the language of one of the witnesses, " for their strength and 
 encouragement." And if the design was to prevent schism and 
 separation, the end was, surely, commendable ; and if the mea- 
 sures taken to attain it, were otherwise, the censure should rest 
 on the committee, the agents, and not on the meeting, the con- 
 
32 
 
 stituents. Was partiality exercised by the clerk, or any other 
 person, in the selection of the committee? No name which was 
 proposed was rejected. Was there opposition to the appoint- 
 ment ? Strong and decided at the outset. Was there at length, 
 an acquiescence 1 "A greater and more general expression of 
 unity than usual," says one witness. " The opposition pretty gen- 
 erally, if not altogether ceasing," says another witness, " the 
 meeting proceeded to appoint." (Joseph Whitall, 1 vol. Evid. 218.) 
 Another says, " As all opposition ceased, a minute was made, 
 and the committee appointed." (Thomas Evans, 1 vol. Evid. 
 268.) These matters of fact, are, I believe, uncontradicted. One 
 of the witnesses, indeed, intimates that the clerk made the minute, 
 being subject entirely to the dictates of his own party. But the 
 clerk, himself, whose veracity and candor are not only above re- 
 proach, but beyond suspicion, and who surely best knew his own 
 motive of action, says, that though doubting at first the expediency 
 of the measure, he made the minute, as the servant of the meet- 
 ing, and because it was manifestly their sense that the appoint- 
 ment should take place. 
 
 Upon a careful examination of this measure, I can see nothing, 
 cither in the act itself, or in the manner of its inception, progress 
 or adoption, subversive, in the slightest degree, of usage or disci- 
 pline, and least of all, any thing of such vital influence as to break 
 asunder the bonds of union, disfranchise the meeting, deprive it 
 of constitutional existence, disrobe it of ability farther to execute 
 its ancient and appropriate functions, or to release from their al- 
 legiance all those who previously owed fealty and submission 
 to it. 
 
 These, then, are all the overt acts of the meeting, which have 
 been made the subject of complaint. It would, however, be a 
 great error to suppose that a session of five or six days was spent 
 in these matters, alone. Much other important business was trans- 
 acted; all, I believe, it maybe said, of the usual stated duties 
 were discharged. Halliday Jackson, gives the following brief 
 but satisfactory account of what was done. " The business of 
 the yearly meeting was proceeded in; and the usual subjects that 
 occupy that body, such as considering the state of the society 
 from the answers to the queries that are brought up from the 
 different quarterly meetings in their reports : the reading of the 
 
33 
 
 minutes of the meeting for sufferings ; reading reports from the 
 committee who stood charged with Westown school, and some 
 other matters ; which occupied the meeting through the week." 
 (2 vol. Evid. 55.) Another witness says, " All the business usual- 
 ly transacted at a yearly meeting, was gone through with, and 
 several acts consummated, which no other body than the yearly 
 meeting of Philadelphia was competent to perform.*' (Thomas 
 Evans, 1 vol. Evid. 267.) 
 
 Having thus reviewed what was done, we are now to turn our 
 attention to what was not done by the meeting ; for the latter as 
 well as the former, has been urged as an act of separation and 
 disfranchisement of the yearly meeting. 
 
 Certain subjects, regularly brought before that body, were not 
 acted upon, but postponed. " When the reports," says one of the 
 witnesses, " were taken, or the subjects contained in the reports, 
 from the different quarterly meetings, which were considered as 
 new matter ; such as the account from the southern quarter res- 
 pecting the meeting for sufferings, rejecting their representatives, 
 and an application, I think, from Bucks' quarter, respecting the 
 manner of choosing representatives to constitute the meeting for 
 sufferings, together with two cases that came up from Phila- 
 delphia quarter They were all put by, and not acted upon, 
 
 except the matter in relation to Leonard Snowdon's case, which, 
 if I remember right, was returned to the quarterly meeting. It 
 seemed to be pretty generally understood, that the meeting was 
 not in a qualified state, owing to the interruptions to the harmony 
 that had taken place, to enter upon the investigation, or more pro- 
 perly, the consideration of these subjects." (Halliday Jackson, 2 
 vol. Evid. 55.) It should be observed in general, that these sub- 
 jects were not the regular stated business of the meeting, but oc- 
 casional or special. In this remai'k, I do not mean to deny or de- 
 tract from their importance, or the propriety of their having, at a 
 suitable season, the most careful attention, but simply to show 
 their real nature and character ; and that to act on or omit them 
 could not touch any vital part of the constitution of this body. A 
 much moi'e important consideration, is that the disposition of these 
 subjects, the course which was adopted and pursued in respect to 
 them, was the united act, and according to the common wish, of 
 all parties, of even those by whom, or through whose instrumentali- 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 ty, they were brought before the meeting. This important fact is 
 denied by no witness, and is expressly declared by more than 
 one. The statement of one I have just now given. Farther be- 
 ing asked, if the subject from the southern quarter was not dis- 
 missed at the suggestion of Robert Moore, a member from that 
 quarter, he answered, " When that subject was brought before 
 the yearly meeting, it was drawing towards the close of the week, 
 and by that time it was evident the yearly meeting was not in a 
 qualified state to act upon any important subject ; and therefoi^e, 
 that subject, as well as two others, w-ere dismissed without being 
 much urged by Friends. I have not a clear recollection, but it 
 seems to me, that Robert Moore did say something about that 
 subject from the southern quarter." Being asked if the subjects 
 from Bucks and Abington were not dismissed at the instance of 
 John Comly, he answered, " I have no recollection of who spoke 
 first on the subject; John Comly was sensible of the state the year- 
 ly meeting was in ; and I can state what I have fi'equently heard 
 John Comly say, that Samuel Bettle first suggested to him the 
 propriety of having those subjects dismissed, all those subjects 
 that came up in the reports, and wished John Comly to use his 
 influence with his friends to have those subjects from Bucks and 
 Abington dismissed, and he, Samuel Bettle, would use his influ- 
 ence with his friends to have that subject passed over that was 
 coming up from Philadelphia quarter ; w hich subjects it was ap- 
 prehended, would produce a great deal of excitement in the year- 
 ly meeting, and which Samuel Bettle feared the consequences of; 
 but how far that influenced John Comly in favor of putting off 
 those subjects, I cannot say." (Halliday Jackson, 2 vol. Evid. 132.) 
 Another witness, Abraham Lower, being asked whether the pro- 
 positions from Bucks and the southern quarter, were not disposed 
 of, at the instance of members from those quarters respectively, 
 and who, since the separation, have joined that portion of the so- 
 ciety with which he was in unity, answered, " I have no I'ecollec- 
 tion of the members of those quarters making such a proposition, 
 but I should think it quite probable." (Abraham Lower, 1 vol Evid. 
 392.) And the same witness, in another place, testified, " as that 
 yearly meeting was acknowledged, not qualified to enter upon 
 the matters brought up from the quarters, that case with others 
 was concluded not to be attended to." (Abraham liower, 1 vol. 
 
35 
 
 Eoid. 373.) Samuel Bettle says he mentioned to John Comly, 
 " Had you not better withdraw the propositions for a change.... 
 coming from Bucks, Abington, and the southern quarter? He said 
 he thought so too, united with me fully in that view, and said they 
 had better be withdrawn, as it was not hkely they would ever be 
 adopted, and would only occasion confusion and difficulty. The 
 propositions, when again brought befoi'e the meeting, were with- 
 drawn by common consent." (Samuel Bettle, 1 "o/. Evid. 69.) 
 Thomas Evans testifies thus, " Those subjects were are all con- 
 nected with, or had grown out of the controversy, respecting the 
 doctrines of Elias Hicks, and as there was a general understand- 
 ing that his friends were about to separate and form a society of 
 their own, those subjects were a^* their suggestion, or by their con- 
 sent referred to the meetings from which they had come, or sus- 
 pended." (Thomas Evans, J vol. Evid. 276.) " In the disposition 
 of these subjects, there was a united conclusion of the meeting, 
 after as full an expression of opinion as is usual; and those that 
 took part in this business, some of them now belong to the new 
 meeting, and others remained with the old society, and participa- 
 ted with the deliberations of the meeting which led to those con- 
 clusions." (Samuel Bettle, 1 vol Evid. 87.) 
 
 Thus, then it appears, these omissions took place, certainly with 
 the consent, and probably, at fhe request or upon the suggestion 
 of the very persons who now complain. Under such circumstan- 
 ces, this measure, b}- no means unusual, for Abraham Lower tes- 
 tified that he has known cases brought to the yearly meeting and 
 laid ovey for the consideration of the next, does not afford ground 
 for censure, much less for annihilation, and least of all on the ob- 
 jection of those who, if they did not actually bring it about, were 
 consenting thereto. 
 
 But, it is said, the meeting was not in a qualified state to enter 
 upon the consideration of these subjects. What then 1 Was this 
 unqualified state peculiar to one portion, or common to all ? Was 
 the meeting thereby dissolved ? If wonted harmony ceased to 
 prevail, if the minds of the members had become so sensitive on 
 particular points that the introduction of them would produce agi- 
 tation and excitement, unfavoi*able to cool, deliberate and dispas- 
 sionate investigation and decision, it was the part of prudence, of 
 christian forbearance, of enlightened reason, of patience and meek- 
 
36 
 
 ness, and of that spirit of peace and submission which, may I not 
 say without offence to others, so eminently characterises this rehgi- 
 ous denomination, to wait in humble expectation of the oversha- 
 dowing of that Power who can say, as well to the stormy passions 
 of the human breast as to the torrent and the whirlwind, " Peace, 
 be still." But if such a state of things be a dissolution, no human so- 
 ciety can be held together, and attempts at order and government, 
 instead of the means of curbing, and restraining, and controlling 
 the wayward passions of man, do but afford him the opportunity 
 of giving them extended and unbridled influence and action. 
 
 Besides these consideiations, which are, I trust, sufficient, con- 
 clusively to sustain the mt/^ting in its constitutional existence, 
 there are some others, founded o^ the acts and conduct of the mem- 
 bers, and of the component pans of the society at large or the 
 subordinate meetings, which incontiovertibly evince the acknow- 
 ledged existence of the meeting, and its direct recognition as 
 such, not only during its session, but after it had closed its servi- 
 ces for the year. 
 
 John Comly, and I feel at liberty to refer to him, though an 
 individual, from his eminent standing and distinguished charac- 
 ter, both private and public, as a man and as a. minister, as well 
 as from the prominent part he bore in the transactions which 
 attended the separation in this society. John Comly acted through- 
 out the meeting, from the commencement to the close, as its 
 organ, as an officer of the yearly n.^^eting of Philadelphia. 
 He did, indeed, request to be excused fvom serving in that 
 capacity. But the fact remains that he did serve, and 
 the reasons he gave for being inclined to withdraw, streK^th- 
 en the inferences to be deduced from the fact. Few mei, 
 ai'e, I believe, more distinguished for purity, candor, and every 
 other virtue. Did he say, I cannot serve this meeting, because I 
 am not lawfully and rightly appointed an assistant, and to act as 
 such, would be, in me, usurpation and oppi'ession ? Did he say, 
 he had been recorded as assistant " in opposition to the voice of 
 the larger part of the meeting 1 " Did he say, " the hedge was 
 broken down ;" the meeting was disoi'ganized, a revolution had 
 occurred, there was no longer a yearly meeting, but the society 
 was dissolved into its original elements? Halliday Jackson testi- 
 fies thus: " The next morning. T believe, John Comly did not take 
 
37 
 
 his seat at the table, at the opening of the meeting, as usual.'" 
 In this particular, perliaps not a very important one, the witness 
 aftei'wards corrected himself, and said he believed Comly took 
 his seat at the table by the side of the clerk, when he first came 
 into the meeting, (2 vol. Evid. 132) " but soon after, he got up, 
 and made a very forcible appeal to the yearly meeting. I think 
 he regretted the state and dilemma into which the yearly meeting 
 appeared to be brought ; that there were two parties, evidently 
 two parties, that appeared to be irreconcilable to each other, 
 and therefore not qualified to proceed in tlie weighty concerns of 
 a yearly meeting under those trying circumstances, and propo- 
 sed that the yearly meeting might adjourn, and Friends endeavor 
 to get cool and quiet in their minds, and that possibly they might 
 be favored to come together again at some other time, and be 
 
 more in the harmony And although John Comly expressed 
 
 his uneasiness at acting as assistant clerk, at the request of some 
 of his friends, and some of the other party, also, he submitted 
 again to go to tl^^Q table." ( H. Jackson, 2 vol Evid. 54.) Other 
 witnesses state the transaction, not differently, though somewhat 
 more fully. " On thiid day morning, immediately after the open- 
 ing minute was read, John Comly rose and stated, that he had 
 mentioned at the previous sitting, that he should go to the table 
 in condescension to the views of his friends, and that it was in 
 that feehng that he was mw there; that the meeting was divided 
 into two distinct and separue parties, and that under present cir- 
 cumstances those parties were irreconcileable ; that each of these 
 parties was striving for the mastery, ^--^ that if either of them 
 gained the ascendancy, it must be to the grie\i._^ ^^^ oppres- 
 sion yA the other. He therefore proposed that the met.. ^ should 
 suspend all r^^ther business, and adjourn; but if the meeting \v. 
 resolved to proceea ;,., j^g business, at all hazards, he could not 
 conscientiously act as the ^.-ryan of a meeting made up of such 
 conflicting parties, and must .-'.^refore request to be per- 
 mitted to retire. His proposal w^^ but feebly support- 
 ed His party strongly objected to his leaving Uo^, table, urged 
 
 his continuance, and that the meeting should now proceed with 
 its business. John Comly then rose and stated, that as he found 
 the meeting was not prepared to adjourn, he was willing, after 
 jlie usual expression of approbation, to determine the sense of the 
 
38 
 
 meeting on his remaining at the table, so to continue, and to pro- 
 ceed with the business." (Thomas Evans, 1 vol. Evkl. 266.) " He 
 took his seat, prepared to act, and the business did progress, he 
 acting as usual, without making any farther objection on his part." 
 ( Samuel Bettle, 1 vol Evid. 69.) 
 
 Having seen the conduct of this very active and very useful 
 member, as he is called by one of the witnesses, ( Abraham Low- 
 er, 1 vol. Evid. 392.) let us briefly advert to that of the other 
 members of the meeting, who now belong to the meeting in 
 Green street. 
 
 Their urgency that John Comly should act as assistant clerk, 
 and that the business of the meeting should proceed, has just been 
 mentioned. " The yearly meeting of 1827, was entirely conduc- 
 ted as it had been on previous occasions." ( Samuel Bettle, 1 vol. 
 Evid. 94.) " During that meeting, persons who have since join- 
 ed the other meeting, were appointed on committees, and took an 
 active part in the concerns of the meeting throughou^" Ibid. In 
 the afternoon of the first day's meeting, some o( the friends of 
 John Comly " expressed, that they thoLight the business of the 
 meeting had better go forward." ( Thomas Evans, 1 vol. Evid. 
 266.) "During all the remaining sitring? of (he yearly meeting, 
 he [John Comly] and his friends contiiiuea their attendance, took 
 part in its deliberations, assented or dissented from its conclu- 
 sions, as opinion led them, and addressed it as the yearly meeting 
 of Philadelphia." ( Thomas Evans, "»w/. Evid. 267.) "During the 
 last hour of the sitting, all the piyx^eedings were read over, as is 
 usual, at the close o^ ^^e yea-iy meeting; no objections were 
 made by any o-^'^^ ^^Y P^rt of the minutes; the concluding mi- 
 nute w-»- ^"^^ ^'^^*^'' ^^Joi""ning the meeting until the nev* year, at 
 ^, ^ usual time and place, if the Lord permit." ^^^^ conclusion 
 IS the form common on such occasions. ' ^fter this minute was 
 read, a considerable pause ensued • '"^^'^ was no objection made 
 to it, and Friends separat*^-' '^<^"^i ^ach other in the usual man- 
 ner." ( Samuel Bf>*''^^ 1 '^(^^- -^y«^^- 70. Thomas Evans, 1 vol 
 Evid. 268.) " rhose who have since " joined the Green street 
 meeting, "were generally present at the time of the adjourn- 
 ment. The yearly meeting was as large and numerous at the 
 last sitting, as at any sitting during the week." ( .Joseph Whilall, 
 I vol Evid. 218.) 
 
30 
 
 One of the transactions ol' this meeting deserv^es, in the present 
 connection, particular notice. " There ^vas one matter before the 
 meeting which was of a humane and benevolent character, that 
 Friends, perhaps of both parties, were pretty much united in." 
 (HalUday Jackson, 2 vol. Evid. 56.) " That was to raise three 
 thousand dollars to aid our brethren in North Carolina, in remo- 
 ving out of that state, many hundred colored people, eight or nine 
 hundred of them at least, who were under the care of the Caro- 
 lina yearly meeting, and whose liberties were in jeopardy, unless 
 they removed out of the state. This sum it was proposed should 
 be raised by the different quarterly meetings, in the usual propor- 
 tions. This was entirely united with ; not a single dissentient 
 voice ; a great many expressing their views, and a minute was 
 made, directing the quarterly meetings to raise the money and 
 pay it to Elias Yarnall, the treasurer of the yearly meeting. The 
 quarterly meetings that compose the yearly meeting, all assembled, 
 and in conformity with the direction contained in the extract from 
 the yearly meeting, raised their quotas of the three thousand dol- 
 lars, and paid it to Elias Yarnall, the treasurer." (Samuel Bettle, 
 1 vol. Evid. 70.) Chesterfield preparative meeting, bore its wonted 
 part. This transaction is of an unequivocal character. The re- 
 solve was an act, not of private or individual benevolence, but of 
 the meeting in its collective capacity. The recommendation, by 
 the extract, was such as that meetmg alone could perform. All, 
 we are told, united in it. Not a dissentient voice. It was re- 
 ceived by the several quarterly meetings as an act of the yearly 
 meeting, and carried into effect as such, and the monies were 
 transmitted to the treasurer ; thereby making, after the close of 
 the yearly meeting, a direct recognition of its existence and au- 
 thority. The effect of these circumstances cannot be weakened 
 by the " humane and benevolent character" of this work of cha- 
 rity. It was indeed proof of a noble and munificent spirit. But 
 suppose the general assembly of the presbyterian church, or the 
 protestant episcopal convention, had sent missives or extracts to 
 the quarterly meetings enjoining the donation, and to make their 
 treasurers the channels of conveyance, would the call have been 
 obeyed ? 
 
 I do not pause to answer, but proceed to the consideration of 
 another of the heads into which this case has been divided, the 
 
40 
 
 designs, plans, views, feelings and acts of individual members of 
 the society, and under this head I shall notice, so far as I think it 
 necessary, the conduct of subordinate meetings, and of what has 
 been called the dominant party. 
 
 And here I make some general remarks, which indeed in my 
 judgment, furnish an answer, a decisive answer, to many of the 
 conclusions which have been drawn or suggested from the facts 
 which, on these points of the case, appear in evidence. 
 
 First. Our concern is with the yearly meeting in its collective 
 capacity. Our purpose is to ascertain whether that body holds 
 or has ceased to hold, a legal existence; whether the body which 
 met on Arch street, and continued and closed its session there, in 
 April, 1827, was the constitutional yearly meeting of the society? 
 Whether the yearly meeting then assembled, performed its func- 
 tions and adjourned? or whether that assemblage, at its opening, 
 in its progress, or at its conclusion, ceased to be the ancient and 
 legitimate yearly meeting? Whether the venerable edifice re- 
 mained, or its place exhibited only a deplorable pile of ruins? 
 
 Second. As such, then are our concern and purpose, we have 
 little to do with the causes of division and separation about which 
 so much has been said and written in the course of this cause, 
 or with the division and separation, except so far as they may 
 operate on the legal existence of the assemblies of this society. 
 A separation has, indeed taken place. Those who formerly of- 
 fered their sacrifices on a common altar, now no longer worship 
 or commune together. Many who once went up to the ancient 
 temple have left it, and go up to another mount. They had the 
 right to do so. Our civil and religious liberty, whereof we have 
 such just reason for congratulation and gratitude, left them free 
 from all restraint, save conscience and the divine law. We are 
 not here to approve or condemn them, nor to enquire into their 
 motives, nor to estimate their strength, or their purity, or their 
 consistency with the light of truth whereby all profess to be guided. 
 I wish to judge no " man's servant. To his own master he 
 standeth or falleth." I hope to be able to continue and close this 
 investigation, without any enquiry into religious faith or opinions. 
 Not that I doubt the power of this court. For while I utterly dis- 
 claim the idea that this court, or any court, or any human power, 
 has the right to enforce a creed, or system of doctrine or belief, on 
 
41 
 
 any man, or to require him to assent to any prescribed system of 
 doctrine, or to search out his belief for the purpose of restraining 
 or punishing it in any temporal tribunal, I do most unqualifiedly 
 assert and maintain the power and right of this court, and of every 
 court in New Jersey, to ascertain, by competent evidence, what 
 are the religious principles of any man or set of men, when, as 
 may frequently be the case, civil rights are thereon to depend, or 
 thereby to be decided. In a greater or less degree it is done daily. 
 Who avail themselves of it more frequently than the society of 
 Friends, when, on the ground of religious faith, they claim and 
 enjoy an exemption from the use of an oath in our courts of jus- 
 tice? How far, then, this separation may have been proper, or 
 whether the causes of it will stand the scrutiny, which, in the great 
 day of account, they must undergo, we are not to resolve. Its ef- 
 fect on this society and the ancient assembly, is the outermost 
 bound of our enquiry. 
 
 Third. Inasmuch as our research, properly and almost exclu- 
 sively relates, as I have endeavoi'ed to shew, to the yearly meet- 
 ing in its collective capacity, it is of little worth to enquire into 
 the plans, designs, or views of individuals, or CA-en the acts of in- 
 ferior bodies, since these, however incorrect, or hostile, or inde- 
 fensible, can have no great influence on our main pursuit; for if 
 individuals were ambitious, not lowly, arrogant, not humble, domi- 
 neering, not submissive, and were destitute of the mild and for- 
 bearing spirit of Christianity; if a party had sprung up, resolved, 
 as was said, " to rule or to rend;" if even monthly or quarterly 
 meetings had Aiolated the wholesome rules of common discipline, 
 it by no means follows that the bonds of the society were broken, 
 their compact dissolved, their discipHne at an end, their constitu- 
 tion destroyed, and their existence annihilated. Such a govern- 
 ment is a mockery, a pretence. It has not the consistency of 
 even the mist of the morning. The plain and irresistible truth, 
 that such a government, so wholly unadapted to the condition of 
 mankind, could not exist, abundantly proves that such principles 
 are unsound. The basis of all government, is the truth taught by 
 every page of history, that turbulent passions will arise, that acts 
 of violence will be committed; and the purpose of government 
 is to control, to regulate, to repress, to remedy such passions and 
 conduct. If otherwise, the edifice is built of such stuft'as dreams 
 
42 
 
 are made of, and is as unsubstantial and as little to be valued as 
 a castle in the aii*. If the state of Georgia should disregard the 
 decision of the federal judiciary, or even resist the executive pow- 
 er of the United States, is the constitution dissolved T If designs 
 exist in South Carolina " to rule or to rend," our government, 
 surel3% is not therefore annihilated. It may be said, these are 
 but parts, small parts of the Union. Is it not in like manner said, 
 the adherents of the Arch street meeting are a minority, a small mi- 
 nority? Gough, in his history, makes this judicious and appropriate 
 remark. " The independency claimed by the discontented party, is 
 incompatible with the existence of society. Absolute independen- 
 cy in society being a contradiction in terms." 3 Gougli's Hist. 24. 
 
 This view of the subject would, I think, excuse any examina- 
 tion in detail ; yet to see these principles in their practical applica- 
 tion, as well as farther to illustrate the matter, and to leave, if 
 possible, nothing without notice, which is urged as bearing on the 
 result, I shall briefly advert to some of the prominent topics of 
 dissatisfacton and complaint. 
 
 " The most prominent cause of" the division in the society, 
 " of a public nature, I consider to be," says one of the witnesses, 
 ( Abraham Lower, 1 vol Evid. 354.) " the public opposition or 
 disrespect, manifested by the members of Pine street monthly 
 meeting, by the agency and influence of Jonathan Evans, in 
 breaking up the men's meeting, or closing it, whilst EHas Hicks, 
 was, with the consent and approbation of that monthly meeting, 
 engaged in the women's department in the prosecution of his re- 
 ligious concern." The occurrence took place "between 1819 
 and 1821." {Ibid.) Now, if a prominent member of that meet- 
 ing was guilty of rudeness or impropriety, it is plain, that he 
 should have been individually dealt with, brought to confess his er- 
 ror, or disowned. If the meeting, as such, acting from his exam- 
 ple or under his influence, were guilty of censurable disrespect, 
 " such meeting ought" to have been required "to render an ac- 
 count thereof." I use, here, the words of the book of discipline, 
 the meaning of which is well understood. But it is claiming too 
 much, to assert, that the society is thereby rent asunder, when 
 no measures to punish the offenders were ineflectually essayed, 
 when years have shed their healing influence over it ; or that the 
 religious rights and privileges of all the other meetings and mem- 
 
43 
 
 bers, within a large district of territory have been jeoparded, and 
 the subsequent sessions of the yearly meeting been unwarranted, 
 and their acts usurpation and oppression. 
 
 Another complaint against individuals, and against the meeting 
 for sufferings, is called " an insidious effort to palm a creed upon 
 a society which never had a creed." (Abraham Lower, 1 vol 
 Evid. 369.) The affair is thus represented by the witness who 
 uses the expression I have quoted. " The minds of some of the 
 members of that meeting appeared to be anxious that something 
 should be done to keep the minds of the members of the society 
 from imbibing sentiments which seemed to be growing common 
 among its members. The suggestion was made to get up a pam- 
 phlet, to be composed of extracts from the Avritings of our early 
 Friends, and from what some of us saw of the disposition of 
 those persons, who have since denominated themselves ' Ortho- 
 dox ' we felt afraid that something was about to be got up, 
 
 calculated to trammel our conscientious rights, and when the 
 pamphlet was prepared, a small number of us expressed our dis- 
 satisfaction with the undertaking, and with the matter of the pam- 
 phlet, fearing, that in the hands of arbitrary men, a construction 
 might be given to some of the views in that pamphlet, that would 
 abridge the right of private judgment .... there were, I think, ten 
 
 thousand of them printed but it was detained, not published. 
 
 And when the minutes of the meeting for sufferings came to be 
 read as usual, in the yearly meeting, to my surprise, that pam- 
 phlet appeared to be recorded on the minutes, and when it was 
 read, the yearly meeting appeared very much dissatisfied with it. 
 It was pi'oposed, and generally united with, and so expressed, that 
 it should be expunged from the minutes of the meeting for suf- 
 ferings It was finally left, with the conclusion that it should not 
 
 be published. It was considered in the light of a creed, and that 
 by this course of leaving it on the minutes of the meeting for suf- 
 ferings that when the minutes should be read in the yearly 
 
 meeting, and that as a part of them, that it would be adopted by 
 society, foisted upon them in that insidious way." ( Abraham 
 Lower, 1 vol. Evid. 368.) On the other side, the following repre- 
 sentation of this affair was made. " It has been the custom of the 
 society, whenever any of its doctrines or testimonies are misre- 
 presented in works that are published, to endeavor to induce the 
 
44 
 
 editors of those works to give the views that Friends hold in re- 
 spect to the doctrines thus misrepresented. In the year 1822, 
 there was a discussion in a pubUc paper, printed at Wihnington, 
 conducted under the signatures of Paul and Amicus ; Paul attack- 
 ing Friends, and Amicus speaking in their behalf, and in a man- 
 ner too which shewed, that he was speaking for the society, clearly. 
 After this discussion had progressed for a considerable time. Am- 
 icus avowed doctrines, as part of the christian faith, which we 
 could not accord with; they appeared to be of a socinian charac- 
 ter, at least. These essays being about to be reprinted in form of a 
 book the meeting for sufferings, in the regular order of their pro- 
 ceedings did — notice it, by appointing a committee The com- 
 mittee pursued the usual course .... prepared a statement of what 
 
 were the views of Friends making extracts from various 
 
 approved authors. The meeting united with the report of the 
 committee, and made a minute on the subject. The editor did 
 publish the minute in his paper, but declined saying any thing on 
 the subject in his book. The meeting were under the necessity 
 of publishing these extracts themselves, and did print an edition 
 of it. In the yearly meeting of 1823, when the minutes of the 
 meeting for sufferings were read, considerable objections were 
 
 made to that part of the proceedings The excitement being 
 
 considerable, the meeting adjourned until the next morning. 
 When the meeting assembled the next morning, it was proposed 
 that the extracts should be stricken off the minutes of the meet- 
 ing for sufferings ; objection was made to that, on the ground 
 that it would be a disavowal of the doctrines held by Friends, 
 these extracts being taken from the writings of approved Friends." 
 .... It was " proposed to them to avoid both difficulties by sim- 
 ply suspending the publication, not taking it off^ the minutes, and 
 not circulating the pamphlets, but leaving the subject. This pro- 
 position was finally acquiesced in, and the business so settled." 
 ( Samuel Bettle, 1 vol. Evid. 72.) How far this explanation may 
 serve to shew that the measure was in conformity with ancient 
 custom, and called for by the exigency of the occasion ; or how 
 far it was an insidious effort to impose a creed ; or how far the 
 fear was well founded that an attempt was made to trammel con- 
 scientious rights, or to abridge the right of private judgment, I 
 shall not undertake to decide. It is enough 1o sav. that if such a 
 
45 
 
 design existed, if such an effort was made, the design was frus- 
 trated, the effort was defeated ; and the authors of it'met with a 
 just, though silent rebuke. But the attempt did not impair the 
 solidity of the yearly meeting to which it was proposed. I can- 
 not believe that the proposal, by a committee of congress, of an un- 
 constitutional or oppressive law, would annihilate that body, or 
 abrogate the constitution. The wildest and most visionary the- 
 orists would not, I believe, venture on such bold and untenable 
 ground. 
 
 This matter, of religious faith and doctrine of a creed, has di- 
 rectly or indirectly filled up a large portion of the volumes of evi- 
 dence befoi'e us, was the subject of many remarks in the argu- 
 ments of the counsel at the bar of this court, has been the cause 
 of much anxiety and alarm ; and misunderstandings in respect to 
 it, have, I doubt not, had great influence in bringing about the la- 
 mented rupture in this most respectable society. I fear the mat- 
 ter has been greatly misunderstood, if not greatly misrepresented. 
 This society has, and from the nature of things, must have, its 
 faith and doctrines, its distinguishing faith and doctrines. They 
 would, unhesitatingly, repudiate the tenets of Confucius, of Bra- 
 mah, or of Mohammed. They believe " in Christ and him cruci- 
 fied." They bear both public and private testimony of their faith. 
 They have repeatedly declared it, and published it to the world. 
 They have a confession of faith, and a catechism. A declaration of 
 faith was issued on behalf of the society, in the year 1693, was 
 approved by the morning meeting of London, and published by 
 the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, in or about 1730. It is, I sup- 
 pose, the same which is to be found in Sewell's History, (2 vol. 
 472.) It purports to be " a declaration of what our christian belief 
 and profession has been and is," and contains an exposition of be- 
 lief, in respect to Jesus Christ, his suffering, death, and resurrec- 
 tion, and the general resurrection of the dead, and the final judg- 
 ment. Sewell, (2 vol. 483.) gives what he calls " a confession of 
 faith," which was, by George Whitehead and others, presented to 
 Parliament, in December, 1693, and begins thus, " Be it known 
 to all, that we sincerely believe and confess." The yearly meet- 
 ing, as early as 1701, by their direction and at their expense, cir- 
 culated Barclay's Apology, and his Catechism and Confession of 
 Faith, as containing the doctrines and tenets of the society of 
 
46 
 
 Friends. What is a creed but an exhibition of faith and doctrine? 
 Why, then, should the tocsin now be sounded among a people, 
 who, a well informed member tells us, have more frequently than 
 any other religious community, exhibited to the world their prin- 
 ciples and their faith 1 Were the early Friends less anxious for 
 the cause of truth, less jealous of encroachment on their religi- 
 ous freedom, less willing to bear testimony against error and to 
 suffer for their testimony, less prompt to discern insidious efforts, 
 less fearful of attempts to trammel conscience or abridge the right 
 of private judgement? The observations of Robert Barclay, in 
 a treatise on church government, published under the sanction of 
 the society, and several times printed by the yearly meeting of 
 Philadelphia, (Thomas Evans, 1 vol Evid. 304.) are fraught with 
 so much good sen^"^, practical wisdom and genuine piety, that 
 they cannot be too frequently pondered by all, of every name or 
 sect, who feel an interest in the cause of religious truth and or- 
 der. " Whether the church of Christ have power in any cases 
 that are matters of conscience, to give a positive sentence and de- 
 cision, which may be obhgatory upon believers. I answer affir- 
 matively, she hath ; and shall prove it in divers instances, both 
 from Scripture and reason ; for, fii'st, all principles and articles of 
 faith which are held doctrinally, are, in respect to those that be- 
 lieve them, matters of conscience Now, I say, we being ga- 
 thered into the belief of certain principles and doctrines, without 
 any constraint or wordly respect, but by the mere force of truth 
 on our understanding, and its power and influence upon our hearts, 
 these principles and doctrines, and the practices necessarily de- 
 pending upon them, are, as it were, the terms that have drawn 
 us together, and the bond by which we became centered into one 
 body and fellowship, and distinguished from others. Now, if any 
 one or more, so engaged with us, should arise to teach any other 
 doctrine or doctrines, contrary to these which were the ground 
 of our being one, who can deny but the body hath power in such 
 a case to declare, this is not according to the truth we profess, and 
 therefore, we pronounce such and such doctrines to be wrong, with 
 which we cannot have unity, nor yet any more spiritual fellow- 
 ship with those that hold them Now, this cannot be account- 
 ed tyranny and oppression Were such a principle to be re- 
 ceived or believed, that in the church of Christ no man should be 
 
4t 
 
 separated from, no man condemned or excluded the fellowship 
 and communion of the body, for his judgment or opinions in mat- 
 ters of faith, then what blasphemies so horrid, what heresies so 
 damnable, what doctrines of devils but might harbor itself in the 
 church of Christ ? What need then of sound doctrine, if no doc- 
 trine make unsound ? Where a people are gathered into the 
 
 belief of the -principles and doctrines of the gospel of Christ, if any 
 of that people shall go from their principles, and assert things 
 false, and contrary to what they have already received, such as 
 
 stand and abide firm in the faith have power to separate from 
 
 such, and to exclude them from their spiritual fellowship and com- 
 munion." (Barclay's Anarchy of the Ranters, 53, &c.) On the pre- 
 sent occasion it is not my purpose, because for the determination 
 of the controversy before us, I do not find or deem it necessary, 
 to enquire whether the society of Friends can, or may, or will, ac- 
 cording to their rules, disown a member who holds unsound or 
 heretical doctrines, who should disavow all the essential principles 
 of Christianity, and profess to believe that Jupiter and Mars and 
 Apollo, and the fabled deities of Olympus are the true gods, or 
 that the " blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins," 
 but simply to show that the society as such, have their faith, 
 their principles, their doctrines, their peculiar faith, their dis- 
 tinctive principles, their characteristic doctrines, without which 
 a man may be a heathen, a mohammedan, or even a christian, 
 but cannot be one of the people called Quakers. Can I mis- 
 take in this, when I read such a passage as I have quoted from 
 Barclay, a standard of the society, acknowledged, received, re- 
 vered as such ? What is his work just named, what is his 
 '• Apology," but an exposure of doctrine, of principle, of faith, 
 of the doctrine, principle and faith of the Friends, avowed by 
 them, pubUshed by them, resorted to by them as their light and 
 guide in the hours of darkness, and doubt, and difiiculty-; in those 
 trying hours, which come to them as they come to all men of re- 
 ligious feeling, when the light within needs oil and the flickering 
 flame of hope to be made steady and brilliant. Can I mistake, 
 when the book of discipline, with uncommon solicitude, requires 
 each preparative meeting of ministers and elders, no less than 
 three times in every year, to certify to its quarterly meeting, in 
 answer to one of the queries, " whether ministers are sound in 
 
48 
 
 word and doctrine?" Soundness is a relative term, meaning free- 
 dom from error and fallacy, and necessarily requiring some stan- 
 dard whereby the word and the doctrine may be judged. The 
 doctrine to be sound, must be conformable to some standard ; and 
 does not the query, then, assert that a standard exists in this 
 church ; and that thereby the doctrine of the minister, may, by 
 his fellow man, be compared and tried ? If, however, I may mis- 
 take in thus reverting to these venerated sources, let us for a mo- 
 ment, recur to the evidence. Abraham Lower, (1 vol. Evid. 369.) 
 says, in connection with this subject, " The society believing now 
 as they did, in the first foundation of it, that the bond of union, 
 by which it was bound together, was and is, ' the life of righteous- 
 nes.' " Is not here a direct assertion, that there is a belief, and 
 a belief not merely of individuals, but of the society as such ? And 
 he refers for an exposition, published and expressed, to the author 
 and the book from which I have just quoted. In this connection, 
 I recur farther, to the first document emanating from Green street, 
 dated fourth month, 1827. "Doctrines held by one part of the 
 society, and which we believe to be sound and edifying, are pro- 
 nounced by the other party to be unsound and spurious." Now 
 I may be allowed to ask, why speak of doctrines, if the society, 
 as such, has no concern with them ? How are doctrines ascer- 
 tained to be unsound and spurious, or sound and edifying, if there 
 be no standard of faith and doctrine, no creed ? Why should this 
 difference or departure from a sound belief, be made a subject of 
 complaint ? How is such a denunciation to be reconciled with 
 the alarm at a creed, or the dreaded attempt to control conscience 
 and abridge the right of private judgment ? 
 
 The meeting for sufferings, by the rejection of certain persons, 
 appointed by the southern quarter as representatives, are char- 
 ged to have given " reason to apprehend that they were deter- 
 mined to control the operations of society according to their 
 wills," and to have furnished " evidence of their having dissolved 
 the compact, and so far as their own influence extended, and their 
 own acts could extend, separated itself from the society." (Abra- 
 ham Lower, 1 vol Evid. 370.) 
 
 The meeting for sufferings, is a subordinate department for the 
 business of this society, and especially to exercise care during the 
 intervals between the sessions of the yearly meeting. If this body 
 
49 
 
 did improperly reject the representatives, if in this respect they vio- 
 lated the discipline, it is very obvious that their act, their unconstitu- 
 tional act, could impart no censure whatever to the yearly meet- 
 ing, much less destroy its existence. But the design, the motive, the 
 ambitious and domineering spirit, which induced this conduct, 
 these are, we are told, the consuming fires. The state of the 
 case is shortly thus : The meeting for sufferings is composed of 
 twelve Friends appointed by the yearly meeting, and also of four 
 Friends chosen out of each of the quarterly meetings ; and the 
 book of discipline provides that " in case of the decease of any 
 Friend or Friends, nominated either by the yearly meeting or 
 quarterly meetings, or of their dechning or neglecting their atten- 
 dance for the space of twelve months, the meeting for sufferings, 
 if it be thought expedient, may choose others in his or their stead, 
 to serve till the time of the next yearly meeting, or till the places 
 of those who have represented the quarterly meetings shall be 
 supplied by new appointments." (Book of discipline, 55.) In the 
 year 1826, the southern quarterly meeting resolved to release two 
 of the persons, who were then sitting as members of the meeting 
 for sufferings under their appoi ntment ; and appointed others. The 
 meeting were of opinion that such a measure was not contempla- 
 ted by the discipline; that the quarter had a right to fill, but not 
 to create vacancies; and that the only case which constituted 
 a vacancy and called for a new appointment, was death, resig- 
 nation, or neglect of attendance ; neither of which then existed. 
 The meeting for sufferings appointed a committee to confer with 
 the quarterly meeting. The latter adhered to their resolution. The 
 case was forwarded to the yearly meeting of 1827 for their care, 
 and was one of those, which as already mentioned, were postpon- 
 ed. {Exhih. JVo. 47, 2 vol Evict 477.) Here, then, appears to have 
 been a difierence of opinion, on the construction of a clause in 
 the book of discipline, respecting the power of the quarterly meet- 
 ing. Without undertaking to decide which is correct, there was 
 certainly room enough for a diversity, and I can see no reason, 
 either in the relation of the witnesses, or in an examination of the 
 controverted clause, to doubt that the opinion entertained by the 
 meeting for sufferings, was honest and sincere, and not feigned or 
 fraudulent; more especially if, as alleged, it wassanctioned by a 
 practice of seventy j'ears, coeval with the existence of that meet- 
 
50 
 
 ing. Now an honest diversity of opinion as to constitutional 
 powers, could not •' dissolv^e the compact ;" nor could the act of 
 the meeting, in sending a committee to confer with the quarter, 
 nor even their omission to yield to the determination of the quar- 
 ter, until the matter could be investigated and decided by the ul- 
 timate and competent tribunal, the yearly meeting. But in what- 
 e\-er light we may view this matter, it is, as already observed, 
 the act of the meeting for suflerings, not of the yearly meeting. 
 The course pursued by the latter, and the reason of that course, 
 have been ah-eady mentioned and considered. If, indeed, " this 
 circumstance"' had produced, as is said by one of the witnesses, 
 ( Halliday Jackson, 2 vol. Evid. 48) " as great a sensation through- 
 out the society, as, perhaps, any other circumstance that occur- 
 red previously to the yearly meeting of 1827," there needs be no 
 surprise that this meeting should not be in a state to take it under 
 consideration ; and the propriety of a postponement until time 
 should have shed its calming influence, and the consistency of this 
 course with the avowed principles and frequent practice of 
 the society of Friends, are very manifest. 
 
 The remarks which I have made on these cases, selected by 
 way of example, and for the sake of illustration, render it unne- 
 cessary that I should particularly notice, or enter at large into 
 the statement or consideration of others of the same general cha- 
 racter. If the principles which I have endeavored to establish, 
 and liave applied to these cases, are correct, the others can have 
 no greater iiofluence on the question of tlie continued existence of 
 the yearly meeting. 
 
 Another point has been decidedly taken, on the part of those 
 who maintain the dissolution and reorganization of the ancient 
 j^early meeting, and which I have shortly, under this head, ex- 
 pressed by the phrase, " feelings of individuals." It is more at 
 large explained, in the first public document issued from the 
 meeting in Green street, thus ; " The unity of this body is inter- 
 rupted; a division exists among us, developing views which ajv 
 pear incompatible with each other, and feelings averse to a re- 
 conciliation." Now admitting this to be true, and it may, per- 
 haps, be rather to be lamented than denied, that such incompati- 
 ble views and averse feelings existed in both parts of this body ; 
 what consequen';e can fairly, legally, upon any practical princi- 
 
51 
 
 pies of human action, resull to the existence of the meeting, and 
 the connection of the society ? What consequence, on the pa- 
 cific principles always maintained among the Friends ? If time, 
 charity, a recollection of the common sufferings of themselves 
 and their ancestors ; if prayer and supplication ; if the smiles of 
 the Great Head of the church universal, would not change and 
 reconcile these views, reverse and soothe these feelings, then 
 might those who thought '* the period had fully come when they 
 ought to look towards making a quiet retreat," have justl}^ said 
 to the others, " Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me 
 and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen, for we 
 be brethren ! Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me ; if thou 
 wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou de- 
 part to the right hand, then I will go to the left." But without 
 even an attempt at such voluntary separation, I can see no safe 
 principle, which will entitle a portion of those who entertained such 
 views and feehngs, on account of their existence and prevalence, 
 to disfranchise the rest, to declare the ancient meeting dissolved, 
 the society broken up into its individual elements, and then pro- 
 ceed to erect among themselves a new body, and declare it the 
 society of Friends, and its meeting, not merely a new yearly 
 meeting, but the ancient and legitimate yearly meeting, not a new 
 yearly meeting, but the meeting resettled on its ancient founda- 
 tions and })rinciples. 
 
 If a portion of this religious community found, or believed to 
 exist, in another portion, such feelings and views as rendered it 
 impracticable for them any longer to fraternize, any longer 
 peacefully, harmoniously and profitably to meet and commune 
 and worship together, a very sutlicient reason in conscience, may 
 have been thereby afforded them to withdraw, to make " a quiet 
 retreat ; " and the principles of the government under which we 
 have the happiness to live, M'ould have sustained them in the mea- 
 sure, and allowed them to join any other religious community, or 
 form another association, of whatever name, for religious purpo- 
 ses. But the existence of such feelings and views, would not de- 
 prive those who remained of their ancient name, rights and priv- 
 ileges, if they retained their ancient faith and doctrine, maintain- 
 ed their wonted testimonies, and adhered to their ancient stand- 
 ards ; nor would the act of withdrawal even if by a majority^ 
 
52 
 
 confer on them the form and name, the power and authority of 
 the ancient community. In Uke manner, if a portion discovered 
 in the rest, or in some of the more influential members, a deter- 
 mination " to rule or to rend," although hereby, in conscience, a 
 sufficient reason to excuse or justify a withdrawal might be found, 
 yet could liot even a majority carry with them, the power 
 and authority and rights of the whole, unless the disposition or 
 determination had been carried out into overt acts ; for, of the lat- 
 ter only, can men judge or be judged by their fellow men, while 
 of the former, he alone can take cognizance, who knoweth the 
 secrets of all hearts. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to examine and weigh, in detail, or by 
 its principles, every argument which I have either heard or read, 
 to prove that the body which sat in Arch street meeting house, 
 in April, 1827, was not, or ceased to be the Philadelphia yearly 
 meeting of Friends. The position is not maintained. At the 
 closing minute, that body was the ancient legitimate yearly meet- 
 ing as fully as during the forenoon sitting of the first day, or as 
 it had been at any point of time since the year 1685. 
 
 If this be true, if the body which then closed its functions for 
 the time, in the usual manner, and by the ancient minute, was the 
 legitimate body, it is enough for the present occasion, nor need 
 we look at its future history, because the new body, which claims 
 its power and place, assembled in the course of a few months, 
 and before the recurrence of the next annual period. It may not, 
 however, be unpi'ofitable to state in this connection, as appears 
 from the evidence, that in the year 1828, and since, annually, at 
 the wonted time and place, meetings have been held, of such as 
 have thought proper to attend, of the acknowledged members of 
 the ancient society, who have not been disfranchised by any act 
 of any tribunal, claiming to repi'esent, the society of Friends, 
 or to possess or exert any power of disownment. 
 
 If the body which thus held and closed its session, was the re- 
 gular, constitutional yearly meeting, it follows, as an inevitable con- 
 sequence, that the assembly which convened in October, of the same 
 year, in Green street, could not be, whatever name it may have 
 assumed, the ancient legitimate yearly meeting, the common 
 head and centre of the subordinate meetings, and of the society 
 of Friends in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. One meeting being 
 
53 
 
 in life, another of the same powers, rights, and jurisdiction, could 
 not, according to the discipline of the society, according to the! 
 simplest elements of reason, according to the immutable rules 
 of action, which must govern and control all human assem- 
 blages, of whatever natui'e, and whether religious or civil, 
 according, indeed, to the avowed doctrines of the pleadings 
 in this cause, and the consentaneous declarations of counsel, a 
 second, a subsequent meeting could not, be set up within its 
 bounds. The yearly meeting, having convened and closed in 
 April, 1827, could not again convene, nor could any body, pos- 
 sessing its powers and authorities convene, until the same month 
 of the succeeding year, 1828. The place of meeting was fixed 
 by the voice of the yearly meeting, which alone had the authori- 
 ty in this respect, and alone could change it. The time was di- 
 rected by the constitution or book of discipline, to which we have 
 had so frequent occasion to refer. The time could, indeed, be al- 
 tered by the yearly meeting, but by it alone. There was no ad- 
 journment made by the yearly meeting, to a shorter day than the 
 annual period. There is no provision in the constitution for an 
 intermediate, or as it is commonly denominated, a special meet- 
 ing ; nor is authority given to the clerk, to any portion of the 
 members, or invested any where else, to call such meeting. 
 Hence it clearly follows, that according to the constitution, the 
 yearly meeting could not again assemble, until 1828; and no body, 
 of whomsoever consisting, or by whomsoever composed, which 
 may have convened in the intermediate period could, conforma- 
 bly to constitutional principles, be, the Philadelphia yearly meeting. 
 We learn, however, from the evidence before us, that on the 
 nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first days of April, during the 
 yearly meeting, and after its close, a number of Friends met to- 
 gether to confer on the state of the society. They resolved to 
 meet again, and accordingly did meet, in the sixth month of that 
 year, and then recommended that a yearly meeting should be 
 held, on the fifteenth day of the ensuing month of October. A 
 meeting was held at the Green street meeting house. And this 
 meeting, is said by Stacy Decow, in his answer to the bill of in- 
 terpleader, to be " the true and legitimate yearly meeting of Phil- 
 adelphia," and by one of the witnesses, is called " the yearly 
 meeting reorganized," (Abiaham Lower, ] vol Evid. 404.) We 
 
54 
 
 are now to examins whether it was so, and in the present enqui- 
 ry I propose to lay out of view the fact, which I believe has been 
 fully demonstrated, that the yearly meeting was actually in full 
 vigor and capacity. 
 
 This enquiry is to be conducted under two different aspects, 
 first, on the assumption that the constitution or disciphne of the 
 society remained in force ; and secondly, on the assumption that 
 the hedge was thrown down, the bond of union unloosed, the so- 
 ciety broken up into its individual elements, the constitution or 
 discipline not providing for the emergency, or having crumbled 
 into dust. 
 
 First The constitution is in force. The time and place of the 
 yearly meeting are fixed. April, not October, is the one; Arch 
 street, not Green street, is the other. j\either can be changed 
 without the resolution and authority of the 3'early meeting. No 
 such authority was given. On the contrary, the resolve of that 
 body was, that the next yearly meeting should assemble on the 
 third second day of April, at Arch street, at the usual time and 
 place, " if the Lord permit ;" and these latter words did not, as is 
 asserted in the answer of Stacy Decow, constitute " a contingent 
 
 adjournment," nor contemplate "the circumstance of Friends 
 
 not being again permitted to assemble at that time;" but were de- 
 signed to acknowledge their humble and entire dependance on the 
 Great Master of assemblies, without whose permission they nei- 
 ther expected nor wished again to convene. A special meeting 
 of the yearly meeting is an anomaly, and unprovided for. Nei- 
 ther the few nor the many, have power given to them to convoke 
 such meeting. If then, the constitution was in force, the meet- 
 ing in October was not the true and legitimate yearly meeting of 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 Second. Let us now suppose the compact broken, the constitution 
 dissolved, and the disjoined members at liberty to act f]-om indi- 
 vidual minds. Was the meeting entitled to the name it then as- 
 sumed ? There are three insurmountable obstacles. First, it was 
 not convened as the ancient yearly meeting. Second, the mem- 
 bers at large, the only constituent parts, or in other words, the 
 individual elements, were not, and a portion of them only was, in- 
 vited to assemble. Third, it was not composed or constituted as 
 the ancient vearlv meetinir. 
 
55 
 
 First. This October meeting was not called, nor did it come 
 together as the ancient yearly meeting. The name which it 
 thought proper then to assume, or which was then conferred 
 upon it, cannot help this deficiency. In the call which was is- 
 sued, the faintest idea is not held out that the ancient yearly meet- 
 ing w^as to be convoked ; no hint is given that the ancient meet- 
 ing was to be reorganised, or to be settled on its ancient founda- 
 tions and principles. On the contrary, the idea is conveyed with 
 comprehensible distinctness, that a new yearly meeting w^as to 
 be formed. The address, Vvrhich bears date in June, contains, in 
 the first place, an avowal of the design or object in view, " to re- 
 gain harmony and tranquility — by withdrawing ourselves, not 
 from the society of Friends, nor from the exercise of its salutary 
 discipline, but from religious communion with those who have in- 
 troduced, and seem disposed to continue, such disorders among 
 us." There is nothing here of remaining in the ancient yearly 
 meeting, nor of continuing or reorganising it. But let us proceed. 
 
 " We therefore have agreed to propose for your consideration, 
 
 the propriety and expediency of holding," what? The ancient yearly 
 meeting 1 No. " A yearly meeting for Friends in unity with us, re- 
 siding within the bounds of those quarterly meetings heretofore 
 represented in the yearly meeting held in Philadelphia." And far- 
 ther, " It is recommended that the quarterly and monthly meet- 
 ings which may be prepared for such a measure, should appoint 
 representatives to meet in Philadelphia on the third second day in 
 tenth month next, at ten o'clock in the morning, in company with 
 other members favorable to our views, there to hold a yearly 
 meeting of men and women Friends, upon the principles of the 
 early professors of our name." In this clause are several promi- 
 nent points. First, the meeting was to be composed of represen- 
 tatives from the monthly as w^ell as the quarterly meetings. Now, 
 the ancient yearly meeting had no representatives from monthly 
 meetings; certainly, since the discipline, as adopted and published 
 in 1806. A continuance of the yearly meeting could not then 
 have been contemplated, nor a reorganization of it, nor a settling 
 of it on its ancient principles. Second, It was to be, not the Phila- 
 delphia yearly meeting, but " a yearly meeting of men and women 
 Friends ;" and thirdly. It was to be formed on the principles of 
 
56 
 
 the early professors of our name, not on the platform of the year- 
 ly meeting, as erected by the book of discipline. 
 
 Second. This meeting in October, was not so convened as to 
 entitle it to assume the name, and to take the place of the Phila- 
 delphia yearly meeting. 
 
 If the yearly meeting was dissolved, and the society brought 
 back to a mere collection of individuals, if the state of things were 
 such that individual minds might now form anew or reorsanize, 
 as they are said to have originally formed, it is a very clear pro- 
 position, and not to be controverted, that all the individuals of the 
 society ought to have been called ; none should have been direct- 
 ly or indirectly excluded. Whatever dissentions had risen up, 
 whatever animosities existed, the former members of the society 
 remained such, and those who did not meet in Green street, in 
 person or by representatives, were as much as they who did, 
 members and individual elements. All, then, had a right to be 
 called, all must be called, all must be afforded an opportunity to 
 assemble, or no convocation can be lawful, the true and legiti- 
 mate yearly meeting cannot be there. Now, the recommenda- 
 tion or invitation to assemble, was not comprehensive, but exclu- 
 sive, not general, but limited. A particular class or description 
 only were invited ; all the rest were debarred and shut out. The 
 maxim, expressio unius est exchisio alterius, is adopted in the law, 
 only because it is the dictate of common sense. For whom was 
 the meeting ? Who were to attend ? " For Friends in unity with 
 us." Not for Friends in general, not for the members of the an- 
 cient yearly meeting, but for such only as were in unity wilii 
 those who made the proposal. Who were invited to send repre- 
 sentatives? All the monthly and quarterly meetings? By no 
 means. " The monthly and quarterly meetings irhicli may he 
 prepared for such a ?neasu7^e." This language cannot be misun- 
 derstood or misconstrued; and besides the representatives, for as 
 we have heretofore seen, all who were led by inclination'or duty, 
 came in their individual capacity to the yearly meeting, who 
 were to meet in company with them ? All the society ? All other 
 members ? Not so. " Other members favorable to our views." 
 Was then the yearly meeting convoked? Was even a general 
 meeting of the society of Friends called ? Ingenuity cannot per- 
 vert, blindness cannot mistake, such perspicuity. If I may be per- 
 
Milted to use u term, because it is so common as to be well under- 
 stood, and not because I mean to make any offensive application 
 of it, the call was for the meeting of a party. I do not intend to 
 say, a right party, or a wrong party, for the subject will, in its 
 nature, admit of either qualification, but a party. And such a 
 convocation, of a portion only of the society, the 1*681 whether ma- 
 jority or minority, or however small in comparative numbers, be- 
 ing excluded, cannot be the true and legitimate yearly meeting, 
 cannot be the ancient yearly meeting reorganised and settled 
 again on its ancient foundations and principles. 
 
 Third. The meeting in October was not composed oj" construc- 
 ted as the yearly meeting. 
 
 I have, incidentally, adverted to this subject, in showing the na- 
 ture of the call, or who were invited to attend the meeting; but I 
 now present it as a characteristic difference between this assem- 
 blage and the yearly meeting. The yearly meeting is composed 
 of members of two classes^ individuals, and the quarterly meet- 
 ings ; the latter being represented by delegates. Such is not only 
 the case since the present book of discipline was pubHshed by the 
 society, but was the principle of organization when this meeting 
 was first established. Gough, the historian, says, " In the year 
 1669, it was found expedient and agreed upon, to hold a general 
 meeting in London, representative of the whole body in England, 
 and all other parts where any of the society were settled, which, 
 having been thenceforth held annually, is denominated the yearly 
 meeting in London. This meeting is constituted of representa- 
 tives deputed from each (]uarterly meeting in England, from the 
 half yearly meeting in Ireland, and sometimes from other parts, 
 yet without restraining any member in unity with the society from 
 attending." (2 Cough's History, 163.) But the meeting in Green 
 street was composed of three classes, individuals, quarterly meet- 
 ings, and monthly meetings ; some of the latter, as bodies. Mount 
 Holly, Chesterfield and Radnor, being represented by their dele- 
 gates. {Exhib. 9.) It is no answer, that membersof this society are en- 
 titled to sit in their individual capacity, and therefore, whether there, 
 as individuals or delegates, can make no difference. This result 
 does not follow. The representatives alone, it will be remember- 
 ed, perform the important service of nominating a clerk to the 
 meeting. And hence, the clerk w^ho acted for, and was appointed 
 
58 
 
 by this meeting was nominated, at the least in part, by the lepre- 
 sentatives of monthly meetings, who were irregularly there. And 
 the incongruity of this procedure farther appears from this, that 
 the individual members first appointed, in their monthly meetings, 
 the representatives of those meetings, and then themselves atten- 
 ded as individual members. It is manifest, therefore, the October 
 meeting was not composed as a yearly meeting should, and could 
 only, have been. 
 
 In the course of this investigation, it has repeatedly occurred 
 to me, and every time with increasing force, that the grounds of 
 division, if no difference of rehgious faith existed, were of an infe- 
 rior and evanescent nature. It seems to me, though, perhaps, I 
 am unable, not being a member of the society, properly to ap- 
 preciate the matter, that patience, forbearance, brotherly kindness 
 and charity, the meek and mild spirit which has been believed to 
 characterize and adorn the genuine Friend, would, under the 
 smiles and blessing of Providence, have wrought out a perfect 
 reconciliation, have brought again these discordant minds to the 
 wonted harmony, and the unity of spirit would have again pre- 
 vailed. If, indeed, a difference of faith and doctrine had grown 
 up and become strong, if cither portion had fallen oft" from the an- 
 cient principles of their church, and I use the term, here, as did Fox 
 and Barclay and Penn, the breach is not the subject of surprise, 
 and it must, with no less truth than regret, be said, " betw^een us 
 and you there is a great gulf fixed." In the pleadings of this 
 cause, in the extended volumes of testimony, and in the laborious 
 arguments of the counsel, I do not remember any charge that the 
 members of the society, who remain connected with the Arch 
 street meeting, have departed from the doctrines and principles of 
 Friends, as stated by their founder and his early followers ; and 
 I rejoice that I have not been constrained to enquire into the 
 charge of departure, so freely and frequently urged against the 
 members of the Green street meeting. In any remarks I have 
 made, I am not to be understood as asserting or countenancing 
 such a charge. Nor do I mean to say, they either had or had not 
 grounds and reasons sufficient to induce a separation. With these, 
 I do not profess, for this court, in the present cause, to interfere. 
 It is with the legal consequences of their acts, we are to concern 
 
59 
 
 ourselves. A separation of a portion does not necessarily des- 
 troy or impair, nor, as it respects legal existence, even weaken 
 the original institution. This doctrine was distinctly asserted by 
 the Supreme Court of this state, in the case of Den against Bolton 
 and others, which arose on the division in the Reformed Dutch 
 Church of the United States. 
 
 Upon the whole, I am brought, by the most careful, faithful, 
 and minute investigation of which I am capable, to the result, 
 that the Arch street meeting was, and the Green street meeting 
 was not, the Philadelphia yearly meeting of the society of Friends. 
 We are now to look for the consequences on the cause before 
 the court. We have seen that every preparative meeting within 
 the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which is, through and 
 by its connecting links, connected with, and subordinate to, the 
 yearly meeting of Philadelphia, is a preparative meeting of the 
 people called Quakers ; and any preparative meeting or assem- 
 blage of persons calling themselves a preparative meeting, not 
 thus connected and subordinate, is not a preparative meeting of 
 that people, within the meaning of their constitution and disci- 
 pline, and within the meaning of the subscription to the school in 
 the present case, or in other words, the instrument whereby the 
 trust fund was created. We have farther seen, that the prepara- 
 tive meeting having authority to appoint the treasurer of the 
 school fund, is the preparative meeting of Chesterfield, connected 
 with, and subordinate to, the yearly meeting of Friends of Phila- 
 delphia. We have seen that the preparative meeting whereby 
 Stacy Decow was appointed treasurer, was not, at the time of 
 that appointment, connected with, and subordinate to, the Arch 
 street meeting, but had previously disunited itself therefrom, and 
 connected itself with the Green street meeting ; and that, there- 
 fore, it was not the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends, 
 at Crosswicks, meant and mentioned in the establishment of the 
 school fund, and had not competent authority to discharge Joseph 
 Hendrickson and appoint a successor. 
 
 There is, then, no successor to the person named as treasurer 
 in the bond and mortgage, and he has, consequently, the legal 
 right to recover the money. 
 
 I do, therefore, respectfully recommend to His Excellency the 
 
00 
 
 Chancellor, to decree upon this bill of interpleader, that the prin- 
 cipal and interest mentioned in the said bond, and intended to be 
 secured by the said mortgage, of right belong, and are payable to 
 the said Joseph Hendrickson, and that he be permitted to proceed 
 on his original bill of complaint, or otherwise, agreeably to the 
 rules and practice of the court of Chancery. 
 
 CHARLES EWING, 
 
 i-i'A-i 
 
 Opinion of Associate Justice Drake. 
 
 The present controversy has grown out of the prosecution of 
 a certain bond and mortgage, bearing date the second day of 
 fourth month (April), A. D. 1821, executed by Thomas L. Shot- 
 well to Joseph Hendrickson, Treasurer of the School Fund of 
 Crosswicks' Meeting, to secure the payment of two thousand dol- 
 lars, with interest, at six per cent., to the said Joseph Hendrick- 
 son, Treasurer as aforesaid, or his successor, or to his certain at- 
 torney, executor, administrator, or assigns. Upon this bond, the 
 interest had been duly paid until the second day of April, A. D. 
 1827. The interest from that date, together with the principal, 
 composes the sum now in dispute. , 
 
 It is admitted, that the money, for which these securities were 
 given, is part of a fund, the principal part of which was raised 
 about the year 1792, by the voluntary subscriptions of a conside- 
 rable number of the members of the preparative meeting of the 
 people called Quakers, at Crosswicks, in the township of Chester- 
 field, county of Burlington, and state of New Jersey ; for the pur- 
 pose of creating an interest, or annuity, "to be applied to the edu- 
 cation of such children, as now do, or hereafter shall, belong to 
 the same preparative meeting, wdiose parents are not, or shall not 
 be, of ability to pay for their education." And this fund was to 
 
Gl 
 
 be •• under the direction of tlie trustees of the said school," (the 
 school then established at Crosswicks) '• now, or hereafter, to be 
 chosen by the said preparative meeting." 
 
 It is further admitted, that previous to the year 1827, there 
 was but one preparative meeting, of the people called Quakers, 
 at Crosswicks ; although it was sometimes designated as the 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting, at Crosswicks; and at other 
 times, as the preparative meeting of Friends, at Crosswicks. It 
 was an association, or meeting, of the religious society of Friends; 
 and it had the power to appoint the trustees of the school, the 
 treasurer, and other officers of the association. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson, one of the above named parties, was 
 appointed treasurer of this meeting in 1816, and was continued in 
 that office, as all parties agree, until the summer or autumn of 
 1827, when disputes arose in that meeting, and others with which 
 it stood connected, which resulted in the separation of one part 
 of its members from the other part. One party, or division 
 of that body, have continued the said Joseph Hendrickson 
 in the office of treasurer. The other party, in the month of Jan- 
 uary, 1828, appointed Stacy Decow, another of the above named 
 parties, to the same office, and have continued him in that office 
 until the present time. 
 
 Both Hendrickson and Decow, claim to be the treasurer of the 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting, and, in that capacity, to have 
 the custody of this fund. As both have been appointed, although 
 by different bodies, or different parts of the same body, the title 
 to the office must depend upon the appointing power ; that is, the 
 pi'eparative meeting. And inasmuch as two several bodies pre- 
 tend, each, to be the true preparative meeting, and one only is 
 contemplated as the trustee of this fund, it becomes necessary to 
 inquire which is the true preparative meeting. 
 
 It appears by the testimony, that on the twenty- seventh day of 
 December, A. D. 1827, the Chesterfield preparative meeting of 
 Friends was divided, by the minority of the members, assembled 
 at that time, withdra\^T[ng to another house, leaving the majority, 
 with the clerk, at the usual place of meeting. They continued 
 their business there ; and the minority organized anew, or held 
 another meeting, having appointed a new^ clerk to act for them. 
 
62 
 
 If this preparative meeting were an independent body, acting 
 without the influence of any conventional principle operating up- 
 on this point, the act of the minority on this occasion would not 
 affect the powers of the majority who remained in session ; how- 
 ever it might expose itself, and the members composing it, to disa- 
 bilities. But the right to make appointments, and to exercise the 
 other functions of the preparative meeting, would still continue 
 with the larger party.* 
 
 But the preparative meeting is not an independent body, but a 
 component part of the religious society of Friends. Hence, it is 
 necessary to examine its connection with the society of Fi'iends, 
 and the history of that society, so far as it influences the separa- 
 tion in this preparative meeting, in order to determine the ques- 
 tion, which of these bodies is the true preparative meeting ; and 
 is, of course, entitled to appoint a treasurer, and to manage this 
 fund. 
 
 The society of Friends, as it existed at the time when this school 
 fund was created, and thence down to the year 1827, was an as- 
 sociation of christians, bound together by a distinct government, 
 peculiar testimonies, and, as one party contends, by certain re- 
 ligious doctrines, deemed by them fundamental. For their gov- 
 ernment, the Friends, residing in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 
 as early as the year 1689, estabhshed a general meeting, called a 
 yearly meeting, in which the numerous inferior meetings have 
 been represented, and which all the members of the society have 
 had a right to attend. ( 1 vol. Evid. 333.) That yearly meeting, 
 soon after its institution, adopted and published certain articles of 
 government, called, " Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting 
 of Friends, held in Philadelphia." This is acknowledged by all 
 the parties to this suit, as their system of government ; and by 
 that, so far as its provisions extend, all profess to be willing to be 
 tried. In this publication, wo find that their meetings for disci- 
 pline are declared to be ; {Intro. Discip. 3.) " First, preparative 
 meetings ; which commonly consist of members of a meeting for 
 worship ; second, monthly meetings, each of which commonly 
 consists of several preparative meetings ; third, quarterly meetings, 
 
 * 7 Serg. and Rawle, 460; 5 Binney, 485; 5 Johnson, 39; 1 Bos. and Pul. 229; 
 2 Dessausscure, .'ifiS; 16 Mass. 41!!. 
 
63 
 
 each of which consists of several of the monthly meetings ; and, 
 fourth, the yearly meeting, which comprises the whole." 
 
 And the connection and subordination of these meetings, are 
 declared to be thus ; {Biscip. 31.) " Preparative meetings are ac- 
 countable to the monthly ; monthly, to the quarterly ; and the 
 quarterly, to the yearly meeting. So that, if the yearly meeting 
 be at any time dissatisfied with the proceedings of any infeiior 
 meeting ; or the quarterly meeting with the proceedings of either 
 of its monthly meetings ; or a monthly meeting with the proceed- 
 ings of either of its preparative meetings ; such meeting or meet- 
 ings, ought, with readiness and meekness, to render an account 
 thereof, when required." 
 
 This preparative meeting at Chesterfield, was established at an 
 early period. It was, ever since its origin, connected with, and, 
 in the sense of the book of discipline, subordinate to the Chester- 
 field monthly meeting ; which was subordinate to tlie Burling- 
 ton quarterly meeting ; and that, to the Philadelphia yearly meet- 
 ing- 
 Such were the connections sustained by this preparative meet- 
 ing, at the commencement of the year 1827. I said, that we 
 must review the history of the whole body, so far as it operated 
 upon the division of the Chesterfield meeting, at the close of that 
 year. During the same year, a division took place in the Phila- 
 delphia j^eai'ly meeting, which was followed up by divisions in 
 all the subordinate meetings, or at least all, with which this prepara- 
 tive meeting was connected in its subordination. The division so 
 resulted, that as early as tenth month, 1827, there were two year- 
 ly meetings in existence, ( 1 vol. Evid. G22 ; vol. Evid. 457.) each 
 claiming to be the true yearly meeting of the society of Friends; 
 one assembling in Arch street, and the other in Green street, 
 Philadelphia. Which of these two meetings was the head to 
 which the inferior meetings should account, &c. according to the 
 constitution of the society ? They could not both be. For in 
 this case, it would not only be hard, but impossible, for the infe- 
 rior meetings to serve two masters. But which should it be ? 
 Upon this point, the members of the inferior meetings could not 
 agree. And hence, a corresponding division took place in the 
 Burlington quarterly meeting, in eleventh month, 1827, ( 2 vol 
 Evid. 207, 8.) which resulted in two distinct quarterly meetings ; 
 
64 
 
 one assembling at the city of Burlington, and the other at Ches- 
 terfield. And a division also took place, in ninth or tenth month, 
 1827, in Chesterfield monthly meeting. A dispute arising, re- 
 specting the propriety of" granting a certificate of membership to 
 an individual, to be presented to Green street monthly meeting ; 
 which dispute M^as founded on the question, whether that meeting 
 still retained its connection with the Arch street yearly meeting, 
 or had joined that of Green street ; the clerk, David Clark, not 
 acting in reference to this matter, with the promptness desired 
 by the party in favor of making the certificate, they considered 
 him as refusing, or at least, as neglecting to serve the meeting, 
 and at once called another person, Jediah Middleton, to the chair, 
 to serve them as clerk. ( 1 vol Emcl 337 ; 2 vol Ibid. 284.) Af- 
 ter which, the two parties conducted their business separately •, 
 the minority and old clerk, adhering to the Burlington quarterly 
 meeting, in connection with the Arch street yearly meeting, and 
 the other party sending representatives to the Green street year- 
 ly meeting. ( 2 vol Evid. 296, 7, 323.) 
 
 It was after this complete division of the Chestei'field monthly 
 meeting, that the transaction took place in the preparative meet- 
 ing before noticed. Tiiese meetings were composed, in some 
 measure, of the same persons. The clerk, James Brown, and 
 many other persons there, had previously manifested their parti- 
 ality to one or the other, of the great parties which had grown 
 up in the society, and to their respective yearly meetings. In 
 making out answers to the queries, which were, by the monthly 
 meeting, in eleventh month, 1827, addressed to the preparative 
 meeting, according to the book of discipline, page eighty-nine, 
 the clerk of the preparative meeting had made return to Jediah 
 Middleton, the clerk of that monthly meeting, connected with the 
 Chesterfield quarter, and Green street yearly meeting; ( 2 vol 
 Evid. 323.) thus acknowledging the meeting of which he was 
 clerk, to be a branch of that yearly meeting. He had also de- 
 nied the authority of the monthly meeting, of which David Clark 
 was clerk. ( 1 vol Evid. 325 ; 2 vol Ibid. 323.) Jn eleventh 
 month, 1827, the Burlington (|uarter, connected witli the Arch 
 street yearly meeting, appointed a committee to visit its subordinate 
 meetings. (1 vol Evid. 325, 6.) On the twenty-seventh of twelith 
 month (December) that committee presented theinselves before 
 
65 
 
 the Chesterfield preparative meeting then assembled. A commit* 
 tee also presented itself Ironi the Burlington quarter, connected 
 with the Green street yearly meeting. An inquiry was made of 
 the clerk, or meeting, in what connection this preparative meet- 
 ing was then acting. No direct reply was given. It being man- 
 ifest that the harmony of the meeting was broken, and all par- 
 ties knowing the predilections of themselves and others to be so 
 fixed, that it was useless to spend time in debate, the minority, 
 wishing to sanction no proceeding which would change their 
 connection or allegiance, withdrew ; protesting against any for- 
 feiture of their rights thereby. Since which, the two parties 
 once composing that preparative meeting, have each held its own 
 meeting, in subordination to their respective monthly, quarterly, 
 and yearly meetings, as before stated. 
 
 Much investigation was made into the precise conduct of the 
 i-espective pai'ties, in effecting these divisions ; but I do not re- 
 gard the particular acts, or formalities, observed by these subor- 
 dinate meetings, as of much consequence, seeing there is a com- 
 plete separation of the society into two distinct bodies, acting 
 under separate governments ; although each still professes to ad- 
 here to the ancient discipline and worship. Our inquiry now 
 must be, whether each of these bodies is to be considered as the 
 society of Friends, contemplated in this trust, or only one of 
 them : And if but one, which is that one ? And which yearly 
 meeting represents it ? For if there be but one society, and one 
 yearly meeting which answers to the trust, the inferior meetings 
 must follow the fate of those to which they stand connected. Ev- 
 ery Friend is a member of this yearly meeting. It is the yearly 
 meeting which overlooks, controls, and exerts a care over all 
 that are in connection with it ; which hears their appeals in the 
 last resort ; which preserves their uniformity in discipline, and in 
 the maintenance of their peculiar testimonies; in a word, which 
 identifies them as a body of Friends. And in order to determine 
 whi(;h is the true preparative meeting, at Crosswicks, we must 
 ascertain which is the true yearly meeting of Friends, held in 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 The yearly meeting was established in Burlington, in the year 
 1681. (1 vol. Proud' s Hist. Penn. 160, 61.) It was held ahernately, 
 at Burhngton and Philadelphia, from 1684, to 1761 ; after which it 
 
 I 
 
66 
 
 was removed entirely to Philadelphia, and was held there annual- 
 ly and in great harmony, until within the last ten or twelve years; 
 within which time, jealousies have arisen among the members, 
 which increased, until the meeting held in fourth month, 1827, 
 which was the last held by the united body. The dissensions, 
 previous to, and at that meeting, came to such a height, that one 
 party withdrew, and took measures for the formation of a new 
 yearly meeting, as the other party insist, or as they say, for the 
 reorganization and purification of the old one. It will be neces- 
 sary to look a little into particulars, to discover the character of 
 this transaction, and what should be its effect upon the present 
 case. And I should have observed, that I use the word party, or 
 parties, " Orthodox" and " Hicksite," in this opinion, merely to de- 
 signate individuals, or bodies of men, acting together, and not 
 with any reference to the feeUngs, motives, or principles, upon 
 which they may have acted. 
 
 Questions of importance were expected to arise at the yearly 
 m.eeting of 1827, upon which disagreement was anticipated. The 
 respective parties made such preparations for the approaching bu- 
 siness of that meeting as they deemed proper. The clerk, being 
 the officer who collects the sense of the meeting on the questions 
 submitted to it, and declares its decisions, was justly considered as 
 holding an important station, which neither was willing to have 
 filled, by a person unfriendly to its views. The nomination of a 
 clerk to the yearly meeting, M^as the appropriate business of the 
 representatives from the quarterly meetings. (1 vol. Evid. 68,217.) 
 In the meeting held by them for that purpose, Samuel Bettle and 
 John Comly were nominated. Each party advocated the preten- 
 Mons of its favorite candidate, but neither candidate was agreed 
 upon. Upon its being reported to the yearly meeting, that the 
 representatives were unable to agree, some person suggested, that 
 it was the practice of the society for the old clerk to act until a 
 new one was appointed. (1 vol Evid. 68, 218.) In this, there 
 was, at least, a partial acquiescence of the opponents of the old 
 clerk. (1 vol. Evid. m, 218. 2 vol. lb. 21, 267, 392.) IJe took 
 his scat at the table, and John Comly, the rival candidate, took 
 his, as assistant clerk. The next morning, the latter expressed a 
 repugnance to serve the meeting, made up, as he stated, "of two 
 irreconcileable parties ;" but for some reason or other, he again 
 
67 
 
 acquiesced, and acted as assistant clerk the residue ot the meet- 
 ing. One other subject of dispute occurred towards the close of 
 that meeting. It was respecting the appointment of a committee 
 to visit the inferior meetings. To this, there was considerable 
 opposition, but the clerk finally recorded a minute in favor of the 
 appointment. After which, the meeting adjourned, " to meet at 
 the same time and place the next year." (1 vol. Evid. 70.) 
 
 On the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first of April, 1827, 
 and during the sitting of the yearly meeting, another meeting was 
 held in Green street, at which an address to the society of Friends 
 was agreed upon ; which was subscribed, by direction and in be- 
 half of said meeting, by John Comly, and others; in which ad- 
 dress, after alluding to the divided state of the society in doctrine 
 and in feeUng, and to measures of the yearly meeting deemed op- 
 pressive, they state their conviction, " that the period has fully 
 come, in which we ought to look towards making a quiet retreat 
 from this scene of contusion." (2 vol. Evid. 454.) They adjourn- 
 ed, to meet again in the same place on the fourth day of sixth 
 month (June), 1827. At which second meeting, they agreed on 
 and published a second address, in which, after adverting to dis- 
 orders and divisions in the society, and ti'ansactions of the late 
 yearly meeting, against the sense, as they considered, of the lar- 
 ger part of that body, they add, " Friends have viewed this state 
 of things among us, with deep concern and exercise, patiently 
 waiting in the hope, that time and reflection would convince our 
 brethren of the impropriety of such a course, and that being fa- 
 vored to see the evil consequences of such conduct, they might 
 i-etrace their steps. But hitherto, we have waited in vain. Time 
 and opportunity for reflection have been amply afforded, but have 
 not produced the desirable results. On the contrary, the spirit of 
 discord and confusion have gained strength, and to us there ap- 
 pears now, to be no way to i-egain the harmony and tranquillity 
 of the body, but by withdrawing ourselves, not from the society 
 of Friends, nor from the exercise of its salutary discipline, but 
 from religious communion with those who have introduced, and 
 seem disposed to continue, such disorders among us." The ad- 
 dress concludes, by proposing for consideration, " the propriety 
 and expediency of holding a yearly meeting of Friends in unity 
 loith us, residing within the limits of those quarterly meetijigs, 
 
68 
 
 heretofore represented in the yearly meeting held in Pliiladelphia. 
 on the third second day in tenth month, (then) next." (2 vol. Evid. 
 455, 456.) At which time, a yearly meeting was accordingly 
 held, in Green street, Philadelphia ; which has been continued, at 
 the same place, from year to year ; and which is the same year- 
 ly meeting, to which the Chesterfield monthly meeting, of which 
 Jediah Middleton is clerk, sent representatives, and to which, that 
 meeting, as well as the preparative meeting of which James 
 Brown is clerk, gave in their adhesion. (1 vol. Evid. 50.) 
 
 Which of these yearly meetings represents the society of Friends 
 contemplated in this trust? A first view strongly inclines u^ to 
 answer, it is that held in Arch street. That was regularly ad- 
 journed to meet at the same time and place next year, and was 
 then held accordingly, and has been regularly continued until the 
 present time. The other meeting was held, first, in tenth month, 
 1827, by those who retreated, or withdrew from the disorders of 
 the other, at a new time, in form at least, and a new place. One 
 is the old meeting, and the other the new. But some circumstan- 
 ces attending this separation, involve the case in some degree of 
 doubt. Those who formed the Green street meeting, claim to be 
 the majority. They complain of various abuses existing in the 
 society, for the preceding five years ; that " measures of a party 
 character were introduced" into some of their meetings for disci- 
 pline, and that " the established order of society was infringed, 
 by carrying those measures into execution against the judgment, 
 and contrary to the voice, of a larger part of the Friends present." 
 " At length, the infection taking a wider range, appeared in our 
 yearly meeting, where its deplorable effects were equally conspi- 
 cuous. Means were recently taken therein to overrule the grea- 
 ter part of the representatives, and a clerk was imposed wpon the 
 meeting imthout their concurrence or consent." And a committee 
 was there appointed to visit the quarterly and monthly meetings 
 without the unity of the meeting, and contrary to the solid sense 
 and judgment of much the larger number of members in atten- 
 dance." (2 vol. Evid. 456.) 
 
 In connection with these complaints, we must take into conside- 
 ration some peculiarities in the mode of conducting the religious 
 meetings of Friends. It is insisted by the Arch street party, that 
 the members of a meeting for discipline, are not entitled to equal 
 
69 
 
 weight in their decisions ; so that the clerk, whose business it is 
 to ascertain and record the sense of the meeting, should not count 
 the number of persons present, and decide with the majority of 
 voices, but should pay more attention to elderly, pious, and expe- 
 rienced men, than to those of an opposite character. (1 vol. Evid. 
 64, 184, 333.) On the other side, it is insisted, that all have an 
 equal voice, and that it is the duty of the clerk to record the opin- 
 ion of the majority, in numbers ; or at least, that he should not re- 
 -/ cord a minute agafnst the sense of the majority. (1 vol. Evid. 43, 
 2 vol. lb. 244.) Another pecuharity, is this, insisted on by the 
 Arch street party, and apparently conformable to usage, that un- 
 til the appointment of a new clerk, the old one is to act. It may- 
 be easily perceived, that the effect of these principles combined, 
 may be to place a meeting under the control of a minority, how- 
 ever small, or even bf the clerk himself; and that the majority 
 have no ordinary means of redress, for they never can appoint a 
 new clerk, and never can carry any measure, however just and 
 important, if unreasonably opposed. And if it be true, that through 
 the operation of these principles, the majority, in the yearly meet- 
 ing of fourth month, 1827, was deprived of its rights, it would in- 
 cline me very much, to endeavor to distinguish this case from that 
 of an ordinary secession from the government of a religious so- 
 ciety. 
 
 The complaint, that the majority was overruled, relates, I pre- 
 sume, more particularly to the meeting of representatives from 
 the various quarters, whose business it was to nominate a clerk. 
 But the proceedings there, may have had, and were evidently, by 
 all parties, expected to have, an important bearing on the proceed- 
 ings of the yearly meeting. The facts are somewhat variously 
 stated by the different witnesses. But, in the view I shall take of 
 this question, I do not think it necessary to make a minute inqui- 
 ry into the facts, or to decide those which are controverted. 
 
 It appears distinctly, that no count, or other certain means of 
 ascertaining the majority was resorted to. The Green street 
 party, however, claim the benefit of a presumption that they 
 were the majority, arising from the fact that they insisted that 
 the majority ought to govern, and endeavored to take measures 
 to ascertain it. ( 1 vol Evid. 372, 3. ) This w^as resisted by 
 the other party, either from conscious inferiority of numbers, or 
 
70 
 
 from a conscientious desire, not to violate the ancient usage of 
 the society, as to tiie mode of ascertaining the soHd sense of a 
 meeting. 
 
 As to the true mode of ascertaining the sense of a meeting, all 
 agree that it is the duty of the clerk to collect it, and it has been 
 the uniform practice in the society, for him to do so, without le- 
 sorting to a formal count, or division of parties. (1 vol. Evid. 64, 
 330, 458. 2 vol lb. 169, 250.) This society commenced in per- 
 secution, and has, heretofore, been distinguished for its harmony. 
 Believing in the operation of the spirit of truth on their minds, not 
 only in worship, but in business, if yiroperly sought for, it has been 
 their practice solemnly to seek the guidance of the light within, 
 and seldom, or never, to attempt influence, through ingenious ar- 
 gument, or noisy declamation. Hence, few have attempted to 
 speak on questions. And these would natJrally be the experi- 
 enced and aged. A few voices from such quarters, unopposed, 
 has always been sufficient to guide the clerk. If a contrariety of 
 views appeared, it has not been the practice to continue the de- 
 bate a long time, but if one party did not soon yield, to postpone 
 the subject for further consideration. Hence, it has doubtless 
 been usual for the clerks to look to leading men, principally, in ga- 
 thering the sense of the meeting. And this practice being ancient 
 and uniform, and withal countenanced by some of their most re- 
 spected writers, and connected with their religious faith, strength- 
 eiks one party in its opinion, not only that it is right for the 
 clerk to do so, but that he may carry it so far, as to record a mi- 
 nute in opposition to the sense of the majority in numbers. (1 vol. 
 Evid. 35, 04, 184, 333.) The other party insist, on the contrary, 
 that the government in a yearly meeting, is strictly democratic; 
 that all have equal rights, and an equal voice, (1 vol. Evid. 43. 2 
 vol. lb. 244. ) and that however much the young and inexperi- 
 enced may, in times past, have yielded to the wise and aged, 
 through courtesy, or from other causes, yet, upon a question of 
 strict right, they are all equal. This usage, as it has existed, has 
 no doubt, been salutary in its influence, and it is highly expedient 
 to preserve it. Indeed, it appears to be of almost vital impor-' 
 tance to a religious society like this ; into which, members are ad- 
 mitted without any public declaration of their faith, and even as a 
 birth right. And yet it is difficult to apply it, and act upon it, un- 
 
71 
 
 der such circumstances as resulted in the present division. Here 
 were two great parties, dividing, not only the numbers, but the 
 talents, experience, and piety of this society, separated on impor- 
 tant questions, and each tenacious of its opinions. How shall 
 thsir controversies be decided ? It is a general principle relating to 
 all associations of men, that all the members of a meeting, who 
 have a right to a voice at all, have a right to an equal voice, unless 
 there be something in the terms of the association to vary those 
 rights. It is conceded that all the members of this society, have 
 the right to attend the yearly meeting ; and that the clerk may 
 notice the opinions of all. (1 vol Evid. 85, 333.) How, then, is 
 he to distinguish between them ? The usage to accord superior 
 weight to superior piety and experience, has, indeed, been uni- 
 form, yet it seems to want that degree of certainty in its applica- 
 tion, which an imperative rule of government requires. Who is to 
 judge which members have the most wisdom, or the greatest 
 share of the spirit of truth ? Each individual may concede it to 
 another, so as to yield his own opinion to him, if he will. But 
 who shall judge of it for a whole assembly ? Who shall allot 
 among a great many individuals, their comparative weight? If 
 any body, it must be the clerk. The result is, that the govern- 
 ment if not a democracy, very much resembles a monarchy. Nei- 
 ther party would be willing to call it th(3 latter, unless by suppo- 
 sing the Great Head of the Church to preside, and rule therein. 
 And this is, no doubt, the theoretic principle on this point. But 
 who is to declare his decisions 1 We come back again to the 
 clerk. Will he always declare them truly 1 To err, is human. 
 He may be directed by light from above, or he may follow his 
 own will. And this contest, shows that neither party had any 
 confidence in the infallibility of the clerk, under the unusual and 
 trying circumstances which existed. The persons nominated by 
 the two parties, were respectable men, of great worth and expe- 
 rience. They had both, for a long time, served the society very 
 satisfactorily, in the most responsible stations, — those of clerk, and 
 assistant clerk. But both had, or were suspected to have, parti- 
 alities, or wishes of their own, to be gratified by the decisions of 
 the yearly meeting. And the consequence was, that they were 
 both objects of the greatest distrust. The " Orthodox" did not be- 
 lieve that John Comly could serve the meeting faithfully, and the 
 
72 
 
 "Hicksites" were equally dubious of the infallibility of Samuel 
 Bettle. 
 
 This feature in the government of this society, whatever may 
 be its precise limits, is intimately connected with their religious 
 principles and doctrines. ( 1 vol. Evid. 64.) They believe tb.at 
 the Head of the Church, when properly invoked, will shed his influ- 
 ence upon their meetings, and be " a spirit of judgment, to those who 
 sit in judgment." Hence, the clerk is suffered to gather the feel- 
 ing and sense of a meeting, from those who have long manifested 
 a spiritual walk and conversation, aided by the agency of the 
 spirit of truth, in his own mind. But, it is at least possible, that a 
 meeting should be unfitted, in a measure, for this intercourse 
 with the spirit ; and that the clerk may be influenced by earthly 
 passions, and have a will of his own to subserve, as well as that 
 of the Great Head of the Church. Should such a case arise, it 
 must be perceived that the beauty of this theory is marred, and 
 the government becomes, not what it was intended to be. May it 
 not be said, that in such case, the condition on which the power 
 of the clerk and the minority is founded, is broken 1 But if it be, 
 who is to declare whether such a case has, or has not, arisen ? 
 Or, what is to be the effect of an abuse of this power ? Or, how 
 is it to be relieved against ? I find myself met by these questions, 
 and others, connected with this important and delicate subject. 
 And supposing that the decision of this cause does not require an 
 investigation of them, I shall not attempt it. Hence, I wish not 
 to be understood as intimating any opinion, as to the complaints 
 of the " Hicksite " party ; whether there were really any good 
 grounds for them, or not ; or, whether, if there were, it would 
 justify the course jhey took, or save them from the legal conse- 
 quences of a secession. I would only observe, further, on this 
 branch of the subject, that were this a i7iere naked trust, to be 
 performed immediately, by the yearly meeting, I think I should 
 have no hesitation to award it to the Arch street meeting : that 
 being, in point of form, at least, the same meeting which was in 
 existence at the time the trust was created. But the Chesterfield 
 preparative meeting, with respect to this fund, may fairly be con- 
 sidered, not merely as a trustee, but as having a beneficiary in- 
 terest, inasmuch as the fund is to be expended in the education of the 
 children of such of its members as are poor. It is a subordinate 
 
meeting, the pretensions of which are to be settled, by its acknow- 
 ledging one or the other of these yearly meetings as its head. There 
 was some difficulty in selecting which it should acknowledge; and if 
 the majority have mistaken the truth, and connected themselves 
 with the wrong head, (supposing this to be a mere dispute as to 
 government, or discipline) I should feel veVy reluctant to con- 
 clude that they could have no further right or interest in the fund. 
 But as I before intimated, I mean not to form, or express an opin- 
 ion on this subject ; for, in surveying the pleadings and testimony 
 in this cause, the conviction urges itself strongly upon my mind, 
 that there is another great distinction between these parties, 
 which may be resorted to, to ascertain which is the true society 
 of Friends, so far as the purposes of this case require the deci- 
 sion of that question. I mean the difference in doctrine. 
 
 Hendrickson, in his answer to the bill of interpleader, alledges 
 that " the society of Friends, as a christian sect, hold doctrines in 
 reference to Christianity, which, like those of other sects, are in 
 some measure, common to all christians, and in other respects, 
 peculiar to themselves." And that " the following religious doc- 
 trines have always been held and maintained by them," (1 vol, 
 Evid. 30.) 
 
 " In the first place, although the society of Friends have seldom 
 made use of the word trinity, yet they believe in the existence 
 of the Father, the Son, or Word, and the Holy Spirit. That the 
 Son was God, and became flesh, — that there is one God and Fa- 
 ther, of whom are all things — that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, 
 by whom all things were made, who was glorified with the Fa- 
 ther before the world began, who is God over all, blessed forever 
 — that there is one Holy Spirit, the promise of the Father and the 
 Son, the leader, and sanctifier, and comforter of his people, and 
 that these three are one, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. 
 That the principal difference between the people called Quakers, 
 and other protestant trinitarian sects, in regard to the doctrine of 
 the trinity, is, the latter attach the idea of individual personage 
 to the three, as what they consider a fair logical inference from 
 the doctrines expressly laid down in the Holy Scriptures. The 
 people called Quakers, on the other hand, consider it a mystery 
 beyond finite, human conception ; take up the doctrine as express- 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 ly laid down in the Scripture, and have not considered themselveg 
 warranted in making deductions, however specious. 
 
 " In the second place, the people called Quakers, have always 
 believed in the doctrine of the atonement, that the divine and hu- 
 man nature of Jesus Christ were united ; that thus united, he suf- 
 fered, and that through his sufferings, death, and resurrection, he 
 atoned for the sins of men. That the Son of God, in the fulness 
 of time took fiesh, became perfect man, according to the flesh, 
 descended and came of the seed of Abraham and David; that be- 
 ing with God from all eternity, being himself God, and also in 
 time partaking of the nature of man, through him is the goodness 
 and love of God conveyed to mankind, and that by him again 
 man receiveth and partaketh of these mercies; that Christ took 
 upon him the seed of Abraham, and his holy body and blood was 
 an offering and a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. 
 
 " In the third place, the people called Quakers, believe that the 
 Scriptures are given by inspiration, and when rightly interpreted 
 arc unerring guides ; and to use the language adopted by them, 
 they are able to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is 
 in Jesus Christ. They believe that the spirit still operates upon 
 the souls of men, and when it does really and truly so operate, it 
 furnishes the primary rule of faith. That the Scriptures proceed- 
 ing from it, must be secondary in reference to this primary source, 
 whence they proceed ; but inasmuch as the dictates of the spirit 
 are always true and uniform, all ideas and views which any per- 
 son may entertain repugnant to the doctrines of the Scriptures, 
 which are unerring, must proceed from false lights. That such 
 are the doctrines entertained and adopted by the ancient society 
 of Friends, and that the same doctrines are still entertained by 
 the * Orthodox' party aforesaid, to which party this defendant be- 
 longs. That these doctrines are, with the said religious society, 
 fundamental ; and any individual entertaining sentiments and opin- 
 ions contrary to all, or any of the above mentioned doctrines, is 
 held not to be in the same faith with the society of Friends, or 
 the people called Quakers, and is treated accordingly." And he 
 further alleges, that previous to the separation, the society became 
 divided into two parties, one of which is called the " Orthodox," 
 and the other, the " Hicksite," and that " they differ essentially from 
 each other in religious doctrines ;" and especially with respect to 
 
75 
 
 the doctrines above stated. That the ' Orthodox' party hold to 
 them, but that the ' Hicksite' party do not adopt and believe in 
 them, but entertain opinions entirely and absolutely repugnant 
 and contrary thereto." 
 
 Decow, in his answer alledges, that " the society of Friends ac- 
 knowledge no head but Christ, and no principle of authority or go- 
 vernment in the church but the love and power of God operating 
 upon the heart, and thence influencing the judgment, and producing 
 a unity of feeling, brotherly sympathy and condescension to each 
 other. The great fundamental principle of the society; the divine 
 light and power operating on the soul ; being acknowledged by all 
 its members as the effective bond of union ; the right of each indi- 
 vidual to judge of the true meaning of Scripture testimony, rela- 
 ting to the doctrines of Christianity, according to the best evidence 
 in his own mind, uncontrolled by the arbitrary dictation of his equal- 
 ly fallible fellow man, hath been as well tacitly as explicitly, ac- 
 knowledged by the society." (1 vol. Evid. 43, 45, 51.) And that the 
 rules and regulations of the system of discipline, adopted by the 
 society, " relate partly to the preservation of a decent and comly 
 order in its internal polity ; partly to the observance of the princi- 
 ples of morality and justice, by all belonging to it; and partly to 
 the maintenance of its peculiar testimonies." 
 
 He further alledges, that " the Chesterfield preparative meeting 
 of Friends, at Crosswicks, to which he belongs, is the same Ches- 
 terfield preparative meeting of Friends, at Crosswicks, under 
 whose care the said school fund was placed by the contributors 
 thereto, and are identified with them in due and regular succes- 
 sion, and are a part of the ancient society of Friends. That they 
 believe in the christian religion, as contained in the New Testa- 
 ment, and as professed by ancient Friends, and adhere to the re- 
 ligious institutions and government of the society of Friends ; and 
 bear the same cardinal testimonies to the whole world, as are held 
 most important and characteristic in the said society; among 
 which, are a testimony against war, a hireling ministry, against 
 taking oaths, against going to law with brethren, and a concern 
 to observe the golden rule, do unio all men as we would they 
 should do unto us." 
 
 It is perceived, that each party claims for the meeting which 
 appointed him, an adherence to the ancient faith of Friends ; al- 
 
76 
 
 though they differ in this, that one points out certain doctrines, 
 which he considers as parts of that faith, and that they are essen- 
 tial parts ; while the other, without directly denying these to be 
 the doctrines of Friends, or that his party in the society hold doc- 
 trines repugnant thereto, contents himself with alledging that "they 
 believe in the christian religion, as contained in the New Testa- 
 ment, and as professed by ancient Friends ;" and their adherence 
 to their peculiar testimonies, some of which are specified ; and 
 distinctly advances "the right of each individual to judge of the 
 true meaning of Scripture testimony, relating to the doctrines of 
 Christianity, according to the best evidence in his own mind." 
 And by enumerating other objects of discipline, he would give us 
 to understand that this is a right, the exercise of which is beyond 
 the control of the discipline of the society. 
 
 There is nothing characteristic in " a belief in the christian re- 
 ligion, as contained in the New Testament." All sects of chris- 
 tians, however widely separated, unite in professing this. But if 
 I can understand the liberty claimed in this answer for the mem- 
 bers of the society, it is, that they may interpret the Scriptures, 
 in reference to the doctrines of the trinity, and of the divinity 
 and atonement of Jesus Christ, as the light within them shall direct. 
 
 But although Decow, in his answer, has, in some measure, de- 
 clared the faith of the party to which he belongs, yet he denies 
 that this, or any other court has a right to institute an inquest in- 
 to the consciences or faith of members of religious associations. 
 But can this denial be well founded. May this fund be divided, 
 and subdivided, as often as this body shall separate. And parts 
 of it, from time to time, be diverted from its declared purpose, and 
 appropriated to the education of the children of persons connec- 
 ted with other religious persuasions, or of no religion at all. And 
 yet that no court can control it ? Surely, this cannot be. This 
 trust can be exercised only by a meeting of the religious society 
 of Friends. The fund can be used only in the education of the 
 children belonging to a meeting of that society. And when, as on 
 this occasion, two distinct bodies, which have separated on points 
 of discipline, or doctrine, or both, come before the court, and each 
 claim the guardianship and use of this fund, as belonging to the 
 society of Friends ; this court may, surely, inquire into the bad- 
 ges of distinction, by which the society of Friends are known ; 
 
77 
 
 and if they are characterized by estabHshed -doctrines, we may 
 inquire what tiiose are, and whether they belong to one, or both 
 of these parties. This power is distinctly laid down, in a recent 
 case before the House of Lords, in which, Lord Chancellor Eldon 
 says, " It is true, the coui't cannot take notice of rehgious opinions, 
 with a view to decide whether they are right or wrong, but it may 
 notice them as facts, pointing out the ownership of property.* 
 
 In searching for the doctrines of this society, it is, in my opin- 
 ion, not necessary to inquire whether there were any differences 
 of opinion among their ancient writers, provided the society had 
 for a long time before this fund was established, promulgated as 
 a body, their religious doctrines, and had settled down in harmo- 
 ny under them. It is a body of Friends, with its settled and known 
 characteristic, at that time, which is contemplated in the trust. 
 
 The society of Friends, or Quakers, as they were called by 
 their opponents, had its origin in England, about the middle of the 
 seventeenth century; a time much distinguished for religious in- 
 quiry, in many parts of Europe. It was composed of persons 
 who could not conscientiously agree with the existing sects, in 
 their doctrines, modes of worship, or practices, and who found 
 themselves drawn together by a unity of faith and feeling. They 
 called themselves christians and protestants, but appear to have 
 required from those seeking to become united with them, no for- 
 mal profession of faith, as a test of principle to qualify them for 
 admission ; looking at their works as evidence of their christian 
 faith, and their practice, and support of their peculiar testimonies, 
 as evidence of their Quakerism. As they increased in numbers, 
 and attracted the attention of the civil authorities, their princi- 
 ples became the subject of inquiry, and of misrepresentation, by 
 reason of which, they were exposed to reproach and persecution, 
 and it became necessary for them to come out and avow their 
 leading doctrines to the world. This was done by their leaders 
 and principal men, pi-ofessing to act in behalf of the society on 
 several occasions. George Fox, who is generally regarded as 
 the founder of the sect, travelling in the island of Barbadoes, be- 
 ing assailed with these misrepresentations, and especially with this, 
 that they denied God, Christ Jesus, and the Scriptures of truth ; 
 
 * 1 Dow's Rep. 1. 2 Jacob and Walk. 248. 3 Merrivale, 412, 419. 7 Serg. 
 and Rawle, 460. 3 Dessaussure, 557. 
 
78 
 
 *' with some other Friends, drew up a paper to go forth in the 
 name of the people called Quakers, for the clearing of truth and 
 Friends from those false reports." It was addressed to the gover- 
 nor of Barbadoes, with his council and assembly. In this paper, 
 the belief of Friends in God, the divinity and atonement of Jesus 
 Christ, and the inspiration of the Scriptures, is most fully and ex- 
 phcitly avowed. (2 vol Fox's Jour. 145, 138, 316, 338, 367. 
 1 vol lb. 4, 56, 57.) Elias Hicks intimates that George Fox, 
 for prudential reasons, disguised his real sentiments. (1 vol Evid. 
 116. 2 vol lb. 417.) But this ill agrees with the history of Fox, 
 and I suspect with the belief of Friends, as to his real charac- 
 ter. Sew^ell has given his character in this respect, as drawn 
 by a contemporary, in these words. " He was, indeed, a heaven- 
 ly minded man, zealous for the name of the Lord, and preserved the 
 honor of God before all things. He was valiant for the truth, bold 
 in asserting it, patient in suffering for it, unwearied in laboring in 
 it, steady in his testimony to it, immoveable as a rock." (2 vol 
 SeioeWs Hist. 464.) 
 
 In 1689, the British parliament passed an act for exempting 
 protestant dissenters from certain penalties, by which the Quakers 
 had suffered for many years. To obtain the benefit of this ex- 
 emption, they subscribed, among other articles, the following : 
 " I, A. B. pi'ofess faith in God, the Father, and in Jesus Christ, 
 his eternal son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, 
 blessed forevermore ; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures 
 of the Old and New Testament, to be by divine inspiration." The 
 historian adds, "w^enow see the religion of the Quakers acknow- 
 ledged and tolerated by an act of parliament." (2 vol Seivell, 447.) 
 
 In 1693, the doctrines of the society being misrepresented by 
 George Keith and others, " they found themselves obliged to put 
 forth their faith anew in print, which they had often before assert- 
 ed, both in words and writing, thereby to manifest that their be- 
 lief was really orthodox, and agreeable with the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. (2 vol Seidell, 471,) And being charged with some socin- 
 ian notions, a short confession of faith, signed by one and thirty 
 persons, of which George Whitehead was one, was, in Decem- 
 ber following, presented to the parliament. ( 2 Sewell, 483, 
 499. 1 vol Evid. 297. 3 Gough's Hist. 386.) In these public de- 
 clarations, we find these enumerated doctrines recognized and 
 
79 
 
 avowed. At that time, and afterwards, the society of Friencis 
 in this country, acknowledged the London yearly meeting as 
 their head, and appeals were taken from their meetings in this 
 country, and decided there. ( 1 vol. Evid. 95. 1 Proud's Hist. 
 Penn. 369.) 
 
 Of their early writers, none seems to have been held in higher 
 estimation than Robert Barclay. In his " Apology"* purporting to 
 be an explanation and vindication of the principles and doctrines 
 of the people called Quakers — these principles are distinctly ex- 
 hibited as parts of their faith. 
 
 He also published a catechism and confession of faith, which 
 purport to contain " a true and faithful account of the principles 
 and doctrines, which are most surely believed by the churches of 
 Christ, in Great Britain and Ireland, who are reproachfully called 
 by the name of Quakers."' In these, the doctrines above mention- 
 ed, are most fully and exphcitly taught and professed, f 
 
 It is in evidence, that Barclay's Apology, and his Catechism, 
 and Confession of Faith, purporting as aforesaid, have been pub- 
 lished and circulated by the Philadelphia yearly meeting, by the 
 use of its own funds, and as their minutes express, " for the ser- 
 vice of truth," as early as the year 1701, and on several occa- 
 sions since. ( 1 vol. Evid. 76, 297.) 
 
 There is much other evidence laid before us, by documents 
 and witnesses, confirming that which I have thus briefly noticed. 
 But I shall pass it over, merely referring however, to the letters 
 from Elias Hicks to Phebe Willis and Thomas Willis, written in 
 1818, in which he distinctly intimates that the society's belief of 
 the Scriptures, and of the divinity of Christ, which he had been 
 taught from his cradle, whatever was his belief at that time, was 
 fully in accordance with the pretensions of the " Orthodox " par- 
 ty. ( 2 vol. Evid. 419, 420, 421.) 
 
 I think it sufficiently established, that these doctrines have been 
 avowedly and generally held by the society. And, indeed, they 
 have treated the Scriptures with a degree of reverence, uncom- 
 mon, even among christians. Feeling it presumptuous to specu- 
 
 * See ninth edition, published at Philadelphia in 1775, pages 86, 139, 141, 
 185, 203, 204, 211, 226, 572, 573, 574. Also in his " Anarchy of the Ranters," 
 pages, 1,2,3, 29,30. 
 
 t See page6 2,5, 6, 7,8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 104, 106,107,108,111,134. 
 
80 
 
 late upon what is obscure, they have, in doctrinal matters, adopt- 
 ed its expHcit language, but rejected the ingenious deductions of 
 men ; they have been unwilling to be wise above what is writ- 
 ten. And in matters of practice, they have endeavored to apply 
 its precepts literally ; and this is the foundation of their peculiar 
 testimonies. 
 
 But are these doctrines essential? There is strong evidence of 
 this, in the very nature of the doctrines themselves. When men 
 form themselves into associations for the worship of God, some 
 correspondence of views, as to the nature and attributes of the 
 being who is the object of worship, is necessary. The differ- 
 ence between the pagan, the mahometan, the christian, and the 
 jew, is radical, and irreconcileable. The two latter worship the 
 same God ,• but one approaches him through a mediator, whom 
 the other regards as an impostor; and hence, there can be no 
 communion or fellowship between them. Christians have be- 
 come separated into various sects, differing more or less in their 
 doctrines. In looking at the history of these sects, I am by no 
 means convinced that there was, in the nature of things, any ne- 
 cessity for all the divisions which have taken place. Many of 
 the controversies in the church, have doubtless arisen from mi- 
 nute and subtle distinctions in doctrine, which have been main- 
 tained, not only with much ingenuity, but with much obstinacy 
 and pride ; and which, by this mixture of human frailty, have 
 been the cause of angry, and often bloody dissentions. And 
 whenever the civil government, or the prevailing party, in a re- 
 ligious society, have formed creeds, and required professions of 
 faith, descending to these minute points, it has, necessai'ily caused 
 the separation of those, or at least the honest part of them, who 
 could not believe up to the precise line of orthodoxy. Hence, no 
 doubt, many separations have taken place in churches, upon 
 points of doctrine, which would never have disturbed the harmo- 
 ny of the association, had not public professions of faith been re- 
 quired, descending into minute and non-essential particulars. In 
 these days many christians find themselves able to unite in wor- 
 ship with those of different denominations, and to forget the line 
 of separation between them. But, although unnecessary divi- 
 sions have taken place, it by no means follows, that there are not 
 some points of faith, which must be agreed in, in order that a re 
 
81 
 
 ligious society may harmonize in their public worship and pri- 
 vate intercourse, so as to experience the benefits of associating 
 together. Of this description, is the behef in the atonement and 
 divine nature of Jesus Christ. He, who considers Him to be di- 
 vine ; who addresses himself to Him, as the Mediator, the Way, 
 the Creator, and Redeemer ; who has power to hear, and to an- 
 swer ; to make and to perform his promises, cannot worship with 
 him, who regards Him as destitute of this nature, and these divine 
 attributes. Nor can the latter unite in a worship which he con- 
 ceives to be idolatrous. 
 
 And with respect to the inspiration of the Scriptures. The be- 
 lief in the divine nature and atonement of Jesus Christ, and in- 
 deed, of tlie christian religion itself, is intimately connected with 
 that of the divine authority of the sacred writings. " Great are 
 the mysteries of Godliness." And of all the truths declared in 
 Holy Writ, none are more mysterious than the nature, history, 
 and offices of Jesus Christ. The mind that contemplates these 
 truths as based on mere human testimony, must range in doubt 
 and perplexity, or take refuge in infidelity. But if they are re- 
 garded as the truth of God, the pride of human reason is humbled 
 before them. It afterwards exerts its powers to understand, and 
 to apply, but not to overthrow them. Faith may repose in con- 
 fidence upon them, and produce its fruits in a holy life. To a peo- 
 ple like the Friends, who pay so much attention to the light with- 
 in, but who at the same time, acknowledge the deceitfulness of 
 the human heart, and the imperfection of human reason ; when 
 they once fix their belief on the testimonies of Scripture, as dicta- 
 ted by the spirit of truth, they necessarily become precious ; as 
 the landmarks, setting bounds to principle and to action; as the 
 charts, by which they may navigate the ocean of life in safety; as 
 the tests, by which they may examine themselves, their principles, 
 and feelings, and learn loJiat spirit they are of. For, in the lan- 
 guage of Barclay, " they are certain, that whatsoever any do, pre- 
 tending to the spirit, which is contrary to the Scriptures, should be 
 accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil." Hence, their 
 book of discipline earnestly exorts all parents and heads of fami- 
 lies, to cause the diligent reading of the Scriptures by their children; 
 (Disc. 100.) to instruct them in the doctrines and precepts there 
 taught, as well as in the belief of the inward manifestation and ope- 
 
 L 
 
82 
 
 ration of the Holy Spirit upon their own minds ; and to prevent 
 their children reading books or papers, tending to create the least 
 doubt of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, or of those sa- 
 ving truths declared in them. {Disc. 12.) And hence, by the same 
 discipline, ministers are liable to be dealt with, who shall misap- 
 ply, or draw unsound inferences or conclusions from the text. (lb. 
 62.) And a periodical inquiry is directed to be made whether 
 their ministers are sound in word and doctrine. (lb. 95.) 
 
 I have before said, that their great regard for the Scriptures, 
 and desire to comply with them literally, is the foundation of their 
 peculiar testimonies. These are acknowledged by Decow and 
 his party, to be essential, and a departure from them, a ground of 
 disownment. (1 vol. Evict 43, 385.) Does not a strong argument 
 result from this, that they regard the Scriptures as divine truth, 
 and that this belief is essential ? When their writers would de- 
 fend these testimonies, they do not refer us to the light within. 
 They do not say that this has taught them that oaths are unlaw- 
 ful, &c. But they point to passages of Scripture, as authority, 
 and zindoubted authority, on these subjects. But why are they 
 authority 1 Because they are the truth of man ? No. Friends 
 spurn at the dictation of their equally fallible fellow man. But 
 because they are the truth of God. Or, in the language of Fox, 
 "We call the Holy Scriptures, as Christ, the apostles, and holy 
 men of God called them, the words of God." ( 2 vol. Fox's Jour^ 
 147. 1 vol. Evid. 78.) Can it be that the rejection of, or noncon- 
 formity to, particular passages, is ground of disownment, and yet 
 that their members are at liberty to reject the whole? What 
 would this be but to permit their fellow man to select and garble 
 as they please, and dictate what should be believed, and what 
 might be disbelieved ? 
 
 These testimonies regard \\ie practices of the members. Robert 
 Barclay did not consider deviations from them, as the sole causes of 
 disownment. He says, " we being gathered together into the belief 
 of certain principles and doctrines; those principles and doc- 
 trines, and the practices necessarily depending upon them, are, as 
 it were, the terms that have drawn us together, and the bond by 
 which we become centred into one body and fellowship, and dis- 
 tinguished from others. Now, if any one, or more, so engaged 
 with us, should arise to teach any other doctrine or doctrines, con- 
 
83 
 
 trarv to these which were the ground of our being one, who can 
 deny, but the body hath power, in such a case, to declare this 
 is not according to the truth which we profess ; and therefore we 
 pronounce such and such doctrines to be wrong, with which we 
 cannot have unity, nor yet any more spiritual fellowship with 
 those that hold them ? And so cut themselves off from being 
 members, by dissolving the very bond by which they were linked 
 to the body." * And after proving the soundness of these views 
 from Scripture and reason, he concludes as follows : " So that 
 from all that is above mentioned, we do safely conclude, that 
 where a people are gathered together into the belief of the princi- 
 ples and doctrines of the gospel of Christ, if any of that people 
 shall go from those principles, and assert things false and contra- 
 ry to what they have already received ; such as stand and abide 
 firm in the faith, have power by the spirit of God, after they have 
 used christian endeavors to convince and reclaim them, upon their 
 obstinacy, to separate such, and to exclude them from their spiri- 
 tual fellowship and communion. For otherwise, if these be de- 
 nied, farewell to all Christianity, or to the maintaining of any 
 sound doctrine in the church of Christ." And, surely, these re- 
 marks must be applicable to doctrines as radical as those above 
 stated. 
 
 In 1722, the yearly meeting of Philadelphia issued a testimony, 
 accompanying Barclay's Chatechism and Confession of Faith, 
 v/hich they styled " The ancient testimony of the people called 
 Quakers, revived." In which, after a long enumeration of evil 
 practices which the apostles testified against, and through which 
 some fell away, they add, " and some others, who were then ga- 
 thered into the belief of the principles and doctrines of the gospel 
 of Christ, fell from those principles, as some have done in our day; 
 in which cases, such as stood firm in the faith, had power by the 
 spirit of God, after christian endeavors to convince and reclaim 
 these backsliders, to exclude them from our spiritual fellowship 
 and communion, as also the privileges they had as fellow mem- 
 bers ; which power we know by good experience, continues with 
 us, in carrying on the discipline of the church in the spirit of meek- 
 ness." (2 vol. Evid. 11.) And in answer to what was said in ar- 
 gument, as to the extent of the discipline appearing in its intro- 
 
 * Anarchy of the Ranters, pages 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. 
 
84 
 
 ductory paragraph, I would observe that this testimony was is- 
 sued soon after that introduction commences, by referring to it, 
 and may be considered as in a measure explanatory of it. But 
 the discipline itself is not silent on this subject. Its object is de- 
 clared to be, " that all may be preserved in unity of faith and p-ac- 
 tice." Now, what is unity of faith I Does it not require unity of 
 interpretation; unity oi views, of the meaning of texts of Scrip- 
 ture, involving important doctrines ? It does not require submis- 
 sion to the dictation of others. But it does require an accommo- 
 dation of opinion to a common standard, in order that they may 
 be of one faith. This need not extend to subordinate matters ; 
 but liberal as the society has always been in this respect, it has 
 spread before its members the Chatechism and Confession of Faith 
 and Apology of Barclay, as guides to opinion, and it will not suf- 
 fer even the less essential doctrines there promulgated, to be ques- 
 tioned, if it be done in a contentious or obstinate spirit, without 
 subjecting the offender to discipline. This is plainly indicated in 
 the testimony above referred to. {Disc. 12.) And with respect to 
 the more important doctrines now in dispute, the discipline ex- 
 pressly says, " Should any deny the divinity of our Lord and Sa- 
 viour Jesus Christ, the immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit, or 
 the authenticity of the Scriptures; as it is manifest they are not 
 one in faith loith us, the monthly meeting where the party belongs, 
 having extended due care for the help and benefit of the individu- 
 al without effect, ought to declare the same, and issue their testi- 
 mony accordingly." {Disc. 23. 1 vol. Evid. 385.) 
 
 In addition to all this, several respectable witnesses testify that 
 the denial of these doctrines has always been held to be ground 
 of disownment, and they adduce many instances of actual dis- 
 ownment for these causes. (1 vol. Evid. 60, 99, 108, 171, 306.) 
 
 Upon reviewing the testimony, I am satisfied that the societ}' 
 of Friends regard these doctrines as essential, and that they have 
 the power, by their discipline, to disown those who openly call 
 them in question. 
 
 But do the Arch street meeting, and its subordinate meetings, 
 hold to these doctrines ? It is so alleged ; and it is not denied. The 
 denial, if it be one at all, is that these are established doctrines of 
 the society of Friends. The controversies between the parties, 
 so far as they were doctrinal, show that the party called " Or- 
 
85 
 
 thodox" insisted on these doctrines. The ofiensive extracts of 
 the meeting for sufferings, declares them. (1 vol. Evid. 217. 2 vol 
 lb. 414.) And these have been pubhshed by the yearly meeting 
 of that party, in 1828. And there is much testimony by witnes- 
 ses, that the Arch street meeting adheres to them. (1 vol Evid. 
 60, 99.) and none to the contrary. 
 
 So that it appears to me, that Hendrickson has sufficiently es- 
 tablished tiiat the preparative meeting at Chesterfield, which he 
 represents, may, so far as respects doctrine, justly claim to be of 
 the society of Friends. 
 
 But it is insisted, that the other party stands on equal ground 
 in this respect ; that they arc now, or certainly have been, in 
 unity with that society ; a society in which no public declaration 
 of faith is necessary : and that hence, independent of any proof 
 they may have offered, they are to be presumed to be sound in 
 the faith. And that any inquiry into their doctrines, further than 
 as they have publicly declared them, is inquisitorial, and an inva- 
 sion of their rights of conscience. 
 
 If a fact be necessary to be ascertained by this court, for the 
 purpose of settling a question of property, it is its duty to ascer- 
 tain it. And this must be done by such evidence as the nature of 
 the case admits of.* 
 
 I have already stated, that the answer of Decow appeared to 
 me indirectly to deny that the faith of Friends embraces the enu- 
 merated doctrines insisted on by Hendrickson, and to claim free- 
 dom of opinion on those points. I feel moi'e assured that this is 
 the true meaning of the answer, from the course taken in the 
 cross-examination of the witnesses, in which an evident effort ap- 
 pears, to show a want of uniformity among ancient writers of the 
 society, when tieating on these subjects ; and also, from the 
 grounds taken by the counsel in the argument of this cause. It 
 was here most explicitly, and I may add, most ingeniously and 
 eloquently insisted, not only that these doctrines do not belong to 
 the faith of Friends, but that they cannot; because they must in- 
 terfere with another acknowledged fundamental principle of the 
 society — the guidance of the light within. Now if it be estab- 
 lished, that these doctrines are part of the religious faith of 
 
 * 3 Merrivale, 41 1, 413, 417. 3 Dessaussure, 557. 
 
86 
 
 Friends, can it be necessary, under these pleadings, to prove that 
 Decow's party do not hold to the faith of Friends? Decow says, 
 " my party, or preparative meeting, hold the faith of Friends, but 
 these doctrines are no part of that faith; therefore we do not, as 
 Friends, hold to these doctrines." But Fi'iends do hold these doc- 
 trines: Decow's pai'ty does not; therefore they are not one, with 
 Friends, in religious doctrine. And it will not materially vary 
 the argument, that they are at liberty to hold them, or not, as the 
 light within shall direct. It is belief which gives character to a 
 sect, and right of membership to an individual. Liberty has the 
 same practical effect as unbelief, when applied to an essential doc- 
 trine of a religious society. An individual cannot avail himself 
 of his faith in any doctrine which he is at liberty to believe or not. 
 Were it otherwise, we might all be members of any religious so- 
 ciety whatever. 
 
 But as I may have mistaken the meaning of Decow's answer, 
 which is certainly not very explicit in this particular, I will next 
 turn to the evidence, and discover, if I can, w^hat is the fair re- 
 sult of the examination of that. 
 
 Decow offers no testimony respecting the belief of his party in 
 the particular doctrines in question. His witnesses refuse to an- 
 swer on these points,* and his party protest against all creeds, or 
 public declarations of faith, as an abridgment of christian liberty. 
 Having no such public declaration to resort to, we must ascertain 
 the truth from other sources, so far as it is necessary to be as- 
 certained. 
 
 Several public addresses were issued by the party called " Hicks- 
 ite." about the time of the separation, setting forth their reasons 
 for it. In that of April twenty-first, 1827, it is declared that, 
 " the unity of this body is interrupted, that a division exists among 
 us, developing in its progress, vieics ichich appear 771 compatible 
 with each other, and feelings averse to a reconciliation. Doc- 
 ti-ines held by one part of the society, and which we believe to 
 be so7md and edifying, are pronounced by the other part to be 
 unsound and spurious." A prominent complaint, in these papers, 
 is, that Friends travelling in the ministry, had been publicly op- 
 posed in their meetings for worship, and labored with contrary to 
 
 * 1 vol. Evid. pages 387, 381, 406, 475. 2 vol. Ibid, pages 13, 90, 206. 
 
87 
 
 the discipline. Upon looking into the testimony, we find that the 
 prominent individual who furnished occasion for these complaints, 
 is EHas Hicks; and that the interruptions and treatment of him, 
 deemed exceptionable, had their origin in the doctrines which he 
 preached. (1 vol Evid. 308, 474, 478.) Can it be denied, then, 
 that difterences in doctrine existed, and differences of that serious 
 nature calculated to destroy the unity of the society, and which 
 had their full share in producing the separation which took 
 place. 
 
 Decow has introduced several witnesses, who testify, and no 
 doubt conscientiously, that they believe they hold the ancient faith 
 of Friends, but they refuse to tell us what this faith is, in reference 
 to these enumerated doctrines. We cannot give much weight to 
 opinion, where we should \\dMe facts. The belief should refer to 
 specific doctrines, that the court may judge as well as the wit- 
 nesses, whether it was the ancient faith or not. The court, in 
 that case, would have an opportunity of estimating the accuracy 
 of the knowledge upon which the belief is founded. 
 
 How stands the case, then, upon the proofs? A fund was cre- 
 ated for the education of the poor children of a certain prepara- 
 tive meeting of the religious society of Friends. That body has 
 lately become separated. Its unity is broken; the vieics of its 
 members are incompatible; and doctrines held by one party to be 
 sound, are pronoimced by the other party to be ^insound. And two 
 distinct meetings exist at this time, and each claims the guardian- 
 ship and use of this fund. For the safety of the debtor, these par- 
 ties have been directed to interplead, and to show their respective 
 pretensions to be a preparative meeting of Friends. One of them 
 sets out certain doctrines as characteristic of the society, and 
 that they adhere to them, and that the other party does not. They 
 go on and prove their case, so far as respects themselves. The 
 other party alledge that they hold the faith of Friends ; but instead 
 of proving it, they call upon their adversaries to prove the con- 
 trai'y. In my opinion it was incumbent upon each of the parties 
 to make out their case, if they would stand upon equal terms, on 
 this question of doctrine. And especially upon this preparative 
 meeting, connected as it is, with a yearly meeting, which, in point 
 of form at least, is not the yearly meeting that was in existence 
 
88 
 
 at the creation of the fund; and which has furnished prima fa- 
 cia evidence that it has witiidrawn, or separated from that meet- 
 ing, in consequence of disputes in some measure doctrinal. The 
 court will not force either party in this cause to declare or prove 
 their religious doctrines. But if doctrines be important, the party 
 which would avail themselves of their doctrines, must prove them. 
 They are peculiarly within their knowledge, and although they 
 may have the right to withhold them, yet if they do, they cannot 
 expect success in their cause. The money must be awarded to 
 that party which supports, by proper proof, its pretensions to it. 
 
 Under this view of the case, I deem it unnecessary to attempt 
 any further investigation of the doctrines of the party called 
 " Hicksite." And if ascertained, I certainly would not inquire, 
 as an officer of this court, whether they are right or wrong. It 
 is enough, that it is not made to appear' that they correspond with 
 the religious faith of the society of Friends. 
 
 I would merely add, that if it be true, that the " Orthodox " 
 party believe in the doctrines above mentioned, and the " Hicks- 
 ite " party consider that every member has a right to his own be- 
 lief on those subjects, they well might say that their difterences 
 were destructive of their unity. If their members and ministers 
 exercise perfect freedom of thought and speech on these points, 
 their temples for worship, and it is to be feared, their own hearts, 
 would soon be deserted by the peace-loving spirit of their Mas- 
 ter. There is an essential incompatibility in adverse views, with 
 regard to these doctrines. Tlie divinity of Christ, and the au- 
 thenticity of the Scriptures, cannot be debated in a worshipping 
 assembly, without defeating the proper purposes of meeting to- 
 gether. 
 
 And upon this supposition too, the propriety, as well as legality, 
 of this court's noticing the doctrines of the preparative meeting, 
 which is to superintend the expenditure of this fund, is too mani- 
 fest to admit of doubt. We have already seen, by reference to 
 the discipline of this society, with what earnestness they endea- 
 vor to educate their children in the knowledge and belief of the 
 Scriptures; and whoever looks into that discipline, cannot but 
 discover their anxiety to train them up in their own peculiar 
 views of the christian religion. To eftect these purposes, their 
 yearly meeting has directed their attention to the subject of 
 
89 
 
 schools. " The education of our youtli,'" says the discipline, " in 
 piety and virtue, and giving them useful learning under the tui- 
 tion of religious, prudent persons, having for many years engaged 
 the solid attention of this meeting, and advices thereon having 
 been from time to time issued to the several subordinate meet- 
 ings, it is renewedly desired, that quarterly, monthly and prepar- 
 ative meetings may be excited to proper exertions for the institu- 
 tion and support of schools ; for want of which, it has been ob- 
 served, that children have been committed to the care of tran- 
 sient persons of doubtful character, and sometimes of very cor- 
 rupt minds." " It is, therefore, indispensably incumbent on us, to 
 guard them against this danger, and procure such tutors, of our own 
 religious persuasion, as are not only capable of instructing them in 
 useful learning, to fit them for the business of this life, but to train 
 them in the knowledge of their duty to God, and one towards 
 another." Under this discipline, and by the exertions of superi- 
 or meetings, {2 vol. Emd. 345, 346, 436, 437,) as well as of the mem- 
 bers of the Chesterfield preparative meeting, this school at Cross- 
 wicks was established, and this fund raised for its support. It thus 
 appears, that the fund was intended to promote, not merely the secu- 
 lar knowledge of the pupils, but their growth in the religious princi- 
 ples deemed fundamental by this people ; or at least, to prevent, 
 through the instruction of teachers of other religious principles, or 
 wholly without principle, the alienation of the minds of their chil- 
 dren from the faith of their fathers. Could these meetings, and 
 these contributors, have contemplated that this fund should fall in- 
 to the hands of men of opposite opinions, or of no opinions? 
 Could those men, who acknowledged the obligation of this disci- 
 pline, enjoining, as it does, upon parents and heads of families "to 
 instruct their children in the doctrines and precepts of the chris- 
 tian religion, as contained in the Scriptures," and " to prevent 
 their children from having or reading books and papers, tending to 
 prejudice the profession of the christian religion, or, to create the 
 least doubt concerning the authenticity of the holy Scriptures, or of 
 those saving truths declared in them, lest their infant and feeble 
 minds should be poisoned thereby." I say, is it possible such men 
 could have expected that their children should be taught by Elias 
 Hicks, that the Scriptures " have been the cause of four fold more 
 harm than good to Christendom, since the apostles' days : " and 
 
90 
 
 ihat, " to suppose a written rule necessary, or ynuch useful, is to 
 impeach the divine character? '* Or. that they should be taught 
 by him, or by any one else, that eaclr individual inust interpret 
 them for himself, entirely untrammelled by the opinions of man : 
 and that the dictates of the light within are of paramount author- 
 ity to Scripture, even when opposing its precepts ? Surely this 
 would be a breach of trust, and a perversion of the fund, which 
 the arm of this court not only has. but ought to have, power to 
 prevent. 
 
 I would not be understood to impute the doctrines of Elias 
 Hicks to that party which unwillingly bears his name. Nor .do I 
 mean to intimate that they would abuse this trust. But I have 
 endeavored to shew, that doctrines may justly have an influence 
 on the decision of the question now before us. And without co- 
 ming to any conclusion with respect to thei7' doctrines, I am of 
 opinion, that this fund should be aw^arded to that meeting which 
 has shewn, at least to my satisfaction, that they agree in doc- 
 trine with the society of Friends, as it existed at the origin of this 
 trust. 
 
 I do, therefore, respectfully I'ecommend to His Excellency the 
 Chancellor, to decree upon this bill of interpleader, that the prin- 
 cipal and interest due on the said bond, of right belong, and are 
 payable to the said Joseph Hendrickson ; and that he be permit- 
 ted to proceed on his original bill of complaint, or otherwise, ac- 
 cording to the rules and practice of the court of chancery. 
 
 GEORC4E K. DRAKE. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 1 ml —1 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
 
>« 
 

 ^,:%i