B E I, O N G I NO 
 
 MX 
 
 G Of 
 
 
 
 
 Librarian. 

 
 LIBRARY
 
 THE 
 
 ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL 
 
 OF 
 
 JOSEPH HENDRICKSON, 
 
 IN A CAUSE 
 
 DECIDED IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE 
 OF NEW 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 Or THE COURT. 
 
 THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE 
 OF NEW YORK, 
 
 IN A CAUSE IN WHICH JAMES FIELD WAS PLAINTIFF, AND CHARLES 
 FIELD DEFENDANT. 
 
 FOR SALE BY URIAH HUNT, No. 19 NORTH THIRD STREET, 
 
 AND 
 
 MAHLON DAY, AND S. WOOD fc SONS, NEW YORK. 
 
 1833.
 
 In presenting a second edition of this work to the 
 public, the Editor feels much regret at being unable to gra- 
 tify public expectation, in giving a more complete view of 
 this interesting question, by the publication of the argu- 
 ments on the other side, or at least the brilliant effort of the 
 Hon. S. L. SOUTHARD, in behalf of Decow. It is no more 
 than justice to all parties to state, that those who take the 
 opposite side of the question, were not only willing, but anx- 
 ious to accede to his wishes in this respect ; but their coun- 
 sel not deeming it expedient to do so, the copy could not 
 be procured. 
 
 Philad. April 1, 1833. 
 
 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.
 
 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 pre- 
 liminary 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 Crosswicks, in the state of New Jersey, for 
 the purpose of raising a fund, to establish 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 prepar- 
 ative meeting, which appointed a treasurer to take charge 
 of the school fund. 
 
 The plan originated in the Yearly Meeting of Phila- 
 delphia, to which this meeting at Crosswicks was attach- 
 ed, and under their auspices similar funds, for the like 
 purposes, were raised in other preparative meetings be- 
 longing to their jurisdiction. 
 
 The religious dissension which has arisen in the Soci- 
 ety of Friends, and in which Elias Hicks has performed 
 so conspicuous a part, need not here be particularly de- 
 tailed. After the dispute had raged for some time, the 
 party to which Elias Hicks was attached, usually denorrv
 
 IV 
 
 inated " Hicksites," and the opposite party, usually called 
 the " Orthodox," became completely established. They 
 were 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 Meeting of Philadelphia. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson had been appointed the treasurer 
 of this school fund, by the preparative meeting at Cross- 
 wicks, 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" 
 preparative meeting appointed Stacy Decow the treasurer 
 of this school fund. Thomas L. Shotwell, who had be- 
 come 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 claim- 
 ed by them to be the true preparative meeting of the So- 
 ciety of Friends, Joseph Hendrickson as their treasurer, 
 demanded of Thomas L. Shotwell the payment of the in- 
 terest 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 complaint 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 Stacy Decow was the law- 
 ful treasurer of the school fund. And for the purpose of 
 rebutting this pretension, he set forth particularly the re- 
 ligious controversy in this Society above alluded to ; their 
 division into two parties ; and alleged that the ground of
 
 V 
 
 this division was on account of religious doctrines. He 
 stated, that there were three prominent points of doctrine 
 on which they differed; that the ancient Society of 
 Friends believed in the divinity of the Saviour, the atone- 
 ment, and in the inspiration and unerring truth and cer- 
 tainty 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 re- 
 jected 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 Philadelphia, 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 convention 
 for the purpose of framing a yearly meeting of their own; 
 that this convention, composed of their own party, met 
 accordingly, 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 following 
 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 de- 
 tached from the old preparative meeting, and was con- 
 nected with, and in subordination to, the new " Hicksite'* 
 Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia. He alleged that these 
 proceedings amounted to a secession from the govern- 
 ment of the church, and that, as such seceders, they were 
 not identified with the old institutions, and could not 
 carry the property with them, Upon the filing of this
 
 VI 
 
 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. 
 
 Stacy Decow, in his answer to 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 in- 
 dividual member might believe, in regard to them, as he 
 pleased. He refused to disclose his religious sentiments 
 or those of his party, alleging that he was not bound to 
 to disclose them before a temporal tribunal. He con- 
 tended that the religious Society of Friends was a pure 
 democracy, acknowledging no head but Christ, the Great 
 Head of the Christian church, and that they did not consider 
 Elias Hicks as their leader. That, believing in the funda- 
 mental doctrine of the influence of the divine light upon 
 the soul, they held no inquisition over the consciences of 
 their fellow men. He denied that his party had seceded 
 from the rule and government of the church. He con- 
 tended that they had merely revived the government, and 
 organized it anew upon its original principles, which had 
 become necessary, in consequence of the erroneous and 
 irregular proceedings 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, before Jeremiah J. Foster, Esq. an Exam- 
 iner in the Court of Chancery, which, together with the 
 pleadings at length, and some of the exhibits in the cause, 
 have been published in two volumes. 
 
 The Chancellor having been, while at the bar, of coun-
 
 Vll 
 
 sel 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 con- 
 tinuation of the work of J. J. Foster, Esq. and is so in- 
 tended to be. But inasmuch as many persons may wish 
 to procure this volume, without going to the expense of 
 obtaining the depositions, the Editor has thought it ad- 
 visable to give this brief account of the pleadings and pre- 
 vious proceedings for the benefit of the reader. 
 
 Trenton, August, 1832.
 
 ARGUMENTS, &c. 
 
 Court of Chancery, of New Jersey, 
 Trenton, January 3, 1832. 
 
 This being the day set down by the Court, for hearing 
 the argument, and their Honors, Chief Justice Ewing, and 
 Associate Justice Drake, of the Supreme Court, being pre- 
 sent, the Chancellor having been concerned as counsel in 
 the cause, 
 
 GEORGE WOOD, ESQ., of counsel 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 educa- 
 tion of the children of indigent members of the Preparative 
 Meeting of the society of Friends, or people called Quak- 
 ers, at Crosswicks, in the county of Burlington.* 
 
 The trustees and the treasurer of this school fund are ap- 
 pointed by this preparative meeting. The whole fund, in- 
 cluding this mortgage 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 con- 
 troversy in this religious society. A controversy which 
 
 * See the original subscription paper in the Appendix. 
 2
 
 has spread discord throughout 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 dis- 
 tinguished, without seeking distinction of any kind, for their 
 pacific disposition and friendly intercourse. The last pro- 
 perty in New Jersey, which any one, a few years ago 
 would have expected to see involved in the heat of litiga- 
 tion, 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 par- 
 ties ; 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 opposed to it, have appeared at different 
 times and in different forms. Arianism, presented the 
 boldest front of opposition to this doctrine, which com- 
 menced with Arius, a presbyter of the church of Alexan- 
 dria, in the fourth century. Shortly before this, arose the 
 Sabellian controversy. The Socinian is of more modern 
 date ; and lastly, we have the Unitarian. They have ap- 
 peared with different modifications of doctrines, becoming 
 more lax as they recede in point of time. They all agree, 
 however, in one point in degrading the great Head of the 
 Christian 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 divin- 
 ity of the Saviour is fully and unequivocally developed. 
 
 Arianism spread at one time extensively. Modern pro- 
 testants are generally Trinitarians. Unitarianism has 
 lately gained ground in New England ; and within a com- 
 paratively short period, it has invaded the peaceful borders 
 of Quakerism. 
 
 There are at Crosswicks, two associations, each claim- 
 ing to be the preparative meeting in question. The one
 
 is attached to the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, which 
 assembles on the third Monday of the fourth month, or 
 April. The other, to the yearly meeting which assem- 
 bles there on the second Monday of that month. The bill 
 of interpleader was intended to bring before the court, the 
 two persons, Hendrickson and Shot well, 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 pur- 
 pose of designation, and without any view to disparage- 
 ment. 
 
 The question to be considered and decided, is, which is 
 the true preparative meeting to which this property be- 
 longs. They cannot 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 meet- 
 ing, to which this fund is attached? What preparative 
 meeting is it, whose indigent members are entitled to be 
 educated out of this fund ? 
 
 We contend that the preparative meeting called " Ortho- 
 dox," is the true preparative meeting identified with the 
 preparative meeting 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 de- 
 parted from the discipline, rule, and government of this 
 church, and have set up for themselves a new and dis- 
 tinct government, separately organized. 
 
 Before I proceed to a consideration of the doctrines of 
 this society, allow me to present a few preliminary re- 
 marks. We accord freely to the opposite party, the posi- 
 tion, that every individual has a right to entertain, and 
 openly to enjoy his own religious 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 denial in ihese
 
 instances, to be punishable, must be of a contumelious char- 
 acter ; the statute doctrine of blasphemy being merely de- 
 claratory 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 
 exclusive Christianity is deeply imbued with the spirit of 
 genuine rational liberty. Wherever it goes, it carries 
 knowledge, civilization 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 pri- 
 vilege of holding what may be got in a general scramble]; 
 and the law which protects this liberty, sheds its benign 
 influence, not only on individuals, but on religious societies. 
 
 Christianity is a social system. The Christian individ- 
 uated, would be a phenomenon. Through the whole 
 course of its history we find it existing in the shape of re- 
 ligious 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 religious 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 pro- 
 phetic view of the Christian state. 
 
 While the law protects individuals, it would be short- 
 sighted indeed, not to protect religious societies in their 
 social capacity in the enjoyment of their rights, and in 
 worshipping in their social meetings without disturbance 
 or conflict, according to the established views and doc- 
 trines of their founders. Without such fostering care, 
 Christianity, as far as it is dependent on human means, 
 would be starved out of the world ; and this protection is 
 beneficial to morality as well as religion. 
 
 In what are religious societies to be protected ? In the 
 maintenance 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 inter- 
 vention of trustees, for these great purposes. How are 
 they to be protected in these important particulars ? 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 dis- 
 cipline of the society. There is no other mode of protec- 
 ting 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 action, and you 
 must preserve them. If a set of individuals within its bo- 
 som, 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 pur- 
 poses, or in other words, of creating such trust, is one of 
 the most interesting rights which man can exercise and 
 enjoy in society. Man, says Edmund Burke, is by nature, 
 a religious animal. His instinct as well as 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 whatever 
 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 government will be disposed to pro- 
 tect the enjoyment of it when not carried to superstitious 
 lengths ; deprive them of this protection, and you so far 
 deprive them of religious freedom. The religious society 
 is not protected. The individual entertaining his peculiar 
 religious views as a member of that society, is not pro- 
 tected 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 
 2*
 
 religious society, and having changed his opinons, with- 
 draw and enjoy his own opinions newly formed ; but if 
 you allow him to remain a member, he is of course mar- 
 ring 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 re- 
 marked, Christianity has always been fostered and pro- 
 tected through religious 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, in- 
 troduced into the civil law by Constantine, when Christi- 
 anity became the religion 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 purposes, pice causes, as they are sometimes 
 termed, was enforced in all countries, whose codes sought 
 their origin in the civil law; and it is impossible to sup- 
 pose, that these doctrines should not, at an early period, 
 have been introduced into England, where religious sub- 
 jects were placed under the auspices of the canon law, 
 and enforced in the ecclesiastical, and occasionally in the 
 chancery courts, then in the hands of churchmen. A por- 
 tion of the effects of the deceased were distributed to these, 
 pice causa?, by the ecc lesiastical courts, before the next of 
 kin received any thing. In sixth Reeve's English law, 
 some of these pica causie are enumerated, p. 80, 81. The 
 statute of superstitious uses, twenty-third Henry VIII. is a 
 sort of mortmain act, and distinguishes between supersti- 
 tious, 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 
 
 * 4 Reeve's English Law, 437.
 
 kinds. The statute of charitable uses, is recited in first 
 Burns' English law, 307, which enumerates different char- 
 itable uses, appoints a special commission to superintend 
 them, with an appeal to the chancellor. The act mani- 
 festly refers to the previous existence of charitable uses ; 
 the remedy in chancery, in cases of breach of the charita- 
 ble 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 decision was reversed in the court of errors 
 upon other grounds, his opinion upon this matter, remains 
 untouched. Speaking of the principle, 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 inca- 
 pacity of the donee to take, or the want of sufficient cer- 
 tainty 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 authorised 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 ob- 
 tained the same for a valuable consideration, and with- 
 out notice of the trust, or charge, were not to be impeach- 
 ed 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 hav- 
 ing notice of the charitable use, had violated the trust 
 or defrauded by the use, by the sale or other disposition 
 of the estate. Provisions wholly inconsistent with the sup- 
 position of a right in the heir at law, but well adapted at 
 the same time, to the protection of bona fide purchasers, 
 and to the relief of cestui gue 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 exist a general jurisdiction over charities in 
 England, anterior to the statute of Elizabeth, which was 
 exercised by the chancellor; but that jurisdiction, it is 
 
 * M*Carter v. Orphan Asylum, 9 Conven.
 
 8 
 
 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- 
 thority, are cited to show that the superintendence of cha- 
 rities, in common with the charge of infants and lunatics, 
 belongs to the king, as parens patrice, and that the jurisdic- 
 tion of chancery in such cases, does not appertain to it as 
 a court of equity, but as administering the prerogatives and 
 duties of the crown. If it were so, the court of chancery 
 in this state might perhaps claim the jurisdiction, 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 cog- 
 nizance 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 administer- 
 ing the same prerogative of the crown, has also the gene- 
 ral superintendence of all the charities in the kingdom, 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 prerogative and duties of 
 the crown, could apply, may be administered by this 
 court." 
 
 It is probable that the English court of chancery, rely- 
 ing upon some broad expressions in the statute of Eliza- 
 beth, carried the law of charities farther than it was be- 
 fore. 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 associa- 
 tions of individuals not incorporated, where there are trus- 
 tees to take the legal 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 
 
 * 2 Kent's Com. Lee. 33. 
 
 t Peters' U. S. Rep. p. 119, and see the opinion of Justice Story in the 
 Appendix to do., delivered in a former case. Also, Beatty T. Kurtz, 2 
 Peters' U. S. Rep. p. 566.
 
 9 
 
 decided that a devise for the purpose of maintaining and 
 supporting aged, decrepid, and worn out sailors, is a trust 
 which equity will enforce, and they go so far as to say, 
 that if the devise of the legal estate should be inoperative, 
 the trust would fasten upon the land in the hands of the 
 heir. In the Attorney General vs. Pearson, third Merivale, 
 409, Lord Eldon says, " that a devise (notwithstanding 
 the statute of charitable uses,) for the purpose clearly ex- 
 pressed, of maintaining a society of protestant dissenters, 
 would be enforced." A similiar 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 Jersey incorporating trustees to hold property in trust 
 for religious societies, recognizes the doctrine, that these 
 religious societies are legitimate cestui que trusts in equity, 
 for they are not incorporated by it; the trustees only are 
 incorporated, for the better transmission of the legal es- 
 tate, of which privilege a religious society may avail them- 
 selves if they think proper; but no law was necessary 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 com- 
 mon 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, why this effort to show that the claim- 
 ant in this bill of interpleader, has a right to sue in the 
 character of trustee, and to recover if his claim is sup- 
 ported ? I answer, 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 technical 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 society has an equitable beneficial interest in
 
 10 
 
 property, held in trust for them, yet they take it, not in 
 their individual, but in their social capacity; they take this 
 benefit as members, and only so long as they have the quali- 
 fication of members. Though not a corporation, they par- 
 take, as to this purpose, in equity, in some measure, of the 
 corporate character. This doctrine may be applied to all 
 charitable trusts, where bodies of men, and not individuals, 
 are the persons for whose use it is held by the beneficiaries. 
 Thus in the case of the Saijor'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 charity. The moment they 
 cease to answer that character, they cease to be the ob- 
 jects of that bounty. Suppose a large majority of. them 
 should be decrepit seamen, and false to the generous char- 
 acter 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 buffet- 
 ting the waves, and that they would apply these funds to 
 other purposes; would a court of equity recognise 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 opin- 
 ions set forth by Hendrickson in his answer, and now 
 entertained by those to whom he is attached, are the ancient, 
 established, and fundamental doctrines 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 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 for ever that 
 there is one Holy Spirit, the promise of the Father and the 
 Son ; the leader, and sanctifier and comforter of his peo- 
 ple, 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
 
 11 
 
 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 doc- 
 trine 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 human nature of Jesus Christ the Saviour were 
 united ; that thus united, he suffered, 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 
 flesh, became perfect man, according to the flesh, de- 
 scended 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 Abra- 
 ham, 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 
 proceeding 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 person may entertain repug- 
 nant to the doctrines of the Scriptures, which are unerr- 
 ing, 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 entertain- 
 ed by the " Orthodox" party aforesaid, to which party this 
 defendant belongs. That these doctrines are with the 
 said religious society fundamental, and any individual, en- 
 tertaining sentiments and opinions contrary to all or any
 
 12 
 
 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 considera- 
 tion and decision upon these doctrines by the court. It 
 will be said that this is a matter of conscience, which can- 
 not 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 op- 
 posite 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 property, to determine a trust, and who are 
 the proper objects of that trust, that matter may be in- 
 quired into as well as any other ; and there is no more dif- 
 ficulty attending the investigation than in numerous 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 trea- 
 ties, exacted contributions from tributary princes. He was 
 impeached before the House of Lords, for gross malversa- 
 tion 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 pur- 
 poses, his motives, and I may say, his political 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 inves- 
 tigation, and proceeds very much on the same principles, 
 on which a parliamentary 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 society formed in England, as was alleged 
 on the part of the government, for treasonable purposes. 
 On the other side, it was said, their object was to obtain 
 by legitimate means, a salutary parliamentary reform. 
 On this inquiry, the constitutions of this and other socie- 
 ties, 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 upon the jury and what did the court do ? 
 Did they fold up their arms, and say, why this is too dif- 
 ficult a matter for us, and especially for the jury, who are
 
 13 
 
 to be kept together without meat or drink, to inquire into, 
 ~^?<nd we must shrink from the task? No. They met the 
 difficulties of the case boldly and fairly, and even relaxed 
 j'rom the strictness with which a jury is usually guarded, 
 in order to meet the exigency of the case. A similar 
 course was adopted on the trial of Fries for high treason, 
 in this country. There is a boldness and a depth of in- 
 vestigation, peculiar to the administration of English and of 
 American law, which stops at no obstruction, ho wever great, 
 which is repressed by no difficulty, however appalling. 
 
 Before 1 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 scholastic phrases to 
 convey ideas, the result of metaphysical reasoning upon 
 subjects beyond their comprehension. And it is somewhat 
 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 beyond what was written. In their 
 catechism, the answers are conveyed in Scriptural language, 
 without addition taking care to select such passages as 
 convey the idea clearly and beyond doubt. And to show 
 what importance they attach to this Scriptural language, 
 and how they interpret it, they adopt implicitly 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 show they do not undervalue 
 the Scriptures, or consider them liable 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 pas- 
 sages of Scripture in which the doctrine is clearly put 
 forth, without drawing any inferences of their own. Whe- 
 ther the three are so distinguished as to convey the idea 
 of individual personage, in the sense in which man under- 
 
 * Barclay's Catechism, page 5.
 
 14 
 
 stands 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. 
 
 In respect to the atonement, they believe in the great 
 propitiatory sacrifice, and in the union of the divine and 
 human nature of Jesus Christ. They deem the propitia- 
 tory sacrifice necessary to salvation, as the only means 
 provided for that purpose. But they do not, as some theo- 
 logians have done, decide upon its indispensable 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 pro- 
 vided. They adopt implicitly, as before shown, the inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures. They believe the Scriptures may 
 be, and often are, misinterpreted, when not read in a right 
 frame pf 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 
 volume of Penn's works, 620, and he there shows the Scrip- 
 tural 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 trinitarian sect, in any essential mat- 
 ter. 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 rejecting the atonement, or for their 
 opinions upon the Godhead, with but a solitary exception, 
 which I shall 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 only inquiry is, whether they are, or are 
 not the fundamental doctrines of this ancient society of 
 Friends, and with a view to settle a question of trust.
 
 15 
 
 I think I may venture to say, that these three doctrines 
 in question, are proved to be held by that society as clearly 
 and abundantly, as it would be possible for any sect to 
 prove what its religious doctrines are. We are told on the 
 other side, that these cannot be their doctrines of the trinity, 
 as a society, though individual members may hold to them , 
 because the society has no creed. Passages have been 
 referred to in their writings, in which they object to a creed 
 and this matter of a creed, in the course of the examina- 
 tion, has been made the subject of much comment, and of 
 some sarcasm. But what is meant by a creed 1 The 
 modern expositions of religious doctrine, are usually called 
 confessions of faith. The term creed, is more generally 
 applied to those manifestoes 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 penalties, 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 pre- 
 tended 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 this society as 
 fundamental, and I mean to prove it. 
 
 They are established, in the first place, by public and 
 authoritative 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 ac- 
 knowledged on all hands, as an authentic source, whose 
 provisions are obligatory upon the members, as a rule of 
 conduct. Holiday Jackson, their witness, admits this. In 
 page twenty-three, of this book you will find the following 
 regulation : 
 
 " If any in membership with us shall blaspheme, or 
 speak profanely of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, or the 
 Holy Spirit, he or she ought 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 brother- 
 ly labor, persist in their error, or deny the divinity of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the immediate revelation
 
 16 
 
 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 party belongs, having extend- 
 ed due care for the help and benefit of the individual with- 
 out effect, ought to declare the same, and issue their tes- 
 timony 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 are imperatively enjoined in their disci- 
 pline, under severe sanctions, and put forth in their cate- 
 chism for the instruction of their youth, as the principles 
 in which they are to be trained up, how can it be pretend- 
 ed that these are not held by the society as their settled 
 religious opinions? A catechism, above all things, would 
 be adopted by a religious society, with the utmost circum- 
 spection, 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. Scriptural lan- 
 guage has been used, and the most striking passages of 
 Scripture, such as are mainly relied upon by all sects hold- 
 ing these doctrines, have been culled to convey their ideas. 
 Would this have been done if that work had been intended 
 to be Unitarian ? Would they not, on the other hand, like all 
 Unitarians, ha ve endeavored to explain away these passages? 
 
 George Fox is admitted to be the founder of this society 
 though he is not c'alled the head, inasmuch as they ac- 
 knowledge 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 supereroga- 
 tion, been proved in the cause. See his letter to the go- 
 vernor of Barbadoes : 
 
 "For the Governor of Barbadoes, with his council and 
 assembly, and all others in power, both civil and mi- 
 litary, 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 satis- 
 
 * See Barclay's Catechism, pages 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 34.
 
 17 
 
 faction we now plainly and sincerely declare, that we 
 own and believe in the only wise, omnipotent, and ever- 
 lasting God, the creator of all things in heaven and earth, 
 and the preserver 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 ever- 
 more ! 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 invisible 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, do- 
 minions, 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, 
 without the gates of Jerusalem ; and that he was buried, 
 and rose again on the third day by the power of his 
 Father, for our justification ; and that he ascended up into 
 heaven, and now sitteth at the right hand of God. This 
 Jesus, who was the foundation of the holy 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 : who 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 redemption; neither is 
 there salvation in any other, for there is no other name 
 under heaven given among men, whereby we may be 
 saved. He alone, is the shepherd and bishop of our souls : 
 he is our prophet, whom Moses long since testified of, say- 
 ing, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto 
 you of your brethren, like unto me ; him shall ye hear in 
 3*
 
 18 
 
 all things, whatsoever he shall say unto you : and it shall 
 come to pass, that every soul that will not hear that pro- 
 phet, shall be destroyed from among the people." Acts, 
 ii. 22. 23. He is now come in spirit, " and hath given us 
 an understanding, 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 quickening spirit, the second 
 Adam, the Lord from heaven, by whose blood we are 
 cleansed, and our consciences sprinkled from dead works, 
 to serve the living God. He is our mediator, who makes 
 peace and reconciliation between God offended and us of- 
 fending ; 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 Em- 
 anuel, God with us, we all own and believe in ; he whom 
 the high-priest raged against, and said, he had spoken blas- 
 phemy ; whom the priests and elders of the Jews took 
 counsel together against, and put to death ; the same whom 
 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. 21.) 
 " spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." We 
 believe that they are to be read, believed, and fulfilled (he 
 that fulfils them is Christ ?) and they are " profitable for 
 reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteous- 
 ness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly fur- 
 nished 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 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 pro-
 
 10 
 
 phecy 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 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 Scrip- 
 tures, 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 untruth. That which we have 
 spoken to them, is to exhort and admonish them to be so- 
 ber, 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 ano- 
 ther, 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 heaven, where the righteous go; and the other 
 that leads to hell, where the wicked and debauched, whore- 
 mongers, adulterers, murderers, and liars 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 trans- 
 gression for a master of a family to instruct his family 
 himself, or for others to do it in his behalf; but rather it is 
 a very great duty incumbent 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
 
 20 
 
 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 belonging to our families : this 
 being a command of the Lord, disobedience thereunto will 
 provoke his displeasure ; as may b'e seen in Jer. x. 25. " Pour 
 out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon 
 the families that call not upon thy name." Negroes, taw- 
 nies, Indians, make up a very great part of the families 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 judgment, when every one shall be " rewarded accord- 
 ing to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good 
 or whether they be evil :" at that day, we say, of the re- 
 surrection both of the good and of the bad", and of the 
 just and the unjust, when " the Lord Jesus shall be reveal- 
 ed 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 everlasting 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 Thes. i. 8. &c. See also, 2 
 Pet. nl 3. &c." 
 
 It would be impossible for man to select language stron- 
 ger than this, in support of these very doctrines for which 
 we are now contending. ^. 
 
 In the confession of faith, subjoined to their catechism, 
 and proved 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 pub- 
 lie 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 abandon- 
 ed the faith of this society, 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 pub- 
 lic address, published by them on that occasion, they pro- 
 claimed the doctrines for which we are now contending.* 
 Shortly afterwards, they presented a document to the par- 
 liament of Great Britain, on finding that these charges of 
 Keith were repeated by Francis Bugg, which is in these 
 words : 
 
 * Sewell's History, 499.
 
 Sil 
 
 I. " Be it known to all, that we sincerely believe and 
 confess, that Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of the Virgin 
 Mary, is the true Messiah, the very Christ, the Son of the 
 living 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 mankind, 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 alive, and lives forever in his divine eternal 
 glory, dominion, and power with the Father. 
 
 III. That the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Tes- 
 tament, are of divine authority, as being given by inspira- 
 tion of God. 
 
 IV. " And that magistracy or civil government, is 
 God's ordinance, the good ends thereof being for the pun- 
 ishment of evil-doers, and praise of them that do well." 
 
 A difficulty occurred which prevented them from enjoy- 
 ing tha benefits of the toleration act, owing to their refusal 
 to take the oath required. By interceding with the parlia- 
 ment, they at length succeeded in procuring a participation 
 of its benefits, by getting the affirmation substituted in the 
 place of the oath.* Now this toleration act, directly and 
 palpably excluded Unitarians from its benefits. The hold- 
 ing 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 1. upon a like promise by him, on his accession 
 to the throne. 
 
 What then, shall we say to these public and official man- 
 ifestos, thus solemnly put forth, and upon the strength of 
 which, important parliamentary privileges have been ob- 
 tained and enjoyed ? Shall we say they were all delusive ? 
 A mere promise to the ear, to catch the favor of the govern- 
 ment. Elias Hicks has been compelled to say of the letter 
 of Fox to "the governor of Barbadoes, which he found 
 
 * Burnett's History of his own Times, 3. 13.
 
 22 
 
 staring in the face of his new doctrines, that it did not 
 contain Fox's real sentiments. But are his adherents pre- 
 pared to follow him in these charges, and to extend them, 
 to the whole society at that early period ? Are they pre- 
 pared 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 coun- 
 try, were equally insincere, by conniving at their falsehood, 
 and continuing in unity with them ? Are not these char- 
 ges, 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 en- 
 gage in military operations, and to pay tithes. Were they 
 false to some of their principles and true to others ? What- 
 ever may be thought of the zeal of the early Friends in 
 many particulars, the charge of insincerity cannot with 
 any propriety be made against them. And we are in 
 possession of the conclusive fact, that they publicly held 
 forth these doctrines, and enjoyed the benefits flowing from 
 their promulgation. 
 
 The preaching of ministers, approved and accepted by 
 a religious 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, whether old or young. Hence, 
 in this society, great care is bestowed upon the setting 
 apart of experienced, pious, and intelligent persons for the 
 ministry, and the elders are especially required by the dis- 
 cipline, to exercise a vigilance, and to admonish and re- 
 prove 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 contrary doctrines were 
 held in this society indiscriminately, why was'it reserved 
 for Elias Hicks and his associates to b'roach them for the 
 first time ? Why has this light beamed from that source 
 alone ? This is unaccountable upon their pretensions,
 
 23 
 
 We have produced witness after witness, aged, intelli- 
 gent, experienced men, of character irreproachable; men 
 whose lives have been devoted to the cause of religion, 
 Samuel Bettle, Thomas Willis, William Jackson and others, 
 whose evidence is before you, and will be carefully in- 
 spected ; who join in saying, that these are the established 
 doctrines of that society ; and that those who hold the con- 
 trary doctrine are not in the same faith with the society. 
 They cannot be mistaken. Have they testified to what is 
 not true ? Let the negative evidence of the witnesses on 
 the other side answer that question. When asked to dis- 
 close 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 dis- 
 closing their religious belief; on the contrary they are 
 eager to disclose it on other points, such as the light with- 
 in, 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 works of this 
 society, Barclay's Apology, his work on church govern- 
 ment, The Confession 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 writings of these authors, in support of 
 these doctrines, but I forbear to proceed any further with 
 it. I will direct the court, however, to Evans' Exposition, 
 as containing numerous other references to the standard 
 works of the society, in support of these doctrines. I ad- 
 vert to it, however, merely as a book of reference, intend- 
 ing in this case, to rely only on evidence which arose and 
 existed prior to this dissention. 
 
 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 without 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 
 
 * Mr. Wood here read a variety of passages from these different authors.
 
 24 
 
 this man does not require our praise, and would not be af- 
 fected 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 surpassed by none. He 
 has formed and given us a Doric pillar to support the 
 capitol of our empire. 
 
 But we have now to do with his religious writings. The 
 witnesses 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 es- 
 tablish his own positions, as to overturn those of his adver- 
 sary. 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 ap- 
 pearance of being his own independent 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 socinianism, and 
 sometimes of unqualified infidelity, from the want of attend- 
 ing sufficiently to the drift of the author. He had a pub- 
 lic religious controversy, according to the fashion of the 
 times, with the Reverened Thomas Vincent, upon three 
 points of divinity. He disputes his adversary's doctrine 
 as to the three persons in the trinity, or modes of subsis- 
 tence. He did not mean to deny the trinity, or the three 
 in the Godhead, so far as it is revealed, according to the 
 opinion of this society, in the Scriptures. In the next 
 place, he denies the position, that there is an absolute dis- 
 ability in the Supreme Being to forgive without a propitia- 
 tory 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 denies, the 
 exclusive justification of impure persons by an irnputative 
 righteousness. The fact that a benefit is imparted to the 
 Christian through the righteousness of Christ, under this 
 dispensation, he does not deny ; but he contends for the
 
 25 
 
 additional necessity of repentance and good works. In 
 the course of his remarks, to be sure, he does, in terms, 
 deny three persons in the Godhead and the propitiatory 
 sacrifice, but in what way, and for what purpose? 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 show the fallacy of all human reason- 
 ing 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 co- 
 adjutor,) 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 adversary 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 opera- 
 tions ; three subsistences, or three somethings besides sub- 
 sistences : 
 
 " But they are not three manifestations ; three opera- 
 tions ; three subsistences ; nor three any thing else besides 
 subsistences ; ergo three subsistences." 
 
 He then attempts, in the course of his argument, to show 
 that the conclusion of his opponent is erroneously drawn, 
 because the premises are beyond his comprehension. The 
 subject of this investigation is the Supreme Jehovah. What 
 does man know about the nature and essence of that Be- 
 ing, who is to. him incomprehensible 1 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 man- 
 ner in which even they, could operate upon external ob- 
 jects, .when disembodied of the organic living 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 Being. And if he cannot conceive it, how 
 can he undertake to analyze it, or reason upon the analy- 
 sis. When he looks with the astronomer, at the myriads 
 of worlds which are spread through the heavens, and 
 hence infers the myriads of other worlds in the vast field 
 4
 
 26 
 
 of space beyond them, he may form some faint and indis- 
 tinct 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 surrounds you, a mere 
 ant upon a mole-hill, undertake, in a syllogism ; to limit 
 the possibility of existence of that Being, who 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 es- 
 sences, and therefore there are three modes of subsistence. 
 -There cannot be a mode of subsistence, according to any 
 notion, we can form upon the subject, distinct from the es- 
 sence which does subsist. If, then, there are three modes 
 of subsistence, there must be three essences ; and conse- 
 quently, 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 be- 
 tween 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 sub- 
 jects, is further illustrated in the Guide Mistaken, in the 
 second volume of his works. He states, in the form of 
 queries, a number of propositions, which are in themselves 
 directly repugnant to the doctrines 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 this 
 society. The same caution which induces them to refrain 
 from adding to Scriptural views, the inferences of human 
 reason upon mysterious subjects, leads th^m to abstain 
 from all discussion upon such subjects. But Penn was 
 then young. He had been educated in all the liberal ac- 
 quirements of the age, and he could not resist the tempta- 
 tion of bandying a syllogism with the Reverend Thomas 
 Vincent. It must be admitted that there is an obscurity 
 in some of his controversial writings, which lays him open
 
 27 
 
 occasionally, to misconception. He was misconceived. 
 He was charged with blasphemy. The magistrates, per- 
 haps, were not skilled in syllogistic 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 sav- 
 age of the wilderness, of his ferocity, and to cause him, 
 with his hatchet buried, to look in admiration upon the 
 calmness 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 trinity, of Father, Word, and Spirit, according to Scrip- 
 ture ; 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 entertain 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 godliness, and less 
 to peace; which should be the chief aim of true Christians. 
 And therefore they cannot gratify that curiosity in them- 
 selves, or others; speculative truths being, in their judgment, 
 to be sparingly and tendely 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 superfining upon 
 Scripture texts, do sufficiently caution and forbid them. 
 Men are to apt to let their heacls outrun their hearts, and 
 their notion exceed their obedience, and their passion sup- 
 port their conceits ; instead of a daily cross, a constant 
 watch, and an holy practice. The despised Quakers de- 
 sire this may be their care, and the text their creed in this, 
 as in all other points : preferring self-denial to opinion, and 
 charity to knowledge, according to that great Christian 
 doctrine. 1 Cor. 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 divine word, lighteth the souls of all men
 
 28 
 
 come into the world, with a spiritual and saving light ac- 
 cording to John 1. 9. ch. 8. xii. (which nothing but the Crea- 
 tor of souls can do) it does sufficiently show they believe 
 him to be God, for they truly and expressly own him to be 
 so, according to the 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. 
 
 " Princ. 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 after the flesh, and therefore truly and 
 properly man, like us in all things (and once subject to all 
 things for our sakes) sin only excepted. 
 
 " Pervers. The Quakers expect to be justified and saved 
 by the light within them, and not by the death and suffer- 
 ings of Christ. 
 
 " Princ. This is both unfairly and untruly stated and 
 charged upon us. But the various sense of the word jus- 
 tification, 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; godly, that were ungodly; up- 
 right that were depraved ; as the apostle expresseth himself, 
 1. Cor. 6. xi. and such were some of you, but ye are wash- 
 ed, 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 re- 
 fers 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 saved 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 propitia- 
 tion 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 benefit thereof, but as they corne to believe and repent 
 of the evil of their ways;. and then it may be truly said, 
 that God justifieth even the ungodly, ahd looks upon them 
 through Christ, as if they had never sinned ; because their 
 sins are forgiven them for his beloved Son's sake." 
 
 I submit with confidence to this court, that obscure pas- 
 sages, in the heat of argument, of a controversial writer, 
 afterwards fully explained, do not militate against us. I
 
 29 
 
 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 show 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 disown- 
 ment. And these are proved to be so. They are so con- 
 sidered by Barclay on church government.* Upon this 
 point the discipline, as I have already shown, is positive. 
 
 But these doctrines, w r herever they are entertained, 
 must be considered as fundamental. Before you could 
 treat them otherwise, you must change the nature of man, 
 and his principles of action. The idea that a religious so- 
 ciety could exist in harmony, or even exist at all, for any 
 length of time, where all sorts of opinions upon such sub- 
 jects are allowed, is altogether arcadian and visionary. 
 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 
 Elias Hicks, would endeavour to depreciate him ; caution 
 his hearers against relying too much upon him; urge them 
 lo endeavor to rise up to an equality with him, and to cast 
 away the Scriptures as mere props, that can aid the Chris- 
 tian only in the infancy of his spiritual life. What would 
 be the effect of such contradictory exhibitions ? Would it 
 not degrade the whole system? Would it not infuse into the 
 society, if persisted in, a universal scepticism, and spread 
 among the youth a contempt and disregard for all religi- 
 ous sentiments? Or rather, would it not, eventually, as it 
 has done in the present instance, involve the society 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 shows that these doctrines are fundamental, where- 
 ever they are entertained, it shows at the same time, thaf 
 this society never could have tolerated the broad latitude 
 
 *Page, 53, 59, and the declaration of faith appended to the catechism,p.ll, 
 4*
 
 30 
 
 of doctrine, upon the Utopian principles contended for on 
 the other side. The unity and harmony upon which 
 they delight to expatiate, would have lasted about as long 
 as the "Orthodox" and " Hicksites" continued together, 
 after Elias Hicks let in upon them his flood of new light. 
 
 I now propose to show that the " Hicksite" party hold 
 the doctrines ascribed to them in the answer of Joseph 
 Hendrickson. In that answer they are thus stated: " The 
 " Hicksite" party aforesaid do not adopt and believe in the 
 above mentioned doctrines; but entertain opinions entirely 
 and absolutely repugnant and contrary thereto," (alluding 
 to the three doctrines in question.) In regard 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 Son, or Word, and the Holy Spirit. 
 That the Son was God, and became flesh; that there is 
 one God, and Father, of whovn 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 
 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 the other protestant 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 con- 
 sidered themselves as warranted in making deductions, 
 however specious. 
 
 " The people called Quakers have always believed in 
 the doctrine of the atonement ; that the divine and human 
 nature of Jesus Christ the Saviour were united ; that thus 
 united, he suffered; 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 flesh, became per- 
 fect 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
 
 31 
 
 of the nature of man, through him is the goodness and lov& 
 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. 
 
 " 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 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 refer- 
 ence to this primary source, whence they proceed; but in- 
 asmuch as the dictates of the spirit are always true and 
 uniform, all ideas and views which any person may enter- 
 tain 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 fundamental, and any indi- 
 vidual entertaining sentiments and opinions 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. 1 ' 
 
 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 uni- 
 tarian. I do not mean to dispute their legal right to be 
 so; they are, as Unitarians, entitled to protection in the 
 enjoyment of their religious belief, publicly and practically, 
 under the constitution of their country. All I mean to con- 
 tend for, is, that as Unitarians, they are not Quakers in 
 doctrine ; they are not in law, entitled to take with them, 
 in their new Unitarian belief, the property which has been, 
 by donation or otherwise, devoted, in trust, for the society 
 of Friends. To all legal purposes, 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 wor-
 
 32 
 
 ship is recognised by law, should hold property, a portion 
 of the members becoming trinitarians, could not carry the 
 property with them. 
 
 The charge which I have just read from the answer of 
 Hendrickson, was contained in the original bill. It was, 
 of course, stated in the bill of interpleader, and the defend- 
 ant, Decow, claiming to be treasurer of the school fund, 
 under the " Hicksite" preparative meeting, was called upon 
 to answer this charge, he has not answered it r but has re- 
 fused to disclose. All the witnesses called on the other 
 side, members of their new yearly meeting, and in the ha- 
 bit of attending their different meetings for worship, and 
 hence, fully acquainted with the religious doctrines they 
 entertain and inculcate, refuse to disclose upon that point. 
 The charge of unitarianism thus solemnly made, is unde- 
 nied, 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 doctrines on the ground, that they are 
 not bound to spread their spiritual sentiments before a tem- 
 poral tribunal ; that such a tribunal has no cognizance of 
 religious doctrines, and that if compelled to account upon 
 such subjects, there, it amounts to religious persecution. 
 But upon this subject, they appear to me, to be entirely too 
 refined and sublimated. They are for vaulting in the air. 
 They seem to forget that even in religious concerns, while 
 they are preparing 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, except in those in- 
 stances where bigotry or superstition may encroach upon 
 the safety of government, or the wholesome restraint of 
 municipal law. Even there, I would have a government 
 to yield much to the spirit of religious liberty. It is mat- 
 ter of history, that the early Friends were the pioneers 
 of religious toleration. 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 dicipline carried them. Philosophers, in those 
 times, often dreamt of a greater latitude of sentiment and 
 action, but they were only the day-dreams of philosophical 
 speculation. If Sir Thomas More, in his Utopia, was for 
 allowing the utmost breadth of religious freedom, he de-
 
 33 
 
 Carted very 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, devoted, 
 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 tlie law protect this trust, if a part of the society, 
 changing their doctrines and getting possession of the pro- 
 perty in the confusion of religious dissention, can wrap 
 themselves up in all the darkness of the Eleusynian mys- 
 teriesj 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 licentiousness, not liberty. It is wrong, 
 not right. If the object of this inquiry was to punish the 
 " Hicksite" party for their religious opinions, they would 
 then have an excuse for this concealment. But when the 
 object is simply to ascertain which of these two divisions 
 is the true society, when it is manifest that both cannot be : 
 which of these two preparative meetings is the true pre- 
 parative meeting, in order to settle a mere question of pro- 
 perty, it is idle to talk of persecution. It would be dis- 
 graceful 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 admitted by themselves not to be true ; 
 for they admit the doctrine of the influence of the divine 
 light upon the soul to be fundamental. 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 fundamen- 
 tal ; 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 se--
 
 34 
 
 riously pretended that such points, involving important 
 questions of property, should be left unsettled. 
 
 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 religious free- 
 dom, and every other sort of freedom is enjoyed. Where 
 they need have no apprehensions from religious persecu- 
 tion. They, on the other hand, lived in an age of persecu- 
 tion, and were actually persecuted for the peculiar 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 them- 
 selves before the parliament, before committees of the par- 
 liament, solemnly and publicly exhibited to them their reli- 
 gious views, and obtained relief and privilege asatrinitarian 
 community of Christians, under the toleration laws. 
 
 Let us now look at the effect which this studied conceal- 
 ment on the other side ought to have, as negative evidence 
 upon this cause. And here I give them credit for sincerity 
 in the opinion, that they are not bound to disclose their re- 
 ligious views on these doctrinal points. I give their coun- 
 sel credit for sincerity 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 
 allow them to disclose, only that they are not bound to 
 disclose. They do, in fact, disclose some of their doc- 
 trines 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. Why do they disclose that 
 the influence of divine illumination is one of their doc- 
 trines? Manifestly because they think it politic to go thus 
 far. Their conscience then, seerns to be measured by 
 their views of policy. 
 
 Tt 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. 
 * J4 Johnson's Reports, 215, and see 1 Caines Reports, 185.
 
 35 
 
 General reputation was given in evidence as to the part- 
 nership, and as to the members of the firm, and the defen- 
 dants were noticed to produce the articles of co-partner- 
 ship, which they declined doing. The court say, " this re- 
 fusal afforded strong grounds of suspicion, that if pro- 
 duced, they would have shown that all the defendants were 
 partners, and the jury would have been warranted in draw- 
 ing every reasonable inference 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 divide on the 
 question of doctrine, and form two preparative meetings. 
 A question arises which is the true one, to which the pro- 
 perty ought to be attached. Hendrickson says, his meet- 
 ing is the true one, because they hold certain religious doc- 
 trines, 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 directly repugnant : Unitarian 
 doctrines : that they have, in fact, changed from trinita- 
 rian to Unitarian. Whether they do or do not hold such 
 doctrines : whether such change has, or has not taken 
 place, they must know. They come forward as witnesses, 
 to prove other facts, but do not say what are their senti- 
 ments on these points. When we cross-examine them, 
 they refuse to answer. They say they are not bound to 
 answer. This is not true; because witnesses should an- 
 swer 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-part- 
 nership, and in the language of that court, J say, the refu- 
 sal of the " Hicksite" witnesses to answer, affords strong 
 ground of suspicion, and warrants the court in drawing 
 every reasonable inference against them. 
 
 But, fortunately, in this case, we are not dependent upon 
 the opposite party for information as to their doctrines. 
 We have laid before the court, a train of evidence, which 
 shows conclusively that they do hold the doctrines we as- 
 cribe 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 evi- 
 dence, states the origin of this dispute. He refers to the 
 letters of Paul and Amicus, in which a pretended Friend,
 
 36 
 
 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 prepared for publication, consisting exclusively 
 of extracts from the writings of ancient Friends; 4 ' 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 circum- 
 stances rendering it expedient to do so, publish their sen- 
 timents. 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 
 declaration of their faith to the British parliament, was a 
 creed, and exceptionable on that ground. The demon of 
 persecution, which in this country, can exist only in ima- 
 gination, 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 unpa- 
 latable to them of late. 
 
 The publication which that party sent forth from their 
 private meeting, while the yearly meeting of eighteen hun- 
 dred and twenty-seven was in session, admits that a differ- 
 ence in doctrine led to the controversy. They there tell us, 
 that doctrines believed by one party to be sound and edifying, 
 are by the other deemed imsound and spurious- Thomas Evans 
 testifies that all their disputes were about religious doctrines. 
 
 What were these disputed doctrines ? There is no pre- 
 tence by any body, that any others were disputed than 
 those now in question. Our party come forward openly, 
 and avow their sentiments, in regard to these disputed doc- 
 trines. If one party, as they there admit, believes certain 
 doctrines sound and edifying, and the other believes them 
 unsound and spurious, we have a right to infer from their 
 own publication, that they oppose the doctrines in question, 
 unless they show that there were other doctrines in dis- 
 pute between them, to which they refer. 
 
 * Exhibit No. 12, in this cause.
 
 37 
 
 Our witnesses, Parsons, William Jackson, Whitall, Wil- 
 lis, 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 doc- 
 trines that we ascribe to them. Thomas Evans enume- 
 rates some of them: Eiias Hicks, Hawkshurst, Mott, Ed- 
 ward Hicks, Wetherald, Comly and Lower, all " Hicksite" 
 preachers, teaching these doctrines, 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 preachers, whose sermons are contained in them, is 
 Elias Hicks. Speaking 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 wis- 
 dom 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 inspiration of the Scriptures. Yet, he here 
 charges them with inaccuracy, and with being devised by 
 man's wisdom. He has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ 
 and his atonement. Look at this passage: J " If we be- 
 lieve 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 
 therefore, 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 for his soul, therefore 
 the Almighty must be the only deliverer of his people." 
 No man can be so dull of apprehension as to misunder- 
 stand this. Elias Hicks is at liberty to believe, and his 
 adherents may believe, that Christ is on a level with Mo- 
 ses and the prophets, and with the first parents of man- 
 kind, 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 clients, upon this question of pro- 
 
 Hicks' Sermons, 95. t Ib. 314. \ Ib. 292. 
 
 5
 
 38 
 
 perty, 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 produc- 
 tions of private individuals, which might require such 
 adoption, to render them evidence of the general senti- 
 ments of the society. They are collections of sermons, of 
 public preachers, 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 doctrines, in 
 respect to which they admit they differ from their former 
 associates, they cannot pretend to deny. Abraham Lower 
 acknowledges in his evidence, that he was a faithful and 
 accepted 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 oratorical skill of Demos- 
 thenes or Cicero. He commences by stating, that for fifty 
 years and upwards, he has believed in the miraculous con- 
 ception. But he had lately been examining the ancient 
 history of the church, and found that many thought other- 
 wise. Before this, he had read the Scriptures often, but 
 under the prejudice 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 con- 
 troversy, he read the Scriptures again, and although he 
 found there was considerably more scriptural evidence for 
 
 * Mr. Wood here read a number of passages from the sermons of Eliaa 
 and Edward Hicks, and Thomas Wetherald, from the printed volumes 
 called the " Quaker," Hicks' Sermons, and the sermons of Ellas and 
 Edward Hicks, to prove the same points.
 
 39 
 
 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 preju- 
 dice; but when they discover the prejudice, and seethe 
 preponderating evidence on the other side, there is an end 
 of it; they are then freed from their shackles. But it would 
 not do for him to come out boldly as a Unitarian it would 
 have aroused his friend. To continue his influence, he 
 still professes his old doctrines, and he endeavours 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 letters to Phosbe Willis, and Dr. Shoemaker, 
 he denies the atonement most unequivocally. These let- 
 ters are important in two points of view. While they de- 
 velope 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 satisfaction, 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 Moses, 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 dis- 
 eases. 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 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 disr 
 covered, that spirit could even beget spirit. It does not 
 seem, for a moment, to occur to him, that such subjects 
 are beyond human comprehension and inquiry, and that 
 man becomes presumptuous when he undertakes to be 
 wise in such matters beyond what is revealed. His ima- 
 gination has only to coin an idea, and his seal at once
 
 40 
 
 gives it currency. I have no doubt, that in private life, 
 his character was amiable and unexceptionable. But his 
 virtues, like Cassar's, have been instrumental to a success- 
 ful innovation. Coming out, heated, from the steam of the 
 arian controversy, he has cast a firebrand into this hereto- 
 fore peaceful society, 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 deportment towards this society in the 
 practical assertion of those religious 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 obvious one ; 
 the road he had to travel, was direct and plain before him. 
 When he adopted and undertook to preach those new doc- 
 trines, which he thus shadowed forth in his epistles to his 
 friends, and which, in those epistles, lie 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 society. 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 manly 
 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 complain, how much soever his early associates, 
 who should still adhere to the traditions in which they had 
 been educated, might have 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 when- 
 ever a member of such a society changes his religious 
 opinions, and still artfully endeavours to continue in it, for 
 the purpose of more effectually making converts to his 
 new doctrines, the error of his course will be shown in 
 the demoralizing consequences flowing from it. What 
 subterfuges and evasions is he obliged to resort to! What 
 shifts and expedients ! Sometimes 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 con-
 
 41 
 
 tradictions ! ! Detraction and discord are next witnessed. 
 The old become disgusted with the exhibition : the young 
 ridicule 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 interests of mankind. 
 
 Having finished last evening what I had to say upon 
 the subject of the departure by the " Hicksites" from the 
 fundamental religious 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 seces- 
 sion 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 discipline, 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 ori- 
 ginating, 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, 
 inasmuch as they would close the door against all redress. 
 
 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 it- 
 self, without responsibility 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 regular 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 
 
 5*
 
 42 
 
 it be subjection to the law and wholesome discipline of so- 
 ciety. But the pretensions set up on the other side, are of 
 an entirely different character. They pretend that any 
 preparative meeting with a bare majority, 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 detach 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 fixed 
 religious 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 crum- 
 ble into its original moleculse. 
 
 But we have clearly shown in this case, that the seeds 
 of discord, are not thus sown in the institutions of this so- 
 ciety. On the contrary, they have a s}'stem of law and 
 subordination, and a regular gradation of authority. This 
 is so stated in the answer of Hendrickson, and is proved 
 by his witnesses. They testify to a power in the higher 
 meetings to lay down the lower meetings. The accoun- 
 tability 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 im- 
 poi't. 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, completely analogous to the controlling and super- 
 intending power of the general synods of the Dutch Re- 
 formed Churches, and the general assembly of the Presby- 
 terian Church. 
 
 The opposite party further pretend that they are justi- 
 fied in the course they have taken, on account of the arbi- 
 trary conduct of the orthodox, upon the right of revolu-
 
 43 
 
 tion. Their grievances resemble in their opinion, those of 
 the patriots of our great revolution. They are the whigs 
 of Quakerism. This is a most extraordinary ground for 
 individuals to take, who live under a government of laws, 
 which is able and willing to protect them if they are ag- 
 grieved. 
 
 But these complaints- are unfounded in fact. None 
 existed until 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 doctrines of Amicus, doc- 
 trines which were put forth about the time that Ellas 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 pretended that they are to lie 
 idle, and not endeavour to arrest them ? The elders have 
 a special superintendence over their meetings. Will it be 
 pretended, that clothed as they are with this superintending 
 power, that standing upon the watch towers to give alarm, 
 when there is cause of alarm, they ought to connive at the 
 corruption of their churches by the promulgation of unsound 
 doctrines ? 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 
 inT It is the same in effect 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 en- 
 deavour to stem the current of these new doctrines. Hal- 
 liday Jackson himself admits the practice of appointing 
 such committees, when there is a serious departure in doc- 
 trine 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 shown that false doctrines were afloat, in regard 
 to Quakerism, upon points radical and fundamental, and if
 
 44 
 
 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 hun- 
 dred and twenty-seven. Their candidate for the clerkship 
 on that occasion was John Comly, a man who had been 
 busy for months before, holding private meetings, with the 
 express view of preparing the minds of all who were on 
 their side for a dissolution of the society. Among others, 
 Halliday Jackson is compelled to admit this, and his ex- 
 cuse for this conduct on the part of his friend, is founded 
 upon this right of revolution. With a candidate of such 
 pretensions and with such views they came forward, and 
 they certainly 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, 
 should endeavour still to resist its progress and prevent it 
 from overwhelming them. 
 
 It is proved by Samuel Bettle that the old clerk acts, 
 according to their established usage, until a new one is 
 appointed. No election in this case was made ; the meet- 
 ing could not agree in the choice of a clerk. The repre- 
 sentatives had deliberated upon the subject, and no agree- 
 ment 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 continuance 
 of the old one until a new clerk should be appointed. 
 
 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 gath- 
 ered by the clerk, of course a weighty and responsible of- 
 ficer; and in doing so, no doubt, he attaches importance 
 to numerical strength, but it is not the only, nor the prin- 
 cipal criterion. The history of Quakerism may be studied 
 in its details with advantage. This society has existed for
 
 45 
 
 ages, has transacted business of every kind, settled the 
 disputes and controversies of its own members, without 
 suffering them to resort 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 
 decision does not, says Barclay, rest with the few or the 
 many. Age, experience, intelligence, weight of religious 
 character, furnish considerations of importance in deter- 
 mining 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 religious 
 intelligence and experience, and a silent and harmonious 
 acquiescence is the result. What self-command, what dis- 
 cipline of the mind and heart, are required for the intro- 
 duction 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 of the most pro- 
 minent features in the "Hicksite" innovation, is the at- 
 tempt 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 regula- 
 tions 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 proceed- 
 ings 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 physical 
 power. In most of the institutions of society,' majorities 
 regulate their decision, because it furnishes a convenient 
 rule ; but this rule is often departed from, and would often
 
 46 
 
 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 proceed- 
 ing should be adapted to that object. Surely there is noth- 
 ing unjust in requiring 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 effects of this course of proceeding 
 have been experienced through a series of ages. 
 
 But the " Hicksite" party, true to their purpose of intro- 
 ducing novelties, resolved to carry their ends by introduc- 
 ing 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 introducing 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 meeting 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 wit- 
 nesses on both sides, reported, what ? That he could not 
 count the majority ? Nothing like it he did not dream of 
 ascertaining majority or minority. But he could not gather 
 the sense of the meeting. The spirit of innovation and 
 discord threw all into confusion. The " Hicksites" even- 
 tually abandoned this effort. They acted wisely in not 
 persisting 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 liberation of some slaves. This 
 acquiescence however secured tranquillity but for a short 
 time. It was like the calm which precedes 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 
 society, the " Hicksite" party held secret meetings of their 
 own apart, in which they were preparing the work of dis-
 
 organization, and at which Comly the assistant clerk At- 
 tended. 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 conviction 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 conven- 
 tion to be composed of " their members" 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. In June, eigh- 
 teen hundred and twenty-seven, that party held a conven- 
 tion which brought forth another address, but directed 
 specially to their own members. In this address they 
 speak of the blessed influence of gospel 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, according 
 to their notions of fundamental principles, a creed. And 
 they conclude this address with saying, " 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 and expediency of holding a yearly meeting 
 for friends in unity with us, residing within the limits of 
 those quarterly meetings heretofore presented in the yearly 
 meeting held in Philadelphia, for which purpose it is re- 
 commended that quarterly and monthly meetings which 
 may be prepared for such a measure, should appoint repre- 
 sentatives to meet in Philadelphia on the third second day 
 in tenth month next, at ten o'clock in the morning, in com- 
 pany with other members favourable to our views, there to 
 hold a yearly meeting of men and women friends," &c. 
 
 This passage in their address suggests several remarks 
 for your consideration. It will be borne in mind, that this 
 " Hicksite" party did not pretend to disown or exclude the 
 " Orthodox" from membership. They complain that the
 
 48 
 
 " 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, accord- 
 ing 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 re- 
 gularly adjourned to meet the ensuing year as the disci- 
 pline prescribes, and they did accordingly meet the ensu- 
 ing 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 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 meeting, 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 of phoenix rising 
 from the ashes. But the old phoenix remains alive. The 
 old yearly meeting continues in full operation. There are 
 two radical objections 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 conventions 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, ac- 
 cording 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
 
 49 
 
 be formed to supersede 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 originally 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 meet- 
 ing in London. But they bore in mind, notwithstanding, 
 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 coun- 
 try has been freed from its dependence upon the British 
 crown, an advisory correspondence has been kept up 
 with them by the yearly meetings of this country. What 
 analogy can a friend to order see between the proceed- 
 ings by which this yearly meeting was originally formed 
 at Burlington, and the proceedings which eventuated in the 
 creation of this " Hicksite" yearly meeting? If a party 
 may rise up in a church, hold private meetings, issue ad 
 dresses to their own p^arty, and thus form a party-conven- 
 tion 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 Burling- 
 ton quarter and the preparative meeting at Crosswicks. 
 The proceedings in the Burlington quarter are detailed by 
 Gummere, and in the meeting at Crosswicks by Craft and 
 Emlen. Jn both cases, individuals intruded themselves 
 6
 
 50 
 
 into the meetings, who did not belong 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 mem- 
 ber; whether he has never belonged, or whether he has 
 formerly belonged to their society, and been disowned. 
 Unwilling to use force, but disposed to act in the spirit of 
 peace, if any persons thus present should refuse to with- 
 draw, the meeting must either cease to transact their busi- 
 ness, or adjourn to some other place. The monthly meet- 
 ing at Crosswicks and the Burlington quarter took the lat- 
 ter 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 meet- 
 ings 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 conven- 
 tion by the " Hicksites" in the city of Philadelphia. The 
 " Orthodox" Burlington quarterly meeting, and their month- 
 ly and preparative meeting at Crosswicks, still continue 
 under the jurisdiction and control of the old yearly meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia. Thus David Clark was long before 
 the secession, and still is, the clerk of the "Orthodox" 
 monthly meeting at Crosswicks ; and Gummere, the clerk 
 of the Burlington 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 government of the church. It only remains to 
 consider the effect of this secession and abandonment, 
 upon the property in question in this cause. 
 
 1 have already said that these religious societies take 
 the equitable beneficial interest in property held by trus- 
 tees for their use and on their account, in their social ca- 
 pacity; and I have shown 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 momen-
 
 51 
 
 tous 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 in- 
 corporated. 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 techni- 
 cally termed quasi corporations. An individual having an 
 interest in property thus held, has not a vested interest 
 He is benefited 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 charita- 
 ble institution, and they actually divide and become com- 
 pletely separated, holding different doctrines, that party 
 must be considered as forming the true society, which ad- 
 heres to the original established doctrines of the society 
 The object of a religious society is religious worship. But 
 they worship their creator accord ing to certain 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 cor- 
 poration created for a special purpose. In such a case, 
 all its faculties and powers must be devoted to that pur- 
 pose. A departure in essential particulars, persevered in, 
 will be a cause of forfeiture of its right and privileges. 
 Thus an association formed for banking purposes, could 
 not appropriate their funds, to purposes essentially dif- 
 ferent. 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, without violating the plainest dictates of justice as 
 well as law, be perverted to the support of different doc- 
 trines and a different kind of worship. And when an un- 
 fortunate division arises, that party which clings to the 
 original faith of the society, or in other words, to the spe- 
 cial purpose for which it was originally organized, must, 
 in the nature of things, be considered the true society, 
 whenever the separation between them has become so 
 marked as to render the determination upon that puim 
 necessary. 
 
 When the difference arising between such parties ha*
 
 52 
 
 reference 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 society with them. 
 
 If a departure either in faith and doctrine, or in disci- 
 pline and church government, separately produce such 
 effects, the combined operation of the two, that is a depar- 
 ture both in faith and in government, must unquestionably 
 terminate in the like result. 
 
 The opinion entertained by the " Hicksite" party, that 
 a radical departure by a portion of the society from the 
 established faith and doctrine of the church, cannot be in- 
 quired into by a temporal tribunal, is so far from being 
 true, that on the contrary, such a departure is not only a 
 ground of forfeiture of their privileges and franchises in 
 the church, but it is a consideration of paramount import- 
 ance before the temporal tribunal. Thus if there are two 
 parlies, 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 show 
 that but little reliance 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 altogether unnecessary; and it 
 would 6e 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 with- 
 in the pale of their authority, and which are not in viola- 
 tion of the trust. But a majority have no power to break 
 up the original 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 be- 
 otowod. They could not turn a Baptist society into a 
 Presbyterian society, or a Quaker into an Episcopalian 
 society. They could not pervert an institution and its
 
 53 
 
 funds formed for trinitarian purposes to ariti-trinitarian 
 purposes. It might as well be pretended that they could 
 divert the funds devoted to the sustenance of aged and de- 
 crepid seamen to the use and benefit of a foundling hos- 
 pital. A corporation diverted from the purposes of its 
 institution will be regulated and brought back to its origi- 
 nal objects by a court of law, and a religious society pro- 
 tected 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 
 trust, familiar to every equity lawyer, as not to admit of 
 any dispute, nor do I 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 authorities for the purpose 
 of illustration. In the case of Baker and others against 
 Fales, 16 Mas. R. 488, it was decided, that when the ma- 
 jority of the members of a congregational church secede 
 from the parish, those who remain, though a minority, 
 constitute the church in such parish, and retain the pro- 
 perty 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 decla- 
 ration 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 
 extinction of the church, and it is competent for the mem- ' 
 bers 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 regu- 
 larly 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. 
 6*
 
 54 
 
 The case of the Attorney General against Pearson, re- 
 ported in 3 Merivale, was very fully discussed at the bar, 
 and maturely considered by Lord Eldon. A bill and infor- 
 mation 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 Unitarian. 
 The property was given upwards of a century preceding 
 in trust for preaching the gospel, but without designating 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 unani- 
 mous consent of the congregation, was appointed in his 
 place. The Lord Chancellor decided that this being a 
 trust for religious purposes a court of equity would exer- 
 cise 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 pur- 
 pose of the trust, and if established for trinitarian purposes, 
 to convert it to purposes anti-trinitarian. That the trus- 
 tees, though vested with the power of making orders from 
 time to time, cannot turn it into a meeting house of a dif- 
 ferent description, and for teaching different doctrines 
 from those established by the founder ; that he, as chan- 
 cellor, had nothing to do with religious doctrines except 
 to ascertain the purpose of the trust, that he was bound to 
 determine that question and not to permit that purpose to 
 be altered. 
 
 This case is too plain to require comment. That great 
 Chancellor 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 trust, under the fan- 
 tastic idea that such matters were too sacred or sublima- 
 ted for an English court of justice. Though it had been 
 used for years for Unitarian purposes, and the present in- 
 cumbent, an Unitarian preacher, was appointed unani- 
 mously, 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
 
 55 
 
 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 539, 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 doc- 
 trines of the church, and they 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 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 inquiry they could not find 
 that there was any material and intelligible distinction be- 
 tween them on the subject of doctrine, and that they differ- 
 ed, only, on some immaterial point in regard to the form 
 of an oath. The court then affirmed the decision below. 
 This case shows that either a secession from the govern- 
 ment of the church or a departure in doctrine, will amount 
 to an abandonment of right, but that the departure from 
 the religious doctrines of the church is of primary and 
 paramount importance. The case also shows, that in de- 
 termining the mere question of secession, the court looks 
 to the highest Ecclesiastical tribunal which exercises a 
 superintending control over the inferior judicatories, and 
 that their position must be regulated by the relationship 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 ihe Reformed Calvinist Church 
 of Canajoharie sued Diffendorf* for his subscription money 
 which he had promised to pay annually as long as the Rev. 
 
 * 20 Johns. R. 12.
 
 56 
 
 J. J. Warck remained their regular preacher. This cler- 
 gyman had been deposed by the Classis having the imme- 
 diate superintendence of that church, but on appeal to the 
 synod, the highest church judicatory, he was restored. 
 The court decided that the adjudication 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 Halstead's Reports, you had the rules and government 
 of the Reformed Dutch Church before you as Justices of 
 the Supreme Court, and it must be within your recollec- 
 tion that the synod of that church, has about the same gen- 
 eral control over the inferior tribunals of that church, as 
 is held by the yearly 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 or call of elders and 
 deacons must be referred to the Church Judicatory to 
 which the congregation is subordinate; that is, first to the 
 classis, next to the particular synod, and lastly to the gen- 
 eral 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 consis- 
 tory may be dissatisfied with the decision of the classis, 
 they cannot get clear of their decision by changing their 
 allegiance. And the Chief Justice, in delivering his opin- 
 ion, 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 
 positions I have advanced. The application of them to 
 the case is too plain to require much comment. If the 
 "Hicksite" party have abandoned the fundamental doc- 
 trines of the society of Friends, and we have shown that 
 they have; or if they have withdrawn from the yearly 
 meeting of Philadelphia, the' highest church judicatorv, 
 having a general superintending control, and if their pre- 
 parative meeting at Crosswicks is attached to their new 
 yearly meeting, and denies the jurisdiction of the ancient 
 yearly meeting, all which we have shown, they are not the 
 true society of Friends. In attempting to hold this proper- 
 ty they are violating the trust. It is the especial duty of 
 this Court to preserve the trust and to redress the injury.
 
 57 
 
 I must be allowed again to remark before I dismiss this 
 subject, 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 govern- 
 ment which existed when the dissension 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 importance, and highly interesting. It is now to- 
 be solemnly determined how far church property is pro- 
 tected. Whether the various churches spread over New 
 Jerseyi adhering to settled doctrines, and organized 
 under regular forms of law and discipline, are to 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 differ- 
 ent doctrines, put the church government at defiance by 
 denying its authority, and by forming in conventions com- 
 posed of their own party a new government, put the gov- 
 ernment 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 pre- 
 tence that such matters are too delicate and sacred for 
 temporal tribunals to discuss. Men have a right to change 
 their minds in religion 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 an- 
 cient and established churches of the land, and apply them 
 to their new purposes. You have now before you all the 
 evidence 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
 
 58 
 
 to make into the doctrines of this society, in the discharge 
 of my professional duty, I have been led to believe that 
 this difference of opinion never would have taken place if 
 the members of this society had been adequately instruct- 
 ed in their standard works. They have a catechism pre- 
 pared 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 catechism and 
 the other works of that author were well studied and di- 
 gested among the youth of this society, they would soon 
 lose their relish for the conceits of Elias Hicks. 
 
 GARRET WALL, Esq. counsel of Hendrickson and De- 
 cow, having replied to Mr. WOOD, the argument on be- 
 half of the plaintiff was continued by ISAAC H. WILLIAM- 
 SON, Esq. on the 10th and llth of January, 1832. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMSON commenced : 
 
 May it please the Court The unfortunate circum- 
 stances which have given rise to this cause, are deeply to 
 be lamented by every friend of religion, and to the pious 
 members of the society of Friends they must be truly dis- 
 tressing. 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 submitted to persecution, and above all, 
 for the union and harmony, the brotherly love and Christian 
 charity, by which they have proved to the world that they 
 richly deserved the title by which they have been desig- 
 nated, " The Society of Friends." They have fallen from 
 the high elevation on which they stood ; ihe torch of dis- 
 cord has been lighted up among them; the union whi^h 
 existed has been broken; instead of fellowship and har- 
 mony, we find now contention and strife. This is the 
 more to be lamented, as it has happened in a time of uni- 
 versal 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
 
 fid 
 
 lands to proclaim the message of redeeming love, and to 
 hold forth the doctrines of the religion of Jesus, disputes 
 and dissension have unhappily arisen at home. It is un- 
 fortunate for all ; there is an awful responsibility some- 
 where. 
 
 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 inquiry with extreme reluc- 
 tance. When I 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 ad- 
 verse counsel; many of them 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 be- 
 fore 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 reli- 
 gious society 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 consciences. 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 Jeru- 
 salem. 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 inqui- 
 sitorial power. But I shall contend that the court have a 
 right to inquire into the opinions and doctrines of the pro- 
 fessors 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 spiritual jurisdiction. The 
 question now before the court is a mere question of pro- 
 perty 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 belong- 
 ing to the society of Friends in Chesterfield, in this state.
 
 60 
 
 It was raised by subscription, by voluntary contributions 
 and donations from the quarterly and annual meetings of 
 which the preparative meeting of Chesterfield is a consti- 
 tuent part, and the object of the charity is expressly desig- 
 nated. 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 con- 
 sider it in its true character, as a question between these 
 two societies, and here 1 am somewhat at a loss how to 
 distinguish these parties. The world, that part of it I 
 mean which has heard of this controversy, has given them 
 distinctive appellations, the one " Orthodox," the other 
 " Hicksite." We are not dissatisfied with the name given 
 to us. Ever since the fourth century, when the contro- 
 versy arose between the arians and the trinitarians, those 
 who adhered to what are termed trinitarian doctrines 
 have been called " Orthodox." They are now styled 
 " Orthodox" to distinguish them from arians and all modern 
 Unitarians, by whatever 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 1 distinguish the opposite party, for 
 they disown the name of " Hicksites ?" Shall I call them 
 disorganizes ? They deserve the name, for they have in- 
 troduced into a peaceful society, all this discord. Shall I 
 call them Unitarians ? They will neither confess nor deny, 
 they refuse to inform us whether they believe or disbelieve 
 the doctrines 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? They are such, for they have usurp- 
 ed our rights and our name. I cannot 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 sepa- 
 rated 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 be-
 
 61 
 
 longed, and for whose . use the charity was originally de- 
 signed : 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 re- 
 ligious doctrines, that they have changed their religious 
 opinions, and do not adhere to the doctrines of the society 
 of Friends. They follow a new leader who holds out new 
 lights, and they have deserted 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, I 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 inquiry 
 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 jurisdiction over men's reli- 
 gious opinions, yet if an inquiry into those opinions becomes 
 necessary in the investigation of a question before the 
 court to settle a claim of property, it will go into that in- 
 quiry. 
 
 It has no criminal jurisdiction, it cannot inflict punish- 
 ment, 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 inflicting punishment, but for the 
 purpose of settling rights. Again, the court have no juris- 
 diction over corporations, they cannot remove an officer 
 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 pur- 
 pose of ascertaining the right of property to which the re- 
 spective parties advance their claims. So in the present 
 case, if the right of property depends upon religious opi- 
 nions, the court must go into the inquiry as to those 
 7
 
 62 
 
 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 concern- 
 ing 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 property." 
 
 Here the true distinction is taken, the court go into 
 questions 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 ques- 
 tion comes before the court in the execution of a trust, 
 whether 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 so- 
 ciety, it must then be, ex necesitate, for the court to inquire, 
 what was the religion and worship of the society from 
 which he 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 "for the service and worship of God." This 
 church had gone into the hands of a part of the congrega- 
 tion 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 trinitarian doctrines, in 
 order to obtain the possession of the property from those 
 who held it for the purpose of preaching Unitarian doc- 
 trines. The court went into the inquiry 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 inju- 
 rious to every religious congregation. If 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 in- 
 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 creation 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.
 
 63 
 
 I entertain" therefore, no doubt, but that the court will pro- 
 tect 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 con- 
 fession of faith, by which their opinions can be tested. I 
 shall not now stop to inquire 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 inquiry 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 repeatedly published it, and that it is easier to 
 ascertain the opinions of Friends, than of any other reli- 
 gious society in the country. But even supposing the con- 
 trary, will the court refuse to go into this inquiry on 
 account of its difficulty? 
 
 I will refer the court to a case of much greater dif- 
 ficulty ; the case to which I allude is in 3 Dessausure, 557, 
 where the court was not deterred from going into the ne- 
 cessary inquiry by the difficulty of it. That was a con- 
 troversy 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 
 obtained 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 tes- 
 timony, the witnesses upon one side swearing that in their 
 opinion the test oath was a departure from the fundamen- 
 tal 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 dif- 
 ficulty ? No. They went into the inquiry 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 eulogized. That judge certainly stands high, and 
 his opinion is entitled to great respect. But the opinion 
 produced is a charge to^a jury, delivered in the haste of a 
 trial, and without an opportunity for full and calm exami*
 
 G4 
 
 nation, and therefore not entitled to the weight of a deli- 
 berate opinion. That, moreover, was a trial at law, and 
 the court over-ruled evidence of religious opinions, upon 
 what ground I do not know, except that the inquiry 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 to charge the jury that in the absence of all 
 other considerations, the majority must govern. This 
 lion being at law, cannot be held to govern in the pre- 
 sent case. A majority can have no more right to divert a 
 trust fund from the object for which it was originally in- 
 tended, than a minority. 
 
 But what is the consequence if the court cannot go into 
 this inquiry in the case of a schism in a society of Friends? 
 Is the society of Friends to be an exception to all other 
 societies, because 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 protected, and yet the property 
 given in trust to the society of Friends not be protected ? 
 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 so- 
 ciety of Friends a peculiar people, to settle their differ- 
 ences 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 doctrine ; this society 
 would not in 'any event resort to physical force, but the 
 necessary result would be, that if a part of a religious 
 meeting attached to a general or yearly meeting, saw fit 
 to change their religious principles, no matter to what, or 
 how adverse 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 soci- 
 ety of Friends, might be converted to build a Roman 
 catholic 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 great exertions to 
 arrive at the truth.
 
 65 
 
 And here I think the opposite counsel who first address- 
 ed the court, took a false position. He contended, that it 
 was incumbent 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 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 interplead- 
 er, 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 au- 
 thority ? 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 trinita- 
 rians ; show that they are Unitarians, We are Unitarians 
 also ; prove them to be Jews, and, We will be Jews too. 
 This is a very convenient way of answering, but it will 
 not effect the purpose for which it is adopted. The bill of 
 interpleader, and the answers of Decow and Hendrickson, 
 put in issue the original doctrines of the society, and per- 
 mit both parties 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 respect- 
 ing them, alleging merely-jhat 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 refusal to answer furnishes a 
 strong presumption against them. If they reallv hold the 
 
 7*
 
 66 
 
 doctrines of the early Friends, as they allege, why should 
 they refuse to answer? 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 an avowal of them ? Jf they are not, why decline 
 to state candidly what principles they do hold 1 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 off the mask, if they choose to 
 wear it. We will make out our case in the clearest man- 
 ner possible, and rely upon the presumption of law against 
 them, if they refuse to disclose in their answer their prin- 
 ciples, or to prove them. 
 
 But the gentlemen have suggested another ground of ob- 
 jection, with the hope, as I apprehend, of escaping out of 
 the hands of this honourable court. It is this, that inas- 
 much as they have refused to answer, in reference to their 
 doctrines, and have omitted 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 
 Dpinions of the party can be tested. It ought to be refer- 
 red, say they, to a master to ascertain, or to a jury to set- 
 tle, 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 party 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 
 rie 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 opportunity 
 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 obtained 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 de- 
 cide 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 plead-
 
 67 
 
 ings sent up, it did not appear upon what ground the deci- 
 sion 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 deliver- 
 ed its opinion. There was no 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 Me- 
 rivale, 412, which the gentleman also cited, the court re- 
 ferred it to a master to ascertain the religious opinions of 
 the congregation; but it was done by consent of parties; 
 the question then came before the Lord Chancellor upon 
 bill and answer, and upon a motion to dissolve the injunc- 
 tion 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 oc- 
 cur, referred it by consent of parties to a master, to as- 
 certain what were the religious opinions of the congrega- 
 tion at the time of building the church. There could have 
 been, in the then stage of the cause, no such reference 
 without 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 honours, 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 no- 
 tice 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 pro- 
 perty, according to the numbers 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 per- 
 mit it to be diverted from the object for which it was in- 
 tended, 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
 
 68 
 
 suffer it to be so divided. The adverse 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. 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 offer to divide, when the pro- 
 perty is of a nature 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? If another division of the society 
 takes place, there must be another division of the property, 
 and another, and another. Will the court sanction a prin- 
 ciple involving such consequences as these? Never: it will 
 look to the object of the trust, and see that it is strictly ap- 
 plied 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 con- 
 sequence of their own intermeddling, in that in which they 
 had no right to interfere. The original bill was filed by 
 Hendrickson against Shotwell to compel him to pay the 
 money secured by the mortgage; Decow, who represents 
 the "Hicksite" party then interferes, and tells Shotwell that 
 Hendrickson is removed from his office, as treasurer to the 
 fund, that he (Dec.ovv) is the person entitled to the money, 
 and gives him formal notice that it must 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 voluntarily thrust themselves before it ? 
 If there be any thing in the charge it must rest upon them. 
 Have we committed any breach of our principles? No, 
 we have not. At the time of filing Hendrickson's bill, Shot- 
 well was not a member of either meeting, nor had he been
 
 69 
 
 for a long time previous. There was then nothing impro- 
 per in the commencement of this suit by Hendrickson 
 against Shotwell, 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, I conceive, have nothing 
 to do with the real subject of this controversy? I shall now 
 endeavour to maintain two general propositions. 
 
 First, That the " Hicksite" party have separated them- 
 selves from the preparative meeting of Friends of Chester- 
 field, 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 positions, I hope 
 at the same time, to prove that the "Orthodox" party are 
 the true preparative meeting of Chesterfield, and adhere to 
 the doctrines of primitive Frinds. 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 seced- 
 ers: they have separated themselves from the head 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 preparative 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? 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 religious body, as a united whole. To use the lan- 
 guage of one of the witnesses, they were a unit. It is true 
 they were divided into several communities, and at the head
 
 70 
 
 of these several communities, are the yearly meetings. 
 These yearly meetings were to a certain extent, indepen- 
 dent of each other, but still they always looked upon each 
 other as brethren, and united in harmony. A correspon- 
 dence was constantly maintained between them, and they 
 were ever ready to assist each other when occasion re- 
 quired it. The yearly meeting at Philadelphia was that to 
 which the Chesterfield preparative meeting was attached. 
 The discipline of this yearly meeting describes the connex- 
 ion and subordination of its constituent meetings in these 
 words : 
 
 " The connexion and subordination 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 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 meet- 
 ing. 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 trans- 
 pired since. As the division begun in the head, and sub- 
 sequently took place in the branches, and as the branches 
 have attached themselves 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 autho- 
 rity, and formed a new supreme head, are seceders, are 
 separatists, then all those in the subordinate branches who 
 have attached themselves to those seceder?, and to that 
 new head, are seceders also ; seceders from their head, 
 and seceders from their original principles. The " Hick- 
 : tes" say, that they are the original yearly meeting rear-
 
 71 
 
 ganized and continued. We deny it ; we say that they 
 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 to the original principles of Quakerism, they sustain 
 their case ; but if we prove that they are not a continu- 
 ance of it, but have abjured it, and absolved themselves 
 from its authority, 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 de- 
 pend 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 pre- 
 tence, to being a reorganization and continuance of it. 
 The gentleman on the opposite side, put the question this 
 morning on this ground, and here lam ready to meet him. 
 He contended that the original meeting was put an end to, 
 and that their new yearly meeting was merely a reorgan- 
 ization 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 doc- 
 trines 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 re- 
 gularly 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 effect 
 its existence. This leads me to inquire, 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 dissatisfac- 
 tion and discord among the members, and even before 
 that yearly meeting of 1827 assembled, a separation was
 
 72 
 
 contemplated by the party who afterwards withdrew, un- 
 less they could obtain the ascendency. They meant to 
 obtain that ascendency if they could, but if they failed in 
 effecting that purpose, then they were determined to sepa- 
 rate. This clearly appears from the evidence of Halliday 
 Jackson, one of their own witnesses. Previous to the ses- 
 sion of that yearly meeting, John Comly, who was the 
 arch mover of all this business of separation, under pre- 
 tence 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 disorgani- 
 zers appears to have been, the meeting for sufferings, and 
 the meetings of ministers and elders, and from the testi- 
 mony 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. I 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 doc- 
 trines of Elias Hicks. The discontents arising from this 
 cause had determined his adherents to make a great strug- 
 gle in 1827, and one part of their plan, it seems, was to 
 increase the number of representatives to the yearly meet- 
 ing from certain quarters. The "Hicksite" party had a 
 decided majority in Bucks, Abington, and the Southern 
 quarters. Jn Bucks and Abington, they accordingly 
 doubled their representation, and in the southern, they 
 increased it from ten to fifteen. The other party made 
 no preparation 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 representatives. At the close of the 
 first setting, the representatives convened for the purpose 
 of making a nomination. Two persons were put on nomi- 
 nation, 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 ex- 
 cepted John Comly. Previous to the yearly meeting, he 
 had been round the country caucussing. This was called
 
 73 
 
 by him and the party, " holding conferences," but by what- 
 ever name it is called, the object of it was to prepare the 
 minds of his friends for the struggle, and for the approach- 
 ing 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 majo- 
 rity was. The clamour made there cannot settle this 
 question, and there was no other test to which it was 
 brought. As no decision could be effected by the repre- 
 sentatives, what was to be done? Was the yearly meet- 
 ing to stop, or was some other course to be adopted ? 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 nomina- 
 tion. 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 
 representatives. The question then necessarily came ber 
 fore 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 representatives were not likely 
 to harmonise and agree upon the clerk, an elderly mem- 
 ber of the meeting, observed, that he had been accustom- 
 ed to the business for many years, and that it had always 
 been the practice, that unlil 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; Joseph Whitall, vol. I. p. 217; and 
 Thomas Evans, vol. 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 his place 
 at the table as assistant clerk. He showed some hesita- 
 8
 
 74 
 
 tion at first, but when the appointment of Bettle was ac- 
 quiesced 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 con- 
 tended, that this appointment of clerk was such an act of 
 domination as dissolved the meeting, when they them- 
 selves acquiesced in it, and continued their attendance 
 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 insid- 
 ious attempt to dissolve the meeting: it was proposed to 
 adjourn, not until next year, nor to any given time, but in- 
 definitely. There can be no doubt that this was a precon- 
 certed 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 
 meeting however refused to adjourn ; many of the 
 "Hicksites" themselves 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 circum- 
 stances 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 them- 
 selves acquiesced in its proceedings, and remained during 
 the whole meeting, 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 pretence to a re- 
 organization. But after acquiescing in the appointment 
 of clerk, refusing to adjourn indefinitely, continuing their 
 attendance at the meeting, from sitting to sitting, and par- 
 ticipating in the transaction of its business, until its regu- 
 lar adjournment to the succeeding year, this pretence is 
 certainly most extraordinary and futile. Who can believe 
 that if Comly, who planned that struggle, had believed
 
 75 
 
 the meeting to be dissolved, he would have remained there 
 during the whole meeting, and continued to act as the as- 
 sistant clerk ! 
 
 We have heard a vast deal about the democratic prin- 
 ciple of the majority governing in all religious meetings, 
 and in this yearly meeting as well as others. The gentle- 
 man 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-al- 
 ways acted upon the principle of majorities, and that this 
 is the true principle, for them to act on. But will the gen- 
 tleman pretend that it has ever been the practice of the so- 
 ciety to elect its officers by ballot; or that there was ever 
 such a thing known in any of its meetings as a count of 
 members or a vote taken'? Such a thing is not pretended 
 even by the witnesses on their own side ; nor can an in- 
 stance of it be produced from the whole history of the 
 society. 
 
 The clerk, it is admitted by all parties, is a very impor- 
 tant officer in the yearly meeting, and in all their inferior 
 meetings. He must be a man of decision of character, 
 of respectability, of piety, and one in whom the meetings 
 have confidence. Samuel Bottle had been clerk of the 
 yearly meeting for many years, had served it acceptably, 
 and continued to do so until this unfortunate 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 ac- 
 cording to the rules of the society? The society do not 
 go upon the ground that every man coming into a meet- 
 ing 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 acted upon this princi- 
 ple. The clerk in obtaining the sense of the meeting, 
 takes into consideration the age, experience, respectabil- 
 ity 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 opin- 
 ions of men young and thoughtless ; men without any re- 
 ligious character or standing. When the clerk has taken 
 what he believes to be the sense of the meeting, if the
 
 76 
 
 meeting does not acquiesce therein, then is the time for 
 complaint, and not afterwards. But in the case before us, 
 the meeting did acquiesce in the appointment of Mr. Bet- 
 tie as clerk, and did proceed to transact the regular busi- 
 ness 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 dis- 
 contented, if such there were, had their remedy. They 
 might have withdrawn immediately, and set up for them- 
 selves. 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 with- 
 draw, and that a part of the meeting were determined to 
 secede from their former connexion, "and attach them- 
 selves 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 allegation that 
 their meeting is a reorganization and continuance of the 
 regular, established yearly meeting of Friends in Phila- 
 delphia. But having acquiesced in the -appointment of the 
 clerk, having remained there and taken part in the pro- 
 ceedings of the yearly meeting, until its close, they can- 
 not now object to that appointment, nor contend that it 
 dissolved the yearly meeting. 
 
 There can be no doubt that every community, a re- 
 ligious community as well as any other, may adopt its 
 own rules for determining questions that come before it. 
 Is the democratic principle that a majority prevails, so 
 strong and powerful that a religious body can adopt no 
 other? Cannot Friends lake 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 adopted another mode
 
 77 
 
 of settling questions, and it is not for this court, or any 
 other, to change it for them. It is in vain therefore to 
 talk about majorities, or to inquire on which side was the 
 greater number of speakers. All the witnesses on both 
 sides admit, that this never was the practice of the soci- 
 ety, 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 nominated to the 
 meeting for clerk : Comly was not even put on nomina- 
 tion there. 
 
 Where is the evidence, I would ask, of their having the 
 majority 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 wit- 
 nesses 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 favour. 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 re- 
 turned into the yearly meeting, it is not pretended that 
 they had a majority for Comly, for he was not even nom- 
 inated there. There cannot therefore remain a questioa 
 as to the regularity of Bettle's appointment. 
 
 But will the court go into the inquiry whether he was 
 duly appointed or not? It is not revelant to this cause. 
 He was clerk de facto. Will the court inquire whether he 
 was clerk de jure? He was elected ; will the court under- 
 take to say he was not duly elected ? He was the acting 
 clerk. Will the court undertake to say whether his ap- 
 pointment was proper? I think not. The court will take 
 the facts as they find them, and finding Samuel Bettle 
 clerk de facto, it is sufficient for their purpose. 
 
 The point we insist upon is, that even admitting the ob- 
 jections of the opposite counsel in their utmost latitude, 
 there was not that irregularity in the appointment of clerk, 
 or in the proceedings 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, will they undertake to 
 say that that irregularity dissolved the meeting? That 
 
 a*
 
 78 
 
 could not be said without going contrary to the sense of 
 every man who took part in the deliberations of that as- 
 sembly. 
 
 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 doc- 
 trines of Elias Hicks, and they were disposed of by gene- 
 ral, 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 was a conclusion come to by universal consent, the meet- 
 ing therefore could not have been dissolved by that cause. 
 The meeting had an undoubted right either to act upon 
 them, or to defer acting on them. Even if their proceed- 
 ings 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 ac- 
 count 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) morning, 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 circum- 
 stances 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 discontent- 
 ed party. But after it had been some time under discus- 
 sion, all opposition was finally withdrawn, and it passed 
 with great unanimity. These then are all the acts com- 
 plained of at that yearly meeting; and now ! would in- 
 quire, whether, upon their own ground, there is a single 
 act alleged which could extinguish and destroy that origi- 
 nal 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 which 
 never originaied with themselves. I will refer the court for 
 a history of the separation to the evidence of Halliday
 
 70 
 
 Jackson. 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 party, would be 
 intentionally 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 separation. It further 
 appears that upon fourth day evening, of the yearly meet- 
 ing week, a junto of about twenty got together in a private 
 house, and there concluded to dissolve their connexion with 
 the original yearly meeting. The separation was then 
 agreed upon, and a plan contrived for carrying it into ef- 
 fect.* A committee was appointed from among themselves 
 to draft an address, and they then adjourned to fifth day 
 evening, at the Green street meeting house. On Thursday 
 (fifth day) evening, as many as two or three hundred at- 
 tended 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 attending 
 its sittings, and yet they now aver that this going off 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 adjournment'? No 
 idea was thrown out, or entertained, that the meeting was 
 to be reorganized, but simply that they were preparing 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 was again read, ap- 
 proved of, and adopted; they then separated. This ad- 
 dress was their manifesto in which they declared the cause 
 of their separation, and of which I shall speak hereafter. 
 In consequence of this address, a meeting took place in the 
 sixth month following, at which they agreed upon and is-
 
 80 
 
 sued what they call an epistle, but which may, I think, pro- 
 perly be denominated their declaration of independence. 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 purpose, 
 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 continue to be a yearly meeting, as much so, as if this 
 cabal had never got together? It is not my intention to oc- 
 cupy much of the time of the court in reading, but this is 
 a document of considerable 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 f 01- Friends in UNITY WITH us, resid- 
 ing within the limits of those quarterly meetings, heretofore 
 represented, in the yearly meeting held in Philadelphia, for 
 which purpose it is recommended, that quarterly and month- 
 ly meetings which maybe prepared 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 con- 
 tinuing the yearly meeting ; but the invitation given is sim- 
 ply to hold a yearly meeting. And to whom is this invita- 
 tion addressed ? If this meeting was designed as a continu- 
 ance 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 idea then 
 been entertained, they would have invited all the members. 
 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
 
 81 
 
 original yearly meeting of Philadelphia, and only for the 
 purpose of reorganizing it, when their own epistle express- 
 ly 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? 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, any- 
 thing else than that they meant to secede and set up for 
 themselves, to declare independence of the original meet- 
 ing? Mr. Lower, and Mr. Halliday Jackson, both their 
 own witnesses, place it upon the true ground. They call 
 it, in their evidence, a revolution, 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 addresses to in- 
 clude 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 year- 
 ly meeting. The witnesses all agree that according to the 
 rules of the society, monthly meetings cannot send repre- 
 sentatives to the yearly meeting. The members in their 
 individual capacity, may attend if they please, but repre- 
 sentatives 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 dif- 
 ferent from the old one. How do they justify this meas- 
 ure ? Do they show any 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 authoriz- 
 ing such a proceeding? No such thing is to be found in 
 it. We have heard much about majorities, and of their
 
 82 
 
 power; but if a majority in a meeting may destroy it, may 
 take away rights which are vested in its members, this is 
 certainlv giving the question of majorities a power and 
 importance which it never had before. 
 
 The "Hicksite" party thus have organized a new year- 
 ly meeting within the precincts of a regularly established 
 and existing yearly meeting, and contrary to the rules of 
 the society o'f 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 members 
 the persons who were to be included in the new yearly 
 meeting. They met then, not within the limits of another 
 yearly meeting, but where no yearly meeting had yet been 
 formed. Monthly meetings attached probably to no quar- 
 terly meetings; quarterly meetings, and friends in their 
 individual capacities, met and formed a new yearly meet- 
 ing. But even then, though there was no 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 meet- 
 ing originate from 1 Not 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 sep- 
 aration into effect. There is then nothing similar in the 
 two cases ; there is nothing to be found in the establish- 
 ment of the yearly meeting in 1681, which can justify the 
 course pursued by the "Hicksite" party in 1827. No, it 
 must come back to the ground upon which it w 7 as placed 
 by Mr. Lower, and Mr. Jackson. It was a revolution, a 
 secession, the establishment of a new meeting, and a new 
 society. They had a right thus to separate and to form 
 a society for themselves, they did so, and the consequences 
 of that act, they must submit to. 
 
 I now proceed to their first yearly meeting, held in 
 tenth monln 1827, in Green street meeting house. We 
 find from the testimony, that there were representatives 
 attended from five quarterly meetings out of eleven.
 
 83 
 
 There were eleven quarters attached to the yearly meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia, and of these only five sent representa- 
 tives to the new meeting. Six quarters were unrepresent- 
 ed 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 
 composed that meeting were representatives from five 
 quarterly meetings, two monthly meetings, and other indi- 
 viduals favouring their views. 1 would now ask the court, 
 whether this meeting, so constituted, can have any shadow 
 of claim to being a continuation of the old yearly meet- 
 ing? Is there any thing that looks like it, or that can bear 
 them out in their pretensions ? 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 meet- 
 ing. Vol. 1 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 1S27." His examination was not then closed, but 
 postponed to another day; meanwhile it seems he discov- 
 ered 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 passage 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 tes- 
 timony at its close on the evening before last, and state 
 that 1 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 question 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 con- 
 trast xvith 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 meeting of the 
 society of Friends. And I would therefore desire, that 
 my answer to that 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
 
 64 
 
 kind friend, had informed this witness during the interval 
 of his examination, that it was necessary to consider their 
 meeting as a continuance of the original meeting, that they 
 must not go upon the ground of its being a new meeting, 
 and therefore the witness undertakes to correct the mis- 
 take 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 year- 
 ly 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 subject? 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 yearly meet- 
 ing in London, which is the parent meeting, considers the 
 meeting in Arch street as the yearly meeting of Friends, 
 and holds regular correspondence with it as such. They 
 consider the Green street meeting as spurious, as not 
 being a part of the society of Friends, and refuse having 
 any intercourse with them. Here then we have the opi- 
 nion 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 acknowledges the old yearly meet- 
 ing, and disclaims all connexion with the new one. The 
 yearly meeting of Virginia does the same. It acknow- 
 ledges the yearly meeting in Arch street, as the regular 
 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 princi- 
 ples of Hicks as being repugnant to Quakerism, and de- 
 clared that the meetings set up by his adherents are not 
 meetings of the society of Friends. In all the yearly meet- 
 ings I have named there are no " Hicksites ;" they have 
 been spared the discord and division which the preaching 
 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
 
 85 
 
 society of Friends. Is not this the strongest evidence that 
 this new meeting of the " Hicksite" party is set up in vio- 
 lation 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 cor- 
 respond with it. In Ohio a similar schism has also taken 
 place, and a part recognise the meeting in Green street: the 
 other portions of these meetings however do not acknow- 
 ledge it. From an examination of other yearly meetings 
 where a division has occurred, it appears there are none 
 who recognise this new meeting except those who 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 Lon- 
 don does not correspond with the yearly meeting of Penn- 
 sylvania, 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 yearly meeting; 
 and I understand that the reason alleged is, that the meet- 
 ing 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 sup- 
 posed 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, 1 think, in a lame 
 way some time back, and I have reason to apprehend they 
 are not much better now, and we have no correspondence 
 with them. The Virginia yearly meeting which I think 
 the orthodox make a spread about, calling it the ancient 
 yearly meeting of Virginia,' from what information I have 
 of that ancient concern,! am satisfied that it is a very little 
 9
 
 86 
 
 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 mat- 
 ter, 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 meet- 
 ings 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 society of Friends, when that society 
 itself declares that it is not so? Will you recognise a meet- 
 ing which is acknowledged by no body of Friends in the 
 world, and by those persons only who are connected 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 quar- 
 terly, monthly, and preparative meetings, and united them- 
 selves to this new head, must be considered in the same 
 light, as having seceded from the great head to which they 
 were originally attached. 
 
 Wednesday morning, January Ilth, 10 A. M. My object 
 yesterday, was to prove that the separation of the "Hicks- 
 ite" party which took place in April, 1827, did not extin- 
 guish 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 transpired before that time 
 which could have destroyed or put an end to it. If nothing 
 occurred at or before that meeting to extinguish it, nothing 
 that has happened since could produce that result. The 
 subsequent circumstances which the gentlemen have so 
 much relied upon, are the effects of these difficulties in the 
 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 subjects of complaint on which they lay so
 
 87 
 
 much stress, grew out of that difference. In order to sa- 
 tisfy the court that there were prior difficulties or griev- 
 ances, and that their separation grew out of these, they go 
 back to the year 1819. Before, however, I take up their 
 different grounds of complaint, permit me to make one ob- 
 servation. Your honours will perceive from the testimony 
 of the witnesses on both sides, that these subjects of com- 
 plaint 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 gen- 
 tleman states to have occurred in 1819, is an alleged dis- 
 respect shown 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 Phila- 
 delphia, he left the men's meeting at Pine street, and went 
 into the women's meeting, and while he was there, an ad- 
 journment of the men's meeting took place. This, it is 
 said, was disrespectful to Elias Hicks, and that it is con- 
 trary to usage to adjourn the men's meeting while the wo- 
 men's meeting was sitting, or while a member of the men's 
 meeting 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; aground 
 on which to rest the justification of their secession from 
 .the society? Is it a circumstance which this court can 
 seriously regard? But it appears 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 same thing (see A. Lower's testimony, 
 vol. I. p. 410,); the monthly meeting therefore had the ex- 
 ample 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 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 become the founder of a new 
 sect; they therefore felt much uneasiness and concern re- 
 specting him.
 
 88 
 
 Another subject of complaint is, that at a subsequent 
 period when Elias Hicks was coming to Philadelphia on 
 a visit, some of the elders in that city thought it their duty 
 td.interfere respecting the doctrines which he promulgated. 
 He was coming there under the pretence of making a re- 
 ligious visit to the meetings and families of Friends. If 
 the elders really believed that he was unsound in his doc- 
 trines, that he was spreading errors through the society, 
 calculated to mislead its honest but uninformed 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? If there was any 
 body competent to judge of the doctrines of Elias Hicks ; 
 to form a correct opinion of the consequences likely to re- 
 sult from the course he was pursuing, the elders were that 
 body. Men selected for one of the highest and most re- 
 sponsible stations in the church, chosen for their piety, 
 their experience, and religious worth ; clothed with a pub- 
 lic character, and deputed to watch over the general in- 
 terests and welfare of the society, and over the preach- 
 ing 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 different 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 elders 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 admonition while there, as much so as any 
 other member. The elders of Philadelphia therefore, un- 
 dertook to interfere, as they had a right to do, and as they 
 were bound to do, on account of the doctrines which he 
 was known to promulgate in his public testimonies. 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
 
 89 
 
 contrary to the principles of Friends, and calculated to 
 produce a schism, they had no right to interfere. They 
 nave nothing, however, to sustain them in this assertion, 
 and the one is as proper and necessary as the other. 
 
 But, if the court please, I am willing to put it on an- 
 other footing. It was impossible to stop him in the pro- 
 mulgation 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 dangerous. The confidence 
 that was reposed in him, his standing, his popularity, and 
 his influence, made him a most dangerous man to incul- 
 cate 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 approved 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 twe-!ve persons in all 
 attended, and among the rest Lower, who is a " Hicksite," 
 and one of the principal men on that side. He was re- 
 quested to remain and consult what was best to be done, 
 and from his own statement he appears to have taken an 
 active part in the proceedings. The subject for considera- 
 tion 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 inquiry ? Were they not author- 
 ized, 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 determine what was best to be done under the 
 circumstances of the case. 
 
 It was well known that they could not stop him by ap- 
 plying to the meeting at Jerico. 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 then obliged to take other measures to prevent 
 the evils which must arise from the dissemination of his anti- 
 christian doctrines among them. If there is any thing in 
 the book of discipline which prevents the elders from in- 
 9*
 
 90 
 
 terfering with a member of another meeting, who is visit- 
 ing 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 wilh pernicious prin- 
 ciples, no one is to interfere with him, but the meeting 
 which sent him out for the very purpose of preaching 
 these doctrines, it is indeed a serious and dangerous state 
 of things. The society would be the prey of every ambi- 
 tious innovator, who had address enough to insinuate him- 
 self into the good graces of his own meeting. It appears 
 from 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 respecting 
 the nature of his doctrines, and to request of him an expla- 
 nation. This was all that was done ; the gentlemen ap- 
 pointed, 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 procure an interview with him. Two of their 
 number accordingly called on him, stated the charges of un- 
 sound doctrine, which were alleged against him, and desired 
 him to give the elders a select opportunity with him, agreea- 
 bly to the usages of the society. It seems that he eluded this 
 interview, he would give them no opportunity oT convers- 
 ing with him, except in a public manner. He said they had 
 no right to interfere in the business, denied their jurisdic- 
 tion, and all obligation to conform to any measures which 
 "they thought it necessary to adopt. They could obtain no 
 private conversation with him. They were willing to 
 have the interview in the presence of such persons as 
 might be 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 ad- 
 vance the cause of religious truth. They wished to con- 
 fer 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 private, 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 uneasiness and concern respecting his doctrines and
 
 91 
 
 ministry. He replied to this, and they wrote a second let- 
 ter 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 socie- 
 ty? There certainly was nothing. But will the court m- 
 quire into this matter; is it a subject of which they can 
 take cognizance? Is the court going to explain the dis- 
 cipline of the society for its members, or to put its own con- 
 struction as to what it does, or does not require, under 
 such circumstances 1 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 show 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 dis- 
 satisfaction, and discontent to their parly, 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 
 disciples, that dissatisfaction 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 complaint, the 
 whole source of difficulty, was Elias Hicks, and the doc- 
 trines he preached. These gentlemen, the elders, have 
 been much traduced, as being a faction, rich men, an aris- 
 tocracy, and as endeavouring to obtain power. These 
 are strange charges indeed against men of their habits, 
 and of their religious principles. 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 to found such 
 charges, or to impute to them improper motives? No, the 
 course they took was in obedience to their religious duty, 
 a~s guardians of the society, as overseers of the church, 
 on whom a serious and solemn responsibility was de- 
 volved by the discipline. They are charged with being 
 conspirators, but for what did they conspire ? To promote 
 the cause of truth and of the Christian religion. I wish 
 there were more conspirators of the same description. 
 Their motive was not only justifiable, but laudable, every
 
 92 
 
 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 groundless- 
 ly traduced by a party in the society, it is a most unjusti- 
 fiable and wanton course. 
 
 We then come to the Extracts which were prepared by 
 the meeting for sufferings, 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 principles. This has been held here to be 
 of so much importance, that the gentleman who first ad- 
 dressed 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. Now I think it will not require a William 
 Penn to shake this sandy foundation : the statement of a 
 single fact will sweep it away. These extracts were pre- 
 pared in 1822, in 1823 the subject came before the yearly 
 meeting, and the publication of them was suspended, they 
 were laid by, and we hear no more of them afterwards. 
 If this then was the ground of division, why did not the 
 separation take place in 1823, when they were before the 
 yearly meeting 1 They complain bitterly of this meeting 
 for sufferings, 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 ? At that 
 time the excitement had not gone to the length which 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 publishing them yielded their opinion and they 
 were laid by. Can any man believe that this circumstance, 
 (even giving it all the characteristics which the imagina-
 
 93 
 
 tion of the party has clothed it with,) occurring in the 
 year 1823, was the cause of the separation which took 
 place in the yearly meeting of 1827. If it was the cause, 
 why was it not the immediate cause. The act complained 
 of was done in 1823, why did they not then separate? 
 But they did not separate then, they met again the year 
 after, and the year after that, and transacted their busi- 
 ness 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 during each of the in- 
 tervening 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 terminated the existence of the yearly meet- 
 ing ; but if the society could and did meet as a yearly 
 meeting for years after, and regularly transact its busi- 
 ness, then that act did not dissolve the bonds of the soci- 
 ety, nor put an end to the existence of the yearly meet- 
 ing in 1827. 
 
 My object, if the court please, is to show that it was a 
 separation 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 af- 
 fect 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 witnesses 
 speak of it, as a separation, as the formation of a new 
 yearly meeting, of a new society ; they speak of the mea- 
 sures as measures designed to produce a separation. Their 
 publications 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 separat- 
 ists; 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
 
 94 
 
 sufferings, the great object of their hostility, wished to ren- 
 der itself a permanent body; that they attempted to inter- 
 fere with the quarters in the appointment of their repre- 
 sentatives in that meeting. That when one of the quarters 
 attempted to change its representatives, the meeting for 
 sufferings interfered and insisted that the existing repre- 
 sentatives must remain in office until removed by death, or 
 in some other mode prescribed by the discipline. Such is 
 their complaint. Now J would ask the court, whether it 
 will go into the inquiry, 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 meet- 
 ing for sufferings to have been mistaken in their views of 
 this subject, 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 quar- 
 ter, 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 mat- 
 ter; and what was the consequence? The quarterly meet- 
 ing 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 suggestion 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 dissolved, that it had no 
 existence, or that a separation did not take place between 
 Friends and the "Hicksites?" The gentleman 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 surmises. 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 con- 
 trary 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
 
 95 
 
 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 com- 
 plaint ; the yearly meeting was the proper place to correct 
 the evil, if any existed, and when it came there, they vo- 
 luntarily dismissed it. Your honours will find by examin- 
 ing 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. Two 
 of the elders of Philadelphia, had been chosen by the South- 
 ern quarter, to represent it in the meeting for sufferings, 
 and because they ventured to interfere respecting the doc- 
 trines preached by Hicks, the Southern quarter undertook 
 to remove them from their station. That quarterly meet- 
 ing is one of the strong holds of Hicksism, the party have 
 the majority there. When therefore these elders attempted 
 to interfere with E. 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 un- 
 dertake to settle the question between them ? 
 
 These then are all the acts complained of by the " Hicks- 
 ite" party previous to the year 1827, and I think it is evi- 
 dent there is no circumstance occurring before the session 
 of the yearly meeting which can possibly be considered as 
 putting an end to its existence. , What then is the charac- 
 ter of the new yearly meeting? Here are two yearly 
 meetings, one held in the Arch street meeting 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 in- 
 quiry, one on which the whole cause may turn, and I in- 
 sist that there cannot 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 
 fcy the whole society except those persons who have united
 
 96 
 
 in the schism and separation which has taken place. If 
 nothing was done previous to that yearly meeting, 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? This will lead me 
 to consider the division which has taken place in the sub- 
 ordinate branches of the yearly meeting, and to trace it 
 down to the preparative 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 dis- 
 tinct bodies of people, assuming different powers and con- 
 trol, 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 society 
 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 quarterly meeting took place. Per- 
 mit me to remark here, that the Burlington quarterly meet- 
 ing was not represented in the new yearly meeting of 
 tenth month, 1827. They had no representative 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 the new 
 yearly meeting was formed, only five out of eleven quar- 
 ters were represented in it, the majority therefore was not 
 represented. If they have increased so as to form a ma- 
 jority 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 majority, 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 diffi- 
 culties and disturbances occurred during the period within 
 which you have been clerk of Burlington quarterly meet- 
 ing, 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
 
 97 
 
 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 indivi- 
 duals attended, who, it was stated, had either been dis- 
 owned, or were under dealing in the respective month- 
 ly meetings of which they had been or were mem- 
 bers. 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 re- 
 quested to withdraw; they, however, refusing to do so, 
 and being supported in their intention of staying, 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 so- 
 ciety, to make an adjournment. It accordingly adjourn- 
 ed 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 meeting held at Bur- 
 lington, the latter part of the year 1827, or beginning of 
 1828, one or more individuals were present, circumstanced 
 as above mentioned'; these declining to withdraw although 
 repeatedly and affectionately asked to do so, the meeting 
 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 present at the time." Vfjl. 1, Ev. p. 316. 
 And again in p. 317, of the same volume, in answer to the 
 question, whether those members who thus advocated and 
 supported the individuals spoken of (as refusing to with- 
 draw) have or have not since that time separated them- 
 selves from the society of Friends, and gone off in the se- 
 cession; the witness says, "I believe they have generally 
 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) ac- 
 knowledges 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 day of fourth month an- 
 nually." 
 
 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 
 10
 
 98 
 
 time it was held, the new yearly meeting of the " Hicks- 
 ites" had been established, and it was now the moment 
 of separation in the different branches ; each parly 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 disoxvned, 
 or were under dealing by the society, and who conse- 
 quently had no right to be present. They were affection- 
 ately and repeatedly requested to withdraw. This they 
 refused to do, although it is an express rule of the soci- 
 ety, 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. 
 Now 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 motive or object of the withdrawal. If these gen- 
 tlemen 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 another 
 place. The court will perceive how differently they acted 
 from the " Hicksite" party in the yearly meeting. They 
 make no disturbance, but quietly withdraw for the pur- 
 pose of transacting their business in a regular manner; 
 not to form a new society or a new meeting, but to hold 
 the quarterly meeting of Burlington where they can 
 transact business according to the discipline and princi- 
 ples 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 year- 
 ly meeting. One of the witnesses states, that a committee 
 of the new yearly meeting attended at the quarter, and 
 when the meeting was adjourned, remained behind with 
 their party. The " Hicksite" party make no complaint of 
 any thing done by the " Orthodox" in Burlington quarter ; 
 they complain of no aristocracy, 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
 
 99 
 
 of the society, as well as its discipline. Tt is said, on the 
 other side, that we ought to have remained, that it is con- 
 trary 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 re- 
 mained ; the argument then would have been, that by re- 
 maining 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 pro- 
 priety transact business among those who were present, 
 they had better adjourn to another place where they could 
 proceed in that harmony and order which ought always 
 to prevail 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 of adjourning ; if 
 noise and clamour had prevented it; if the clerk had re- 
 fused 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 quar- 
 terly meeting of Burlington. It further appears from the 
 testimony of the witnesses, that the " Hicksite" party in 
 this quarterly meeting, have attached themselves to the 
 Green street yearly meeting as their head, and their sepa- 
 ration must therefore be taken to be of the same charac- 
 ter with that which took place in the yearly meeting of 
 1827. The " Orthodox" remain connected with, and sub- 
 ordinate to the Arch street yearly meeting, to which Bur- 
 lington 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 Etnlen, 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 wit- 
 ness we shall obtain all the important facts necessary for 
 a clear understanding of what then occurred. The wit- 
 ness says, vol. I. Ev. p. 324, " Difficulties and disturbances 
 have arisen within the monthly and preparative meetings 
 of Chesterfield, which have resulted in a secession or se- 
 paration of a number of persons there from the society of 
 Friends. I was present at Chesterfield monthly meeting
 
 100 
 
 in ninth month, 1827. The business on minute was gone 
 through without collision, so far as I have any remem- 
 brance. 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 stated 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 members 
 thereof attached to the monthly meeting held for the North- 
 ern District, and this fact I 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 per- 
 sons present assuming to question the fact, William New- 
 bold gave information that he was present at the quarter- 
 ly meeting of Philadelphia in the preceding 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 appoitment 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 manner, but a number of persons 
 staid behind in the house, and from what afterwards ap- 
 peared, I suppose undertook to act as a monthly meeting. 
 I was not present at the usual time of holding that meeting 
 the succeeding month, but understood, either the evening of 
 that day, or the next morning, that the business of the meet- 
 ing was not transacted, owing to interruption, and therefore 
 the meeting was adjourned to next day. I went to the ad- 
 journed meeting, which was held quietly and without op- 
 position, although a few of those who had taken part in 
 the opposition 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, al- 
 though 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 preceding month, 
 that a person \vho had taken part in the disorderly pro- 
 ceedings previously, on a minute being read naming Sa- 
 muel Bunting as agent of the monthly meeting at Chester- 
 field to the Asylum in his stead, (he having been released
 
 101 
 
 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 month- 
 ly meeting, had given for securing payment of the ex- 
 penses of a person placed in the Asylum by that monthly 
 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 per- 
 sons disposed to separate, or who had theretofore acted 
 disorderly, remained together. I should have observed 
 before, that the usual reports from the preparative meet- 
 ings 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 Borden- 
 town, were not produced. The person who acted as clerk 
 at Chesterfield preparative meeting, on their 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 fol- 
 lowing, being twelfth month, 1827, and the regular clerk 
 took his seat as before, as far as I recollect. I do not 
 now recollect any thing very particular as occurring at 
 that meeting. I believe the business went on quietly, 
 though I will not be very certain. I 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, coming 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 dis- 
 owned by the respective monthly meetings of which they 
 were or had been members, and they refusing to with- 
 draw, 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 business 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 
 10*
 
 102 
 
 monthly meeting, who are spoken of as remaining behind 
 in 9th and llth 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 ap- 
 point representatives to attend their " contemplated yearly 
 meeting," to be held in the month following. 
 
 The separation in the Chesterfield monthly meeting ap- 
 pears to have taken place, pretty much as the other had. 
 The " Hicksite" party complain of the " Orthodox," that 
 \vhen 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 represented that that 
 monthly meeting had been laid down by its quarterly 
 meeting. This has been represented as a most outrage- 
 ous 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 proposition for preparing the cer- 
 tificate was brought forward for the 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, be- 
 cause 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 continued 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 
 Cherry streets, and became a constituent member of it ; 
 \vhile the Chesterfield monthly meeting of Friends re- 
 mained a branch of the Burlington quarter to which it al- 
 ways belonged, and which is one of the quarters com- 
 posing the Arch street yearly meeting. The question 
 now is, which is the original meeting? This cannot de- 
 pend on the fact which party left the house. They say
 
 103 
 
 that we are the seceders because we withdrew, that be- 
 cause 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 sepa- 
 ratists, but when in the monthly meeting we are com- 
 pelled 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 MS 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 monthly meeting had been regularly closed, organized 
 themselves as a meeting of the new society, and sent re- 
 presentatives to " their contemplated 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 with those 
 who withdraw, or staying with those who remain; these 
 are not material : but it depends upon the motive and ob- 
 ject of the withdrawal. If they withdraw, or remain be- 
 hind to form a new meeting, this is what gives an import- 
 ant 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 attempted 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 con- 
 scientious discharge of his duty, according to the disci- 
 pline, 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 regularly closed, the " Hicks- 
 ite" 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 
 
 * See minute of monthly meeting of the "Hicksites" held 10th month 
 1827. Exhibit, L. 2.
 
 104 
 
 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 the twelfth month, 
 1827, a committee appointed at Burlington quarterly meet- 
 ing, and also a committee appointed in Chesterfield 
 monthly meeting to visit and assist their subordinate 
 meetings, both attended the preparative meeting held at 
 Bordentown at the usual time, where there were a con- 
 siderable number of persons who were members of Ches- 
 terfield preparative meeting present, comprising some of 
 the same characters that acted in the disorderly proceed- 
 ings 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 
 of closing our meetings for worship, or before any friend 
 had vocally 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 preparative meeting is usually 
 transacted. Those who were there in attendance as com- 
 mittees, 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 prepara- 
 tive meeting. It was then stated to the meeting that there 
 were two committees 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 min- 
 utes 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 busir/ess, 
 which they shortly went through and closed the meeting. 
 But before the meeting was closed, one or more of the
 
 105 
 
 committee in attendance remonstrated against these dis- 
 orderly proceedings. 
 
 " On the following day, these same committees, or 
 most of them- who were then present, attended Chester- 
 field preparative meeting, 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 per- 
 son 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 com- 
 mittee] had minutes of their appointment in these meet- 
 ings respectively, which the individual was ready to pre- 
 sent, if the person [clerk] was so acting. The meeting, 
 or those who appeared to assume to transact the business, 
 declined giving any direct answer to the inquiry. Some 
 individuals observed that they knew no such appointment 
 made in Burlington quarterly meeting. A friend, one of 
 the committee, then observed that owing to circumstances 
 that had transpired in the quarterly meeting in the pre- 
 ceding eleventh month, the quarterly meeting had been 
 under the necessity of adjourning its sitting to Burlington, 
 and in the adjourned sitting so held, in taking into consid- 
 eration the painful circumstances that the members 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 Jediah Middleton. It 
 was then suggested whether it was not giving counte- 
 nance to such disorders, to remain in the meeting house, 
 when the persons of this description were transacting 
 what they assumed to call the business of Chesterfield 
 preparative meeting. (I do not profess to give the words 
 verbatim, but the substance I do.) After several senti- 
 ments being expressed, it was concluded that it would be 
 more consistent with the due support of good order, to 
 retire to another place and transact the business of Ches- 
 terfield preparative meeting. This view of the subject 
 among men friends was communicated to the women's 
 meeting, with which they accorded, and the members,
 
 106 
 
 both men and women, of that preparative meeting, who 
 were disposed to adhere to and support the established 
 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 members- 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 pre- 
 parative meeting should be held, and it was concluded 
 either to hold it there, or that the subject should be intro- 
 duced into the monthly meeting for consideration, and 
 that it should be held at such place as the monthly meet- 
 ing should direct. But before we withdrew from the meet- 
 ing house, it was distinctly and explicitly stated that we 
 withdrew to avoid contention, and in order to transact 
 the business consistently, and that we considered that 
 those who had been accessary to our being under the ne- 
 cessity of thus withdrawing, were intruding on our rights, 
 and by so retiring from the house we did not thereby relin- 
 quish any rights that we were justly entitled to." vol. I. Ev. 
 pp. 338 340. Here then we have a full development of all 
 the circumstances which took place at the preparative 
 meeting of Chesterfield, 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 ad- 
 verse party to this character? Certainly not. Friends with- 
 drew from the house because they could not, consistently 
 with discipline, countenance the proceedings of those per- 
 sons 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 connex- 
 ion with the original monthly, quarterly and yearly meeting, 
 of which the Chesterfield preparative meeting was a con- 
 stituent branch at the time when the fund now in contro- 
 versy was created. They withdrew to maintain their sub- 
 ordination to these meetings, to which the discipline of the 
 society bound them to be subordinate. The " Hicksite" 
 party in that preparative meeting had determined to go 
 over the new society, and its new meetings, and were 
 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 al-
 
 107 
 
 ternative left, but to withdraw, and they accordingly did 
 so, stating, at the same time, that by so doing they relin- 
 quished 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 pre- 
 parative meeting in connexion with its proper yearly and 
 quarterly an-d 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 very 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 consistently with the rules of their disci- 
 pline. 
 
 Which then, I would ask, is the same preparative meet- 
 ing with that for whose use the fund was originally created ? 
 Is it the one which we represent, or is it the adverse party ? 
 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 change our character, or that they should as- 
 sume the rights or privileges which belong to us. They 
 make 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 
 connexion with the proper yearly meeting. All that they 
 can or do allege, is, that we would not remain in the meet- 
 ing 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.
 
 108 
 
 After the separation which took place from the society and 
 the establishment 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 connexion, no blame could 
 have attached to them, they would have retained all their 
 rights and privileges as members of the Chesterfield pre- 
 parative 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 
 members of that preparative meeting subordinate to the 
 monthly, quarterly, and yearly meeting, to which it be- 
 longed when the fund was created, then those rights cease. 
 We insist that by separating from their head, and absolv- 
 ing themselves from its authority, and taking a new one, 
 they have ceased to be members of the original prepara- 
 tive meeting of Chesterfield, and 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 for- 
 feited them, but that they have lost them, and for our pur- 
 pose 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 re- 
 newed. We do not ask the judgment of this court, to for- 
 feit 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 pre- 
 parative 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 preparative meeting? It is not necessary that 
 the same individuals or the same number of individuals 
 should remain, in order to constitute the same preparative
 
 109 
 
 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 re- 
 main, 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 gentle- 
 man's argument hold ? Suppose a majority of the meet- 
 ing 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. The whole mat- 
 ter depends on the question whether they continue mem- 
 bers of the same society, and attached to the same pre- 
 parative 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 mem- 
 bers 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 preparative meeting, we have failed 
 in making out our case and must submit. But we insist 
 that there cannot be a right in any majority, (even sup- 
 posing 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 exa- 
 mining the discipline of the society, and endeavouring to 
 elude the control which the superior has over the inferior 
 meeting. He mistook the ground upon which we intend- 
 ed to rely ; he supposed we meant to insist upon a for- 
 feiture, in consequence of the setting up and establishing, 
 11
 
 110 
 
 by others, a new yearly meeting. . Not so. We set up 
 against them their own 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 authority ; yet I do not mean to contend 
 that the superior meeting has original and absolute con- 
 trol over the property of the inferior. 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 question. 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 de- 
 pend upon the power of superior over inferior meetings ; 
 it depends upon the acts of the respective parties, and when 
 they cease to be members of the original society, their 
 rights to its property cease, whether this inferiority exists 
 or not. 
 
 The gentleman has extolled the beauty of the Quaker 
 discipline, 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 ad- 
 mire 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 in- 
 ferior ; his first position was that they had no control, but 
 to give advice. But he presently grows bolder, and says, 
 they cannot even give advice, unless their advice is previ- 
 ously asked. He tells your honours, that a monthly meet- 
 ing cannot advise a preparative meeting, unless the latter 
 choose to ask that advice. They may see them depart- 
 ing from the discipline, from the principles of the society, 
 or doing wrong in any other way, yet they cannot inter- 
 fere 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 1 Does it re- 
 cognize this independence and irresponsibility in the infe- 
 rior meetings? Far otherwise; the paragraph which I 
 cited yesterday, speaks a language directly the reverse. 
 It says in express terms, " The connexion and subordina- 
 tion of our meetings for discipline are thus: preparative 
 meetings are accountable to the monthly ; monthly to the
 
 Ill 
 
 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 meet- 
 ings, 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." 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 prac- 
 tice of the society; do they not constantly appoint com- 
 mittees to advise and assist the inferior meetings? Has 
 not this been the custom from the earliest periods of its ex- 
 istence 1 Fortunately for them, the counsel has discovered 
 their error on this point. It is time they should leave every 
 meeting 'to its own control and pleasure; and if the infe- 
 rior meetings never choose to ask advice, the superior 
 must not attempt to give it ; they are free from all con- 
 trol. 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, were 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 ? Did the infe- 
 rior meetings say, ' When we ask the advice of the year- 
 ly 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 committee, such 
 an objection was never once advanced. They were op- 
 posed 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 meeting to which they were 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 system 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
 
 112 
 
 union, no responsibility, no subordination in its provisions; 
 when the gentleman tells me, that the superior meetings 
 have no authority 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 exer- 
 cise 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. II. p. 142) 
 tells us, that since their separation, in 1827, the " Hicksile" 
 yearly meeting has already appointed three such commit- 
 tees, and I presume they will continue to do so, whenever 
 they think it expedient, without consulting the inferior 
 meetings. 
 
 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 re- 
 stored to us. It is idle to say, that as we have taken pos- 
 session 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 spe- 
 cies of injustice. The question before the court is one of 
 right, and not of possession. 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 " Hicks- 
 ite party say, that they have trustees, and that these trus- 
 tees have appointed their treasurer; that these officers 
 have been regularly 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 
 meeting which appointed them, and if that meeting has 
 no right to control the fund, its officers can have none. 
 We also have trustees, 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;
 
 113 
 
 that they apply the fund to the purpose for which it was 
 created. Supposing this to be the fact, will it not be pro- 
 perly applied, if they have to give it up 1 We wish to ob- 
 tain 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 meet- 
 ing recognized in the trust then is their title good; if 
 they are not, they have neither right nor title to this pro- 
 perty. 
 
 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 trus- 
 tee live in Philadelphia, 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 meet- 
 ing 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 faithfully 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 de- 
 ficiency which may have occurred in my examination of 
 this subject. I think I have now made out my first propo- 
 sition, viz. that a separation of the " Hicksite" 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, entirely un- 
 connected with the other. This being the case, the quar- 
 terly, monthly and preparative meetings, connected with 
 and composing it, must be of the same character, must 
 be separatists, and subject to all the legal consequences of 
 that character. 
 
 I shall next contend that this schism which has takea 
 11*
 
 114 
 
 place, has been produced by a difference of opinion on re- 
 ligious doctrines. Of the facts of the separation and the 
 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. We contend that it originated in a difference 
 of religious doctrines, they say that it arose from viola- 
 tions of the discipline. Let us then proceed to the in- 
 vestigation, 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 pre- 
 ceded 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 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 evidence upon this point, which must carry con- 
 viction to every mind. If credit is due to human testi- 
 mony, to written documents, to solemn declarations of 
 faith, officially made, to the proceedings of the yearly 
 meeting, or to years of experience in religious society, 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 document proceeding from the par- 
 ty themselves, of a character w r hich must place them in 
 an unenviable predicament. Fortunately 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 separation. 
 When that party thought fit to separate from the society 
 in the Philadelphia yearly meeting, " to make a quiet re- 
 treat," in a moment of honest feeling and candour, with- 
 out knowing the legal consequences of the act, they 
 thought proper, in order to justify their conduct to the 
 W 7 orld, and especially to the members of their own socie- 
 ty, to prepare and publish an address showing 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 import- 
 ant step of withdrawing from the society with which 
 they had been connected. It is their manifesto, and they 
 must stand by it; they are solemnly bound by the de- 
 clarations it contains. It is not a hasty or sudden, but 
 a deliberate and sober act; it is not the act of one indi- 
 vidual, 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 
 I 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 pre- 
 sent condition of this yearly meeting, and its different 
 branches, and by evidence on every hand we are con- 
 strained to declare that the unity of this body is interrupt- 
 ed; that a division exists among us, developing in its pro- 
 gress, views which appear incompatible with each other, 
 and feelings averse to a reconciliation. 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 comforts and enjoyments even of social intercourse 
 greatly diminished. Measures have been pursued which 
 we deem oppressive, and in their nature and tendency cal- 
 culated to undermine and destroy those benefits, to estab- 
 lish and perpetuate which, should be the purpose of every 
 religious association." Here is language too plain and ex- 
 plicit to be misunderstood or evaded. It is a clear and 
 positive declaration that doctrines formed the original 
 ground of the separation. Whatever subsequent difficul- 
 ties 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 existed in reference to religious d6ctrines. Doc- 
 trines which one part considered sound and edifying, are 
 considered by the other to be unsound and spurious ; and 
 from this cause, all the difficulties took their rise. Can 
 there be a doubt then, that there was a division, a schism,
 
 116 
 
 in this religious society, arising from disunion on matters 
 of faith, on fundamental doctrines? The seceders them- 
 selves so declare it to the world ; it is now too late to 
 deny it, and attempt to find some other cause. Their de- 
 claration is either true or false. Will they acknowledge it 
 to be false ? No. I will not say, they dare not acknow- 
 ledge 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 in- 
 genious counsel have used much adroitness in endeavour- 
 ing to make it appear that it was not doctrine which pro- 
 duced the separation, but violations of the discipline, yet 
 their own clients fully admit the point for which we con- 
 tend, viz. that doctrine is at the foundation of this schism. 
 It is in vain to go back to the year 1819, to the appoint- 
 ment of a clerk in the yearly meeting of 1827, to the 
 preparation of the extracts by the meeting for sufferings 
 in 1822, or to any other period of fact, and endeavour to 
 manufacture one or all into the cause of the schism. 
 Here is their own admission, their own voluntary publica- 
 tion 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 erection. 
 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 con- 
 fession that the controversy was about doctrines, and that 
 this produced the separation. I shall presently inquire 
 what the doctrines were \vhich the "Hicksite" party held 
 to be sound and edifying, and which the others pronounced 
 to be unsound and spurious. I might refer the court to a 
 great body of evidence in the depositions of the witnesses,, 
 proving the same position, but when w r e are in possession 
 of a document so full and explicit, and coming from the 
 party themselves, it is infinitely superior to the testimony 
 of any witness. There is, however, one part of the evi- 
 dence to which I will call your attention. Abraham Low- 
 er, one of their own witnesses, a "Hicksite" preacher, in- 
 fected with their new doctrines, and who has taken a very 
 active part in the secession, he informs us that the diffi-
 
 117 
 
 culties and divisions in the society did arise from doctrines. 
 As this is the testimony of one of their leaders, 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 words, 'doctrines held by one part of so- 
 ciety 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 comforts and enjoyments even of social intercourse 
 greatly diminished.' Will you please to state what these 
 doctrines are to which the address here alludes 1 ?" The 
 witness answers, " I think it not very likely 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 sufferings. The same indi- 
 viduals 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 arraigned him before that self-constituted body 
 who thus arrayed themselves 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 preach- 
 ers, a member of the junto with whom the idea of separa- 
 tion originated, that doctrine was the ground of separa- 
 tion, and that it was on account of Elias Hicks' doctrines, 
 that the elders of Philadelphia, against whom so much 
 complaint has been made, took the steps they did in refer- 
 ence to him. 
 
 My next inquiry is, what are the doctrines held by one 
 part of the society, and which they believe to be sound
 
 118 
 
 and edifying, but which the other part pronounce to be 
 unsound and spurious. The answer to this inquiry is al- 
 ready so obvious, that any remark of mine would seem 
 almost superfluous. Your honours will perceive 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 ? 
 Have 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 lighter divine spirit, leaving every man to be- 
 lieve and worship as he thinks fit, with no faith, no rule or 
 test of conscience, or judgment in matters of belief, and 
 yet this very society disputing, contending, and even se- 
 parating 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 dispute about, we want to find out what 
 they are. If they differ 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 in- 
 fluence of the divine spirit on the mind of man ? This is 
 not pretended by any witness. It is no where alleged 
 that this formed the subject of controversy. Xo. It was 
 the doctrines of Elias Hicks the doctrines promulgated 
 by him to the world which he communicated in his let- 
 ters, 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 senti- 
 ments he then entertained. It was the doctrine of Elias 
 Hicks, which his party considered sound and edifying, and
 
 119 
 
 which the other part of the society pronounced to be un- 
 sound and spurious. 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 "Orthodox" 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 differing from 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, N the society have no 
 creed, or written articles of faith ; this is their whole de- 
 pendence. 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, pub- 
 licly known and subscribed. I have never before heard 
 any such principle contended for. I have never under- 
 stood that if you come into court to ascertain the princi- 
 ples of a sect or party, or any other fact, that you must 
 of necessity show written proof. If there were no writ- 
 ten 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 congregation are tinctured 
 with his principles? And if they remain with him, attend 
 upon his ministry, and officially declare their approbation 
 of him, are they not to be considered as holding his doc- 
 trines 1 Is it necessary, in order to enable men to join in
 
 120 
 
 the worship of their Creator, that they should have a 
 written creed ? 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? May not their rights be as well pro- 
 tected without as with it? The question is not whether 
 the society has a creed, but whether they have certain 
 linown and fundamental doctrines which they profess to 
 hold as essential, as fundamental. We are not going to 
 pry into the secrets of men's hearts to inquire 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 ? Is it not the 
 creed of every orthodox Christian, and if he hold doc- 
 trines 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, by this standard, can we 
 find a better? The society of Friends have again and 
 again, declared their willingness that all their doctrines 
 should be tried by the scriptures, and that whatsover they 
 did or said, which was contrary thereto, should be con- 
 demned as a delusion. But when we attempt to appply 
 this test to Elias Hicks, we find that he is unwilling to 
 abide by it. He tells us expressly, " I am not willing 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 ap- 
 pears to have had a better opinion of himself, than of all 
 the saints in the calendar. Reason, he says, is better than 
 revelation, and revelation good for nothing, unless sup- 
 ported 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 longer to be considered as 
 a part of its communion. 
 
 But we have other standards. Is not the teaching of 
 the approved ministers of the " Hicksite" party a test of 
 the doctrines they hold? Do we not judge men by the
 
 121 
 
 company they keep ? and may we not judge a congrega- 
 tion bv the teachers they listen to, and with whom they 
 declare themselves in perfect union ? Would any congre- 
 gation entertain among them, a minister of religion who 
 preached sentiments adverse to those which they held sa- 
 cred? Would they declare their union with, and appro- 
 bation of his ministry, unless they held the same religious 
 opinions which he delivered weekly, or daily, in their 
 hearing 1 The counsel seem to think that in the society of 
 Friends, an individual may preach any doctrine he pleases ; 
 that he may preach universalism, 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 
 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 1 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 doc- 
 trines of the atonement and divinity of Jesus Christ. When 
 the circumstances took place in tho meetings in Philadel- 
 phia, of which the " Hicksite'' party complain as an inter- 
 ruption of Elias Hicks and other of their ministers ; what 
 occasioned it? 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 doctrines 
 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 willing to belong to such a society, where he 
 must be compelled to hear doctrines, which he holds most 
 sacred, and which he believes essential to his salvation, 
 publicly denied and reprobated. If your honours 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 doctrines 
 he preaches in our meetings, or whether he holds no doc- 
 12
 
 122 
 
 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 whether he be under theginfluence of a true, or of a 
 false spirit? Is his appealing to reason to satisfy us? We 
 all know that it is deceitful. How often does it mislead 7 
 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 communi- 
 cates to his congregation or meetings, certain religious 
 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 doctrines, and with a full 
 knowledge of them, that society is accountable for his 
 doctrines; the principles he advocates must be considered 
 theirs, must attach to them, and they be held responsible 
 for them. The society of which Elias Hicks was a mem- 
 ber, the society which he founded, acted thus towards 
 him. After the separation, after all the controversy re- 
 specting his doctrines, and after the schism which those 
 doctrines had occasioned, in the year 1828, when he at- 
 tended their yearly meeting at Green street in Philadel- 
 phia, they gave him a certificate declaring their full unity 
 with him and his services, thereby identifying 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 Halli- 
 day "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 they offi- 
 cially declared their approbation 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 wri- 
 tings of the early Friends, they disclaim them also. No- 
 thing will answer for them but a written creed ; this they
 
 123 
 
 say we have not, and therefore it is impossible 
 prove that their doctrines are not the doctrines of the so- 
 ciety 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? 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? And are the society of 
 Friends alone an exception to this? I should like to hear 
 the answer of the gentlemen to this inquiry. Why did 
 Fox, Barclay 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 sepa- 
 ration, though they had their peculiar testimonies on other 
 points besides. It is almost universally 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 difference, I might hope 
 that the wall of separation 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 surren- 
 der the doctrines they hold, and they must therefore en- 
 dure 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 proved. 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 Disci- 
 pline, 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
 
 124 
 
 by the society. If these cannot be considered as sufficient 
 evidence of their doctrines, I know not what can. 
 The introduction to the book of Discipline, sets forth the 
 object for which it was instituted ; declaring that they 
 " have been engaged to meet together for the worship of 
 God in spirit, according to the direction of the holy law- 
 giver; 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 
 members of this society should be preserved in unity of 
 faith, if this 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 membership with us shall 
 blaspheme, or speak profanely of Almighty God, Christ 
 Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, he or she ought early to be ten- 
 derly treated with for their instruction, and the convince- 
 ment of their understanding, that they may experience re- 
 pentance and forgiveness ; but should any, notwithstand- 
 ing this brotherly labour, persist in their error, or deny 
 the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the im- 
 mediate 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 be- 
 longs, 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, respect- 
 ing those who deny the divinity of Christ, or the authenti- 
 city of the holy scriptures, that it is manifest they are not 
 one in faith with the society, and therefore they ought to 
 be dealt with, and if not reclaimed, they should be dis- 
 owned. Here is a full recognition of the belief of the so- 
 ciety in the divinity of our Saviour, and in the authentici- 
 ty of the holy scriptures that these are fundamental doc- 
 trines and that those who persist in a denial of them, are 
 to be disowned. 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 doc- 
 trines of the society of Friends, to show what they hold, 
 and have ever held to be fundamental. We do not con-
 
 125 
 
 tend that those who unite for the purpose of social wor- 
 ship, must agree in all matters of religious opinion, but we 
 do hold that they must unite in regard to all cardinal prin- 
 ciples the fundamental doctrines and great landmarks of 
 the Christian religion. If they differ in these, it will dis- 
 unite and drive them to different places of worship. 
 
 In page 12 of the same book, I find the following lan- 
 guage : " This meeting doth earnestly exhort all parents, 
 heads of families, and guardians of minors, that they pre- 
 vent, as much as in them lies, 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 least dmibt 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, and a foundation laid for the greatest 
 evils." And again in page 100, " We tenderly and ear- 
 nestly advise and exhort all parents and heads of families, 
 that they endeavour to instruct their children and families 
 in the doctrines and precepts of the Christian religion, as 
 contained in the scriptures ; and that they excite them to 
 the diligent reading of those excellent writings, which 
 plainly set forth the miraculous conception, birth, holy life, 
 wonderful works, blessed example, meritorious death, glo- 
 rious 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 
 happiness ; which is infinitely preferable to all other con- 
 siderations." 
 
 These passages not only show what great importance 
 the society of Friends attach to the belief of these doc- 
 trines, but they evince that they considered them as fun- 
 damental, as all-important 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 Discipline itself, a full 
 and most comprehensive creed an acknowledgment of 
 all the essential articles of the Christian faith and incor- 
 porated, too, in the code of laws agreed upon by the year- 
 ly meeting itself, for the government of its subordinate 
 meetings and its members. But I will refer the court to 
 12*
 
 126 
 
 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 in- 
 troduction of unsound doctrines. They have adopted one 
 method different from all other denominations, and which, 
 if carried into effect, must produce unity in religious 
 opinion. They require that the quarterly meetings should 
 answer certain queries, 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 doctrine ?" Can your 
 honours point me to such a provision as this in the disci- 
 pline of any other religious society? Has any other de- 
 nomination of Christians ever taken so much pains to pre- 
 serve 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 ministers are 
 sound in faith, and yet, as the opposite counsel allege, have 
 no ascertained faith no doctrines by which they can be 
 tested? How are they to answer? Suppose they an- 
 swer that they are Unitarians. According to the gentle- 
 man's ideas this would not make them unsound in doc- 
 trine, 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 de- 
 fined and settled doctrines doctrines that are fundamental, 
 and for the disbelief of which, their members may be dis- 
 owned. We come here to try the " Hicksite" party by 
 these doctrines, the acknowledged doctrines of the primi- 
 tive Friends. If that party hold these doctrines, we have 
 no ground of complaint against them. But if they do not, 
 if they have separated on the ground of a difference re- 
 specting these doctrines, then they must abide by the con- 
 sequences. 
 
 But 1 go further. In a Treatise on Church Govern- 
 ment, written by Robert Barclay, one of the most emi-
 
 127 
 
 nent 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 laying 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 be- 
 lievers, I answer affirmatively, she hath ; and shall prove 
 it from divers instances both from scripture and reason. 
 For first, all principles and articles of faith which are held 
 doctrinally are, in respect to those that believe them, mat- 
 ters of conscience. We know the Papists do, out of con- 
 science, (such as are zealous among them) adore, worship 
 and pray to angels, saints, and images, yea, and to the 
 eucharist, as judging it to be really Christ Jesus, and 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 respect, but by the mere force of truth upon 
 our understandings, and its power and influence upon 
 our hearts ; these principles and doctrines, and the prac- 
 tices necessarily depending on 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 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 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 such cut themselves off from 
 being members, by dissolving the very bond by which 
 they were linked to the body. Now this cannot be ac- 
 counted tyranny and oppression, no more than in a civil 
 society, if one of the society should contradict one or 
 more of the fundamental articles upon which the society 
 was contracted, it cannot be reckoned a breach or ini- 
 quity in the whole society to declare that such contra- 
 dictors have done wrong, and forfeited their right in that 
 society ; in case by the original constitution, the nature of 
 the contradiction implies such a forfeiture, as usually it is,
 
 128 
 
 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 de- 
 claring the thing to be so as it is, and in looking 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 application to themselves, abstracting from us; and 
 then let conscience and reason in every impartial reader 
 declare, whether or not it doth not hold*. Suppose a peo- 
 ple 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 such an one 
 from among them, and to pronounce positively, This is 
 contrary to the truth we profess and own, and therefore 
 ought to be rejected and not received, nor yet he that as- 
 serts it, as one of us. And is not this obligatory upon all 
 the members, seeing all are concerned in the like care as 
 to themselves, to hold the right and shut out the wrong. 
 I cannot tell if any man of reason can deny this; how- 
 ever, I shall prove it next from the testimony of the scrip- 
 ture." Barclay's Anarchy of the Ranters, pp. 53 to 5G. 
 
 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 Philadel- 
 phia, and looked up to, as describing 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 principles which 
 unite them together, and yet to take no measures to dis- 
 own such members or to prevent the preaching of such
 
 129 
 
 doctrines ! The gentleman must show not only that they 
 have no fundamental doctrines, but that they have no 
 church government no control over their members no 
 standard to ascertain 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 doctrines, and if they became 
 convinced that these doctrines were wrong, or that other 
 principles were better, they ought to have 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 
 Barclay " 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 an- 
 other ground. And notwithstanding all they have said 
 and done to promote Elias Hicks and his principles not- 
 withstanding the whole burden of their complaint is made 
 up of the opposition to him and his doctrines, they now 
 \vish to deny their leader as they have denied their Ss-; 
 viour. 
 
 In page 57 of the same book, Barclay says; "If the 
 apostles of Christ of old, and the preachers of the ever- 
 lasting 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 sep- 
 arate 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
 
 130 
 
 doctrine make unsound ? What need for convincing and 
 exhorting gainsayers, if to gainsay be no crime? Where 
 should the unity of the faith be 1 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 prin- 
 ciples 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 endea- 
 vours to convince and reclaim them, upon their obstinacy, 
 to 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 maintain- 
 ing of any sound doctrine in the church of Christ." Bar- 
 clay, &c. pp. 57-59. 
 
 Here then we have the sentiments of Robert Barclay, 
 one of ine founders of the society, as to the consequences 
 which would result from the principle which the gentle- 
 men on the other side contend for, permitting every man 
 in the society to hold what religious 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 preser- 
 vation of their members in the belief of these principles, 
 and that a denial or disbelief of them forfeits their mem- 
 bership. If their ministers or members undertake to pro- 
 mulgate false doctrines, they may, nay, it is their duty, 1o 
 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 con- 
 stant practice, from the earliest periods of its history, of 
 disowning those who held and promulgated unsound doc- 
 trines. For proof of this, I refer to the evidence of Samuel
 
 131 
 
 Settle, vol. I. Ev. p. 60. William Jackson, Ib. p. 99. 
 Thomas Willis, Ib. p. 108. Samuel Parsons, Ib. p. 170, 
 171. Thomas Evans, Ib. p. 305, 306. We were told by 
 the gentleman yesterday, that if Hicks held these doc- 
 trines, 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 Jer- 
 icho, 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 relig- 
 ion, and have rejected some of the school terms which 
 are in common use, preferring to express themselves in 
 the language of the holy scriptures, 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 for- 
 ward 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 whether a preacher 
 maintains sound doctrine or unsound, is contrary 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 promul- 
 gated by Elias Hicks and embraced by his adherents. I 
 have endeavoured to show that the society of Friends hold 
 certain doctrines which they consider fundamental, and 
 for the disavowal of which their members may be dis- 
 owned and put out of their community. It has been as- 
 serted 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 lan- 
 guage 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 undertake' to prove that the society of Friends have 
 done this; that they have issued such a document, and if 
 I do so, then the gentleman 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 au- 
 thentic act, authorized by them, containing a declaration 
 of their faith in human language. In order to prove that 
 publications of this kind have been made under the sanc- 
 tion of the society, as a community, I shall refer first to 
 the declaration 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 doc- 
 trines of the society were. If I am not much mistaken, 
 this document will furnish a complete answer to the chal- 
 lenge 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 lan- 
 guage, but in human language. It was not only examined 
 and approved 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 Philadel- 
 phia, and sanctioned and approved by it. 1 refer to the 
 testimony of Thomas Evans, vol. I. Ev. pp. 288, 297, for 
 proof of this fact. In this declaration we find the follow- 
 ing language, viz. " We sincerely profess faith in God by 
 his only begotten son Jesus Christ, as being our light and 
 life, our only way to the Father, and also our only Media- 
 tor and Advocate with the Father. That God created all 
 things, he made the worlds by his Son Jesus Christ, he 
 being that powerful and living Word of God by whom 
 all things were made ; and that the Father, the Word and 
 Holy Spirit are one, in divine being inseparable, 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
 
 133 
 
 came of the seed of Abraham and David, but was mira- 
 culously conceived 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 sa notification, 
 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 believe in the light that they may become the chil- 
 dren 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 sincere respect and honour to, and 
 belief in Christ, as in his own unapproachable and in- 
 comprehensible 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 
 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 propitiation, 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 unspeak- 
 able fulness and glory as in himself, in his own entire 
 being, wherein Christ himself, and the least measure 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, in his fullness cannot be comprehended or contain- 
 13
 
 134 
 
 ed in any infinite creature, but in some measure known 
 and experienced in us, as we are capable to receive the 
 same, as of his fulness we have received grace for grace. 
 Christ our Mediator received the Spirit not by measure, 
 but in fulness, but to every one of us is given grace, ac- 
 cording to the measure of his gift. 
 
 " That the gospel of the grace of God should be preach- 
 ed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 being one in power, wisdom and goodness, and indivisi- 
 ble, are not to be, divided in the great \vork of man's sal- 
 vation. 
 
 " We sincerely confess and believe in Jesus Christ, both 
 as he is true God, and perfect man, and that he is the au- 
 thor 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 unction, revealed in us, whereby 
 we inwardly feel and taste of his goodness, life and vir- 
 tue, 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 re- 
 ceive 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 subject 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 
 wonderful for mortals to conceive, apprehend, or pry into ; 
 and more meet for angels to see. The scripture is silent 
 therein as to the manner thereof, and we are not curious 
 to inquire, or dispute it ; nor do we esteem it necessary to
 
 135 
 
 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 disci- 
 ples, the doors being shut, or how he vanished out of their 
 sight after he was risen." See Sewel's History, p. 475. 
 vol. II. 
 
 Now, may it please the court, this declaration of faith 
 has actually been adopted by this very society, and by 
 the yearly meeting of Philadelphia. Is there not here a 
 full and explicit declaration of their faith? Is it not a 
 creed according to the learned gentlemen's own under- 
 standing, and upon their own terms? Can a religious de- 
 nomination be more fully committed, than the society of 
 Friends are by this document ? 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 adopted too, to put down and silence the charge 
 of denying the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. 
 The gentleman will not say that this declaration is couch- 
 ed in scripture language. It is in human language, to use 
 his own expression, and therefore, according to his own 
 showing, it is a creed, sanctioned and adopted by the so- 
 ciety. 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 testimony, that this declaration of faith was not only 
 examined and approved by the morning meeting in Lon- 
 don, which is a body authorized to inspect and approve 
 of writings declaratory of the religious faith of the soci- 
 ety, but that it was also adopted and published by the so- 
 ciety here. It stands clothed therefore with all the au- 
 thority 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 be- 
 half 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 ex- 
 press purpose of satisfying them that the society do be- 
 lieve in Jesus Christ our Saviour, It is impossible to
 
 136 
 
 evade it, without imputing to the society dissimulation and 
 insincerity ; this will not be attempted ; it would be mon- 
 strous 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 society ; they stand record- 
 ed in its history, sanctioned by its meetings, 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 toleration act. It is in these words: "I profess faith 
 in God the Father, 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 by divine inspiration." The 
 court will see by referring to the passage, that Whitehead 
 himself considers it a creed. The gentlemen 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 declara- 
 tion of faith simply, nor did it arise from any unwilling- 
 ness to put down in writing the fundamental principles of 
 their belief, their objection was to temporal powers pre- 
 scribing 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 opera- 
 tion of the Spirit, and that the Spirit dictated one thing at
 
 137 
 
 one time, and another thing at another time. They re- 
 fused, it is true, to admit of king, parliament, or any earth- 
 ly power, to prescribe articles of faith for them, but 
 having solemnly adopted and declared their religious prin- 
 ciples, 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, authoritative and binding on the mem- 
 bers of the society, couched, not in scripture, but in hu- 
 man 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 principles and 
 doctrines might not be misunderstood by the world. From 
 their peculiar mode of worship, suspicions were entertain- 
 ed by some, that they did not adopt the Christian faith. 
 To meet these groundless suspicions, they have repeated- 
 ly, as a body, authorized publications to be made explana- 
 tory 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 let- 
 ter to the governor of Barbadoes, contained in his journal, 
 to a declaration presented to a committee of the British 
 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 original- 
 ly written in the Latin language, and has been translated 
 into different languages, and largely circulated, for the 
 very purpose of making known the doctrines of the socie- 
 ty. We are bound by the doctrines 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 doc- 
 trines of the society of Friends, as containing a true and 
 comprehensive 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 published by them at different 
 times, in the regular way of publication, established by 
 their discipline. These doctrines have always been consi- 
 dered as fundamental, and promulgated as such by their 
 approved ministers. They were so reputed when the wit* 
 13*
 
 138 
 
 ness first had knowledge of the society, and still continue 
 to be so. These books are circulated now by the society, 
 as containing its doctrines. A departure from, or disbe- 
 lief in these doctrines, is always considered by the socie- 
 ty as an evidence of unsoundness in the faith." 
 
 The court will perceive from the testimony of this wit- 
 ness, 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 doctrines which they consider fun- 
 damental and essential, their discipline fully declares. 
 Where can we find them better than in their standard 
 works ; their declarations of faith, written by the venera- 
 ble and pious fathers of their church to whom they all 
 look up as high authority. It is impossible then that there 
 should be any truth in the idea that they have no funda- 
 mental doctrines ; the evidence to the contrary is too strong 
 and too conclusive. 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 Bettle, 
 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, sufferings, 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 expla- 
 nation ; 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 regularly main- 
 tained, and love, harmony and unity, have been preserved 
 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 Mo- 
 sheim, 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
 
 139 
 
 Philadelphia. These publications all took place before 
 the present schism arose in this community. I do not pro- 
 pose 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 principles of the society, from their youth up- 
 wards. The first witness is Samuel Bettle. If there is any 
 man whose station entitled him to a knowledge of the doc- 
 trines of the society of Friends, it is this witness. He has 
 been clerk and assistant clerk of the yearly 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 state- 
 ments of views in relation to that doctrine, to the terms 
 used in the New Testament. They have avoided the use 
 of the word person and three distinct persons, as not in their 
 apprehension scriptural, and as conveying, in their appre- 
 hension, an idea too gross for so sublime and spiritual a 
 subject. I have always understood that in all other re- 
 spects, 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 be- 
 lieve, 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 doc- 
 trine 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
 
 140 
 
 by God, that is, by the offering up the body and blood of 
 Jesus Christ, without the gates of Jerusalem, by the effi- 
 cacy 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 Vir- 
 gin 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 flesh, and dwelt 
 among men ; and that this Word, that was made flesh, 
 \vas the same Jesus that was born at Bethlehem, miracu- 
 lously conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, for the 
 great and necessary, and holy purposes mentioned in the 
 New Testament, 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 as- 
 cension of the body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, as it is clearly expressed and taught in the scrip- 
 tures, corroboraled by his speaking from heaven in his 
 glorified state, declaring in his own words, " J 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 out- 
 ward 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 
 doctrines 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 peculiar 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
 
 141 
 
 exposed them to suffering and very frequently to misre- 
 presentation. 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 circum- 
 stances in which they were placed, as I have mentioned." 
 It is unnecessary for me to go through all the evidence 
 on this subject I will therefore only refer the court to 
 the passages, viz. William Jackson, vol. I. Ev. p. 98, 99 ; 
 Thomas Willis, Ib. p. 108, 109 ; Joseph Whitall, Ib. p. 213; 
 Thomas Evans, Ib. 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 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 impos- 
 sible 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 ex- 
 istence 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 presumptuous; 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 Friends 
 therefore reject the use 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 en- 
 tertain the same opinions as to all points in matters of re- 
 ligion 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 fellowship and com- 
 munion, unless they agree as regards all the leading and
 
 142 
 
 fundamental principles of the Christian religion. It is suf- 
 ficient, then, for us to show, that the society of Friends do 
 believe, and always have believed, in the doctrine of the 
 three that bare 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 influence, and that they 
 were given for our instruction and correction. They hold 
 these doctrines to be the great fundamentals of the, chris- 
 tian 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 principles, we must take them as 
 their received and standard doctrines, the test by which 
 their members must stand or fall. I 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 fun- 
 damental doctrines of the Christian religion are rejected 
 by Elias Hicks and his adherents. 
 
 I shall undertake to prove, first, from the testimony of 
 witnesses, that Elias Hicks denied 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 doc- 
 trines of the divinity and atonement of our Saviour. He 
 divided between Jesus and Christ, asserting 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 di- 
 vine spirit is given to every man as it was to Jesus, that 
 Jesus having a greater work to perform, had five talents 
 committed 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 peri'ect, but still held that he was only a fallible 
 man. 
 
 Upon these points I shall refer in the first place to the 
 testimony of William Jackson, vol. I. Ev. p. 100. Witness 
 says : " It was the common report, that Elias Hicks was 
 in unity with, and accepted by the Green and Cherry 
 Street meetings, I understood it so. I have held a con-
 
 143 
 
 versation with Elias Hicks, on the subject of the divinity 
 of our Saviour, and the divine origin of the scriptures. 
 The conversation arose from this circumstance; 1 was at 
 a meeting in New York, and in the course of what he 
 said there, in his public testimony, in a public meeting for 
 worship, he uttered such sentiments as I never heard from 
 any Friend in the whole course of my life. The sub- 
 stance of it, or that part that affected 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 deli- 
 vered either by professor or profane, I thought it my duty, 
 as a brother, to go to his house, arid have further conver- 
 sation with him on the subject; accordingly I went a few 
 days after, and had an opportunity with him ; I don't re- 
 collect that there were any persons present but ourselves. 
 I let him know my uneasiness, and we had considerable 
 discourse on the subject. I cannot now pretend to re- 
 member, 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." 1 brought 
 forward the testimonies of the two Evangelists, Matthew 
 and Luke, and he said that they were but fables, or fabu- 
 lous;" that "they were no more than fables." I was ex- 
 ceedingly 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 material matter. I said some things in objection, 
 but cannot recollect what I said. In the course of the 
 conversation, he further said: "It is believed God is a 
 Spirit, Dost thou believe it, I believe 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 rne. 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
 
 144 
 
 was, "ft is but an allegory;" and there the conversation 
 ended." 
 
 If this is not denying the holy scriptures, and destroy- 
 ing the Christian's faith in them ; if it is not denying the 
 miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, and making him a 
 mere man, I know not what is. 
 
 I 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 
 sentiments. The time of his disownment was in the year 
 1829, in fifth month. He had for a number of years before 
 his disownment, and on different occasions, uttered senti- 
 ments and doctrines that gave uneasiness to the society. 
 I have a copy of the minute of his disownment, which is 
 taken from the minutes of the monthly meeting to which 
 he belonged, being the monthly meeting of Westbury and 
 Jericho. For some time before his disownment, for a num- 
 ber of years, he had been frequently, and at various times, 
 privately admonished by different individuals on the sub- 
 ject of his departure. In regard to myself, in former 
 years, I esteemed him highly as a minister, and a useful 
 member of society, and although I sometimes heard ex- 
 pressions and some sentiments 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 ob- 
 serving that he had embraced and began to promulgate 
 some views, that were not in accordance with the doc- 
 trines of our society, I became seriously uneasy, and en- 
 deavoured to discharge my duty towards him accordingly. 
 In consequence of this uneasiness I waited on him. The 
 interview resulted rather in the confirmation of my unea- 
 siness. In general, I perceived his view and belief of the 
 scriptures to be not in accordance with the doctrines of 
 our society, placing them on the same ground as any other 
 history, exciting doubts of some important truths declared 
 in them, particularly in relation to the divine character and
 
 145 
 
 holy offices of our blessed Redeemer, his miraculous con- 
 ception, the efficacy of his sufferings and death as a pro- 
 pitiatory offering for the sins of mankind, his intercession 
 and mediation as our Advocate with the Father. These 
 were the principal points of doctrine. 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 him- 
 self 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 di- 
 rected 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 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 
 them 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 properly 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 themselves, and there is not an agree- 
 ment in them in any general way." Similar views of the 
 scriptures have also been promulgated by him in conver- 
 sation and by writing, and he has acknowledged his de- 
 parture 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 were not useful in bringing about the re- 
 formation, 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 propagated by Elias Hicks in his public discourses, 
 in his letters and conversations, were in violation of what 
 14
 
 146 
 
 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 flesh 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 fre- 
 quently heard him express his views 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 of- 
 fering 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 similar ex- 
 pressions many different times. He continued to promul- 
 gate these sentiments in his public ministry up to the time 
 of his disownment, and was disowned for that cause. He 
 was a man to whom society generally was very much 
 attached in former years, whereby he gained great influ- 
 ence in the society. I believe his popularity as a preacher 
 was owing in a 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 doctrines promulgated by Elias Hicks, and 
 for which he was disowned, were generally in relation to 
 the holy scriptures and the character of the Saviour. In 
 relation to the character of the Saviour, 1 have heard him 
 express in his public communications, the following senti- 
 ments: "The people must be totally turned from any at- 
 tention to the outward manifestation or sufferings of Jesus, 
 the Messiah of the Jews, the design of whose coming was 
 to put an end to the law of Moses and its ordinances.
 
 147 
 
 He was an Israelite, and was not furnished with any 
 more ability than the other Israelites." "Jesus never gave 
 himself a higher character than the son of man." " There 
 is no mediator betwixt God and man: it would be unrea- 
 sonable 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; mentioning the name 
 of Jesus Christ is a species of idolatry." " We can all 
 attain to the same state that Jesus did, to be equal with 
 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 Almighty's speaking by his Son, 
 M r hat 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 weakest evidence which could be afforded, only suit- 
 ed 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 can- 
 not 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 some- 
 thing 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 inconsistencies with each other ; it had been better if 
 there had been only one, and then it could not, at least, 
 have been charged with inconsistency; 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 ex- 
 ternal 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 disown- 
 ment he was generally reputed to be in full unity with the
 
 148 
 
 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 )42, 143. 150. 160, 161. of the 
 same evidence; to the evidence of Joseph Whitall, Ib. pp. 
 214, 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 
 first day immediately preceding the yearly meeting at 
 New York, he uttered these remarkable words, " that the 
 same power which made Christ a Christian, must make 
 us Christians, and the same power that saved him must 
 save us." I never before had heard such sentiments ad- 
 vanced 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 opportunity with him at 
 his lodgings. 1 informed him that I had entertained a 
 high regard for him from the first of our acquaintance to 
 the present 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 matter of the greatest encourage- 
 ment 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 re- 
 garded the scriptures he said, " they were the cause of 
 more bloodshed and confusion, than any other thing; and 
 that it was a pity the epistles had ever been handed down 
 to us." In the course of the conversation, 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 dissa- 
 tisfaction, 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
 
 149 
 
 X 
 
 scriptures, concerning the miraculous conception, but on 
 further examination of the evangelists, there was in them, 
 greater proof than otherwise, of his being the son of Jo- 
 seph." 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 dif- 
 fer 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 to the propriety of his promul- 
 gating such opinions in the meeting of Friends, and im- 
 posing them as the doctrines of our society, I expressed 
 my belief 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 re-examine the grounds he had taken, to which he re- 
 plied, 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 judi- 
 cious friends invited to come together, to discuss those im- 
 portant subjects that we had conversed about, for it was 
 one in which the happiness and welfare of the 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 the 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 another opportunity with him, relative to a 
 communication in writing, which he had sent to a num- 
 ber of the elders in Philadelphia, in which he had made 
 some misstatement of my words; in this letter he chai-ged 
 me with acting unfriendly, contrary to discipline, and put- 
 ting 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 unfriendly, or contrary to discipline, to make a state- 
 ment 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 
 14*
 
 150 
 
 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 conversation. 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 acting towards him unfriendly, or contrary to disci- 
 pline, 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 construction upon them. He 
 took out of his pocket a letter addressed to him by some 
 of the elders of Philadelphia, and pointed to one paragraph, 
 which they informed him I had asserted as what he had 
 declared as his doctrines. It was the declaration I 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 verbatim, having 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 intrusted with the 
 keys of his treasury." I informed him that I did fully be- 
 lieve his views throughout, on the points we had discussed, 
 were at variance with the scriptures of truth, and the doc- 
 trines 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 writings of ancient 
 Friends; and that he believed George Fox, William 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 
 mistaken. It was no accidental or transient 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 uneasiness which they excited. Mr. Hicks 
 enters into an argument to prove that his doctrines are
 
 right, and expresses a determination to persist in the pro- 
 mulgation 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 
 scriptures, or the writings of ancient Friends. Here is a 
 distinct admission, that he differs from the fathers of the 
 church, from the primitive Friends ; that he was holding 
 out new lights, and setting up for a new guide ; that he 
 was better qualified to instruct in his day, than Fox and 
 Barclay were in theirs, and that although he knew his con- 
 duct 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 
 testimony, 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 
 these letters, and there can be no doubt as to their mean- 
 ing. 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. II. Ev. p. 416. In this 
 letter he says, " But having for a considerable time past, 
 found from full conviction, that there is scarcely any 
 thing so baneful to the present and future happiness and 
 welfare of mankind, as a submission to tradition and pop- 
 ular opinion, I have therefore been led to see the necessi- 
 ty of investigating for myself, all customs and doctrines, 
 whether of a moral or of a religious nature, either ver- 
 bally, 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 testi- 
 mony 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 sub- 
 jects, I 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 ap- 
 pears from a comparative view, to have been the cause of
 
 152 
 
 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 investigated her 
 history, free from the undue bias of education, and tra- 
 dition." 
 
 " To the family of Abraham he dispensed a very pecu- 
 liar system of rituals and outward shadows, to which he 
 required obedience, in order to bring them back to a sub- 
 mission to his will, as manifested by his spirit in their 
 hearts, but he dispensed them to no other people but to 
 Israel, and those that came of their own accord and join- 
 ed them, and as soon as the effect was produced, by 
 bringing them back to their inward guide, all those out- 
 ward means became obsolete, and useless. So likewise 
 he made use of the ministry of Jesus Christ, and his 
 apostles, for the same end, ta 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 became obsolete and use- 
 less; 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 written to former generations, such make no ad- 
 vancement, but just sit down in the labours of their fore- 
 fathers, 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 inspired 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 lan- 
 guage, 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 re- 
 ceive them as we have been taught; hence we have all 
 been more or less dupes to tradition and error. I well re- 
 member how oft my conscience has smote me when I
 
 153 
 
 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 feel- 
 ings I should have been preserved I believe in a line of 
 more consistency, in that respect." 
 
 It will be perceived that in this letter Elias Hicks de- 
 clares that the holy scriptures have been productive of 
 fourfold more harm than good ; that to those who turn to 
 the inward light the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his apos- 
 tles is obsolete and useless ; that it is reasonable to sup- 
 pose that inspired teachers of the present day would be 
 led to speak more truly and plainly to the states of the 
 people than any doctrines delivered seventeen hundred 
 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 were given 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 ad- 
 verse 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 doctrines ? 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. II. Ev. p. 419. In this letter he says, "The 
 next thing I would observe is, that 1 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 remem- 
 ber, 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 1 may add 
 that I sometimes think that if they were really needful and 
 useful to a few who make a right use of them, yet as I be- 
 lieve they are doing great harm to multitudes of others,
 
 154 
 
 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 benefit of it who' use those articles only to their com- 
 fort and help, for if after a time it might be 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 good- 
 ness to raise up and qualify some of his faithful servants 
 to write scriptures if he should think best, as good and as 
 competent for the generation in which they lived, and like- 
 ly would be much better than those who wrote so many 
 hundred years since, for would not some of us be very 
 glad if we could have immediate access to Paul, and some 
 other of the apostles, who contradict one another and 
 sometimes themselves, by which means we might be in- 
 formed 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 re- 
 specting 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 primi- 
 tive Friends stopt short in that matter, not for want of 
 faithfulness, but because the day that was in some re- 
 spects still dark, would not admit of further openings, be- 
 cause 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 incon- 
 sistent with the nature and reason of things, as flesh and 
 spirit bear no analogy with each other, and it contradicts 
 our Lord's own doctrines, where he assured the people 
 that the flesh profiteth nothing; and many other of his say- 
 ings 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 
 generated in him by that will, both which must he slain
 
 155 
 
 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 atonement which the creature cannot ef- 
 fect 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 strength to the 
 faithful to make this necessary offering and sacrifice 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 ad- 
 mits 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 multi- 
 tudes, and even descends to a degrading 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, persons 
 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. II. Ev. 
 p. 421, and contains the following expressions. "Thine 
 of the 27th instant I have duly considered, and although, 
 like thyself, 1 was brought up and educated in the histori- 
 cal 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 belief 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 exami- 
 nation of the ancient history of the professed Christian 
 church, wherein I discovered, that many who made pro- 
 fession of the Christian name, believed otherwise, and these 
 at times stood foremost in esteem." 
 
 " Now, in his creed, [the Bishop of Rome] to which he
 
 156 
 
 made all the nations of Europe bow, by the dint of the 
 sword, was this of the miraculous birth ; therefore, all chil- 
 dren, 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 four Evangelists, and accord- 
 ing to my best judgment on the occasion, I was led to 
 think there was considerable more scripture evidence for 
 his being the son of Joseph than otherwise ; although it has 
 not yet changed my belief, are the consequences which fol- 
 low much more favourable ; for as the Israelitish covenant 
 rested very much upon external evidence, by way of out- 
 ward miracle, so I conceive this miraculous birth was in- 
 tended 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 en- 
 forcing of 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 scripture 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-creatures 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-essentials; 
 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 positions." 
 
 In a letter to Dr. N. Shoemaker, dated third month 
 31st. 1823, he writes thus: " Thy acceptable letter of 1st 
 month last, came duly to hand, but my religious engage- 
 ments, and other necessary concerns, have prevented my 
 giving it that attention that its contents seem to demand. 
 Thou queries after my views of the suffering of Jesus
 
 157 
 
 Christ, the Son of God, and what was 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 ourselves from the improper bias of tradition and 
 education, which rests as a burthensome stone on the 
 minds* of most of the children of men, and which very 
 much mars the unity and harmony of society. 
 
 " 1st. By what me;ms did Jesus suffer'? The answer is 
 plain, by the hands of wicked men, and because his works 
 were righteous 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 live a right- 
 eous and godly life, (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 come to the 
 knowledge of him and of his perfect life." 
 
 " But, / do not consider that the crucifixion of the outward 
 body of Jlesh and blood of Jesus on the cross, was an atone- 
 ment fur any sins but the legal sins of the Jews ; for as their 
 law was outward, so their legal sins and their penalties 
 were outward, and these could be atoned for by an out" 
 ward 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 inno* 
 cent life of God in his own soul; and which Paul calls 
 "the old man with his deeds," or "the man of sin, and 
 son of perdition," who hath taken God's seat in the heart, 
 and there exalteth 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 atone- 
 ment 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 ! ! ! Would he not rather 
 go forward and offer himself wholly up to suffer all the pen- 
 alties due to his crimes, rather than the innocent should suffer? 
 Nay 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, 
 15
 
 158 
 
 of mercy and love, and show himself to be a poor selfish crea~ 
 ture, and unworthy of notice ! ! ! 
 
 " Having given thee a sketch of my views on the sub- 
 ject of thy queries, how far thou may consider them cor- 
 rect, I must leave to thy judgment and consideration ; and 
 may now recommend thee to shake off all traditional 
 views that thou hast imbibed from external 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 
 sufferings and death of Jesus Christ were not an atone- 
 ment for any sins, but the legal sins of the Jews, but he 
 goes further, and asks whether it is possible that any ra- 
 tional 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 Phil- 
 adelphia yearly meeting, 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 evi- 
 dence, and induce us to believe, that he held the doctrines 
 of the primitive Friends, and that he did riot hold the doc- 
 trines 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 18^9, 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 persons unaccustomed to his 
 views, and modes of expression, it might seem that these 
 answers were more orthodox. But knowing his evasive
 
 159 
 
 manner of speaking, and the contradictions which he fre- 
 quently ran himself into, we can find no difficulty in un- 
 derstanding 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 them. One of these answers is pro- 
 fessedly given with the view of declaring his belief in the 
 divinity of Christ. In the first part of his answer he says, 
 very artfully, that no man had ever inculcated that doc- 
 trine moi'e frequently than he had done. But he no where, 
 in his answer admits, or alleges his belief in the doctrine 
 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 consid- 
 ered 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 ex- 
 plains 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 par- 
 able of the servants, one of whom had five talents, another 
 two, and a third only one talent. But he no where ad- 
 mits that in Jesus Christ dwelt all the fullness of the God- 
 head bodily, he no where ascribes to him complete and 
 underived divinity. 
 
 Giving to this testimony all the credit which the oppo- 
 site 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 before this court, that he con- 
 tended for the propriety of such a course. There is evi- 
 dence, 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 policy, 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 dis- 
 simulation 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 evasion, can 
 we doubt, but that in penning these answers, he would use
 
 160 
 
 such language as would deceive others, and at the same 
 time satisfy his own conscience. The evidence of the un- 
 sound doctrines of Elias Hicks, and his admission that 
 they were different from the principles of the early 
 Friends, is proved so conclusively, that there can remain 
 no doubt respecting them. Neither can there be any 
 question, that these were the doctrines referred 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 edify- 
 ing, are pronounced by the other part, to be unsound and 
 spurious." The fact is proved by their own witnesses, as 
 well as by the circumstance, 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 elders, 
 when these attempted to call him to account for spreading 
 these doctrines, and from that opposition to the elders, and 
 support 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 so- 
 ciety rising up to defend Elias Hicks in spreading them. 
 The leading men belonging to this party, their public min- 
 isters, 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 showing 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 controversy; there were none other but 
 his about which the dispute could have 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 contain- 
 ing them had been preached and published, and extensive- 
 ly circulated; and this " Hicksite" party gave him certifi- 
 cates of their unity with him, did they not thereby adopt 
 his doctrines 1 We fin.d from the evidence, that Hicks at-
 
 161 
 
 tended 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 facts 
 to the testimony of Abraham Lower, vol. I. Ev. p. 468, 
 and of Halliday Jackson, vol. II. Ev. 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 al- 
 leged violations of the discipline were the effects 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 Barclay. 
 
 But can we have a doubt 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 dissen- 
 sion about doctrines. The separation in Philadelphia took 
 place before that in New York. That in New York oc- 
 curred in the following year. Elias Hicks was there. 
 We find 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, telling 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 ma- 
 jority, but that is a matter of doubt, as appears from the 
 evidence ; their majority is not proved. The same sepa- 
 ration 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 conclusion 
 is irresistible, that the same ground of separation exists in 
 all, and that this ground is the doctrines which he promul- 
 gated. 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 omitted many topics which might have been intro- 
 duced, but I have no doubt that this cause will be fully 
 and carefully examined by your honours, and that the in- 
 15*
 
 vestigation which you will give it, will more than supply 
 any deficiency of mine. It only remains to inquire, what 
 is the law on the subject before the court, if I have suc- 
 ceeded in establishing the propositions which I have en- 
 deavoured 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. When- 
 ever a schism takes place, and a separation follows, the 
 party seceding can have no claim to the property, as 
 against the congregration from which they separate. 
 Whenever they cease to be members of the society, they 
 cease to have any right to control its property. The pro- 
 perty is held for the benefit of the society, and if they se- 
 parated 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 contend, 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 mem- 
 bers, not as individuals. The cases in the books clearly 
 support this position. This is the principle of the decision 
 in 5 Mass. Rep. 554. Wherever a new township, or cor- 
 poration, 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 Ib. 
 389. 7 Ibid. 435. All these decisions go upon the princi- 
 ple of a separation, not upon the ground of religious doc- 
 trine. 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 breth- 
 ren, 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 property, are all 
 upon the same principles. A property held in trust for a 
 religious community, must be held in trust for that com- 
 munity, and for promoting those doctrines that the com-
 
 163 
 
 munity 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 them. If part of an Episco- 
 pal 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 doc- 
 trines 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 support 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 bene- 
 fit of the congregation who remain, and for those princi- 
 ples 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 recog- 
 nized in Merivale, 353. The trust in that case was a very 
 general one. It was expressed to be for the benefit of a 
 congregation worshipping Almighty God. A reference 
 was there made to a master, to ascertain the doctrines of 
 the society at the time of the trust. It was there held, that 
 if they were then trinitarians, 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 origi- 
 nally created. 
 
 The case in Dow, and in 2 Bligh, 529, contains the 
 same principle, and goes also to establish the other prin- 
 ciple, that if a division 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 churches 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 consi- 
 dered as seceders, and will lose the benefit of the property. 
 If the whole head changes its religious principles, the so-
 
 164 
 
 ciety which separates from it, and adheres to the reli- 
 gious principles of the society, will not lose their rights. 
 These decisions are all in conformity to, and all go upon 
 the same principle. The principle of majority has never 
 been made the ground of decision in the case of a schism 
 in a congregation 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 society 
 to which they originally belonged. If they hold in their 
 individual capacity, each will receive an individual por- 
 tion according to his right. If they hold as members, 
 they can control the property 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 schis- 
 matics. There can be but one uniform principle. When 
 a division takes place by consent of parties, they may di- 
 vide 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 ex- 
 plicitly 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 answers to all 
 the distinctions attempted to be raised by the opposite coun- 
 sel. It will be found that his positions are all untenable, 
 and that there is but one uniform principle running through 
 and governing all the decisions of the courts. This ques- 
 tion is highly important, not only to the society of Friends, 
 but to every religious community[; what is the law in re- 
 gard to one, must also be as respects all ; we are now to 
 know whether the principle is to be sanctioned, that a
 
 165 
 
 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 religious com- 
 munity, and at the hands of this court it doubtless will re- 
 ceive that careful and deliberate consideration which its 
 magnitude demands. 
 
 With these considerations, I 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 re- 
 spective parties. They are placed in an unhappy situation, 
 and the question must, sooner or later, be determined. 
 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.
 
 THE DECISION.
 
 CHANCERY OF 1VEW JERSEY. 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 JOSEPH HENDRICKSON, complainant, ^ 
 
 and I On bill for 
 
 THOMAS L. SHOTWELL, and ELIZABETH [relief, &c. 
 his wife, defendants. J 
 
 AND BETWEEN 
 
 THOMAS L. SHOTWELL, complainant, ^ Q n ^-jj o f 
 
 JOSEPH HENDRICKSON and STACY DE- Ifa* 
 > defendants. ) 
 
 On the 10th July, 1832, Chief Justice Ewing and Jus- 
 tice 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 hundred and twenty-one, being the Trea- 
 surer 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 Jo- 
 seph Hendrickson, Treasurer of the School Fund of Cross- 
 wicks 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 in- 
 terest, 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 refuses to pay the money to him, being treasu-
 
 rer as aforesaid, on divers unfounded and erroneous pre- 
 tensions; and he seeks relief in this court by a decree for 
 the foreclosure of the mortgage, or for a sale of the mort- 
 gaged premises,, and an appropriation of the proceeds to 
 the payment of the debt. 
 
 Sometime after the exhibition of this bill, Thomas L. 
 Shotwell filed here a bill of interpleader, wherein Joseph 
 
 iendrickson and Stacy Decow are made defendants ; in 
 which he admits the above mentioned bond and mortgage, 
 and the source from which emanated the money thereby 
 intended to be secured, the school fund of the Chesterfield 
 preparative meeting. He admits, also, the liability of him- 
 self, and the real estate described in the mortgage, and 
 avows his readiness and willingness to pay whatever is due. 
 put he says Stacy Decow has warned him not to pay to 
 Joseph Hendrickson, alleging that Hendrickson is no longer 
 treasurer of the fund, and has therefore no right to re- 
 ceive ; and that he is the treasurer and successor of Hen- 
 J n such claims the money mentioned in the 
 drlcKson, ttuu. w~ _.. "--^r, n of this 
 
 bond and mortgage. Seeking, then, tne pruw;^, . 
 
 court, and offering, on being indemnified by its power, to 
 pay to whomsoever the right belongs, he prays that Joseph 
 Hendrickson and Stacy Decow may, according to the 
 course and practice of this court, interplead, and adjust 
 between themselves their respective claims. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson 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 Chesterfield 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 Hendrickson was the treasurer of the 
 school fund, duly appointed by the Chesterfield prepara- 
 tive 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 law r ful meet- 
 ing of the said Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends, 
 held at the usual time and place of meeting at Crosswicks,
 
 he was appointed, in due and lawful manner, treasurer of 
 the said school fund, to succeed the said Joseph Hendrick- 
 son; 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 particularly to the bond and mortgage in the origi- 
 nal bill and bill of interpleader mentioned, and the money 
 due thereon ; and the said Joseph Hendrickson ceased to 
 have any right, title, or claim thereto." He farther insists 
 " that he always has continued since his appointment, and 
 is the lawful treasurer of the said school fund, and as the suc- 
 cessor 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 trea- 
 surer of the said school fund, or payable to him, as such 
 treasurer, or his successor." 
 
 This brief view of the pleadings is here represented, in 
 order distinctly to exhibit, in a clear and naked manner, 
 divested of auxiliary and explanatory jnatters, and especi- 
 ally of forensic forms, the grounds of the respective 
 claims of the interpleading parties. And hence, we may 
 discern, the great outlines of the inquiries which an inves- 
 tigation 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 favourable or unfavourable to 
 either party may become manifest by the evidence. 
 
 Joseph Hendrickson claims the money, because origin- 
 ally 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 Hen- 
 drickson in that office, and because he became, and is 
 such successor, and the present treasurer. 
 
 A slight sketch of the history of the establishment and 
 organization of the Crosswicks school, and of the fund* 
 may be interesting, and will, perhaps shed light on some 
 step in the progress of our investigations. 
 
 The education of youth and the establishment of schools, 
 attracted the care and attention, and brought out the ex- 
 ertions, of the yearly meeting of Philadephia, at an early 
 day. Most earnest and pressing recommendations of these 
 1G*
 
 interesting duties, to the consideration and notice of the 
 society were repeatedly made ; and to 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 re- 
 commended to the quarterly, and from them to the monthly 
 and preparative meetings, that the former advice, for the 
 collecting a fund for the establishment and support of 
 schools, under the care of a standing committee, appoint- 
 ed by the several monthly or particular meetings, should 
 generally take place, and that it be recommended by the 
 yearly meeting, to friends of each quarter, to send up the 
 next year, an account of what they have done herein." 
 And the report suggests the propriety of " a subscription 
 towards a fund, the increase of which might be employed 
 in paying the master's salary, and promoting the educa- 
 tion of the poorer Friends' children." vol. 2. 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, ap- 
 propriate measures were adopted, vol. 2. Evid. 436. In 
 1783, the subject was " afresh recommended to the due 
 attention of their monthly and preparative meetings, and 
 to produce 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 ensuing yearly meeting." vol. 2. Evid. 436. 
 
 Within the bounds of the Chesterfield monthly meeting; 
 although a committee had been for some time charged 
 with the subject, there appears no practical result, until 
 after the meeting in April, 1788, when a new committee 
 was appointed, " to endeavour to promote the establishing 
 of schools, agreeably to the directions of the yearly 
 meeting." vol. 2. Evid. 349. In August, 1789, the com- 
 mittee reported, that they had agreed on a place to build 
 a schooRiouse, and had obtained subscriptions to a con- 
 siderable amount, and had agreed "to lay the same before 
 the monthly meeting for their approbation." The minute 
 of the meeting approves, " and empowers them to pro- 
 ceed." vol. 2. Evid. 349. To the monthly meeting of 
 August, 1791. "The committee appointed for the estab- 
 lishment of schools, agreeably Jo the direction of the 
 yearly meeting, reported, there is a house at Chesterfield,
 
 so far finished, that a school might be kept in it, but it ia 
 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 quar- 
 terly meeting." vol. 2. Evid. 349. No other action on it 
 took place by the monthly meeting, until December, 1791, 
 when they recommended to the preparative meeting of 
 Chesterfield, " 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 be 
 inspected by the monthly meeting committee, for their ap- 
 probation or disallowance ; and said meeting are likewise 
 authorized to appoint a treasurer, to receive subscriptions 
 and donations, for accumulating a fund." Vol. 2. Evid. 
 349, exhib. 51. 
 
 The fruit of these discreet and vigorous measures soon 
 appeared. The house built, provision made for trustees 
 and a treasurer, and the accumulation of a fund thus 
 earnestly resolved, a subscription was opened, and numer- 
 ous and generous donations were obtained. The original 
 instrument of writing has been produced before us. It is 
 an interesting record of liberality. The subscribers de- 
 scribe themselves to be " members of the preparative 
 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 de- 
 clared. "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 a manner as they shall judge will 
 best secure an interest or annuity, which interest or an- 
 nuity is to be applied to the education of such children as 
 now do, or hereafter shall, belong to the same prepara- 
 tive meeting, whose parents are, or shall not be, of ability 
 to pay for their education." Exhib. 1, vol. 2. Evid. 411. 
 
 This subscription was the basis of the school fund. Ac- 
 cessions 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, be-
 
 quests, and the proceeds of the sale of some meeting 
 houses, resolved, in 1792, to divide a portion of it among 
 the monthly meetings, " for the promotion of schools, an- 
 swerable to the recommendation of the yearly meeting, 
 by establishing permanent funds within such of the meet- 
 ings where none have been heretofore, or in addition to such 
 as are already established." vol. 2. Evid. 437, exhib. 32. 
 The share of Chesterfield monthly meeting having been 
 received, was subdivided, and a part of it paid over to 
 the treasurer of the school fund of the preparative meet- 
 ing in Chesterfield, " to be applied to the use directed by 
 the minute of the quarterly meeting." vol.2. 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. 
 Exhib. 2, vol. 2. Evid. 347. 
 
 In this way, and by discreet and prudent management, 
 a fund was accumulated, a school house erected, and, as 
 \ve learn from one of the witnesses, " Friends, for many 
 years, generally had a school kept therein, under their su- 
 perintendence, and frequently appropriated a part of the 
 proceeds towards paying the teacher's salary, and for the 
 education of children contemplated in the original estab- 
 lishment of the fund." Samuel Craft, vol. 2. Evid. 350. 
 
 A part of this fund, as we have already seen, was loan- 
 ed to Thomas L. Shotwell, and is the subject of the pre- 
 sent controversy. 
 
 For the direction of the school, and for the care, pre- 
 servation, and management of the fund, provision, as has 
 been shown, was made, as well by the terms of the sub- 
 scription, as by the resolution of the monthly meeting. 
 The officers, were accordingly appointed by the prepara- 
 tive meeting, from time to time, as occasion required. 
 The trustees were usually chosen in the first month of 
 every year, vol. 2. Evid. 287. No fixed term of office ap- 
 pears to have been assigned to the treasurer; so that the 
 incumbent remained until removed by death, resignation, 
 or the will of the appointing body. The person who held 
 that station when the subscription was made, continued 
 there until 1812, when another Friend succeeded him, 
 and remained in office until Joseph Hendrickson was duly 
 appointed, in 1816. 
 
 The facts thus far presented are not, and from the 
 pleadings and evidence in the cause, cannot be, the sub-
 
 ject of dispute. There are some positions, deducible from 
 them, which are equally clear and incontrovertible. 
 
 First. The money mentioned in the bond being paya- 
 ble to Joseph Hendrickson, as treasurer, he has an indis- 
 putable right to claim and receive it, if he remains in that 
 office. 
 
 Second. Inasmuch as he was duly appointed, which is 
 unequivocally admitted by the pleadings, and inasmuch as 
 the term of office of treasurer does not cease by efflux of 
 time or by previous 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 required to produce farther evidence of his right to 
 receive the money, or of his continuance in office, or 
 that he has been retained there by the competent author- 
 ity; but whoever denies that right, or seeks to sustain 
 any claim on the ground that he has ceased to be trea- 
 surer, ought to establish the ground by lawful and suffi- 
 cient nvnof 
 
 Fourth. Inasmuch as Stacy Decow alleges that Joseph 
 Hendrickson was removed from office, and that ho was 
 appointed his successor and treasurer of the school fund, 
 (and upon this removal and appointment, he rests, in his 
 answer, for the entire support of his claim,) it is incum- 
 bent on him to establish the fact and legality of this re- 
 moval and appointment. 
 
 The power of appointment and removal, as the liti- 
 gating parties unqualifiedly admit, is vested in the Ches- 
 terfield preparative meeting at Crosswicks, meant and 
 mentioned in the original subscription paper or agree- 
 ment of the donors ; which is distinguished 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 ar- 
 guments 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 prerogative of removal and appoint- 
 ment. 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 January 1828, adopt a resolution
 
 10 
 
 and enter it on their minutes, to the following effect: 
 " This meeting being now informed by the trustees who 
 have the immediate care and trust of the school fund be- 
 longing to this meeting, that the person who was some- 
 time since appointed treasurer 'thereof, refuses to settle 
 the account of the said fund with them, this meeting, 
 therefore, now think it best to appoint a Friend to suc- 
 ceed 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 
 which their respective claims depend ; was this body the 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends at Cross- 
 wicks, meant and mentioned in the establishment of the 
 school fund ? If it was, Stacy Decow is the successor 
 and treasurer. If not, Joseph Hendrickson remains in 
 office, and is entitled to the money. 
 
 The meetings in the society of Friends are of two 
 Jkinds, for worship, and for discipline, as they are some* 
 times called, or in other words, for business. This dis- 
 tinction is sufficiently correct and precise for our present 
 purposes, and it is not necessary to pause to consider of 
 the suggestion, I have read somew : here in the testimony 
 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 performs any ecclesiastical duty, does there- 
 by pay an act of adoration to the Almighty. 
 
 * The meetings for business are four in number, marked 
 and distinguished by peculiar and characteristic differ- 
 ences ; 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 meeting, to some quarterly meeting; the quar- 
 terly meeting, to its appropriate yearly meeting. The 
 connexion and subordination are constitutional and indis- 
 pensable ; insomuch, that if any quarterly meeting with' 
 draws itself from its proper yearly meeting, without being
 
 11 
 
 in due and regular manner united to some other yearly 
 meeting, it ceases to be a quarterly meeting of the socie- 
 ty of Friends. In like manner of the other meetings, 
 down to the lowest. So that if a preparative meeting 
 withdraws from its peculiar 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 prepar- 
 ative meeting of the society of Friends. 
 
 The truth of the position I have thus laid down, respect- 
 ing connexion 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 considera- 
 ble importance in the present cause, I shall show that it is 
 established ; first, by the constitution and discipline of the 
 society ; second, by their usages, or, as they might be 
 called, in forensic language, cases in point, or precedents ; 
 and lastly, by the opinion of the society at large, so far a 3 
 may be learned from the views of well informed mem- 
 bers. 
 
 In the first place, then, as proposed, let us look into the 
 book of discipline. We find there the following clear and 
 explicit language. " For the more regular and effectual 
 support of this order of the society, besides the usual meet- 
 ings for the purposes of divine worship, others are insti- 
 tuted, subordinate to each other ; such as, first, prepara- 
 tive meetings, which commonly consist of the members of 
 a meeting for worship ; second, monthly meetings, each 
 of which commonly consists of several preparative meet- 
 ings ; third, quarterly meetings, each of which consists of 
 the monthly meetings ; and fourth, the yearly meetings, 
 which comprises the whole." " These meetings have all 
 distinct allotments of service." The connexion of the se- 
 veral meetings, and their subordination, in the manner I 
 have suggested, are here most plainly and unequivocally 
 shown and established. The place which this clause oc- 
 cupies in the discipline or constitution, (and the latter name 
 seems more familiar, or at least to convey to professional 
 minds, more distinct ideas,) serves to illustrate its impor- 
 tance. 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 speaksjhe same idea. A person ag-
 
 grieved may appeal from the monthly meeting to the quar- 
 terly meeting, and the monthly meeting are in such case, 
 to appoint a committee to show the reasons of their judg- 
 ment, and submit it there, where the judgment is to be 
 confirmed or reversed. From the quarterly meeting, an 
 appeal may be taken to the yearly meeting, where a com- 
 mittee 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 connexion and subordination 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 meeting be at any time dissatisfied with the pro- 
 ceedings 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 there- 
 of when required." " It is agreed, that no quarterly meet- 
 ing be set up or laid down without the consent of the year- 
 ly meeting ; no monthly meeting without the consent of 
 the quarterly meeting ; nor any preparative or other meet- 
 ing for business or worship, till application to the monthly 
 meeting is first made, and when there approved, the con- 
 sent of the quarterly meeting be also obtained." 
 
 Another clause requires monthly meetings to appoint 
 representatives 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 meet- 
 ings is, in general, to digest and prepare business, as oc- 
 casion may require, which may be proper to be laid be- 
 fore the monthly meeting." 
 
 The connexion 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 religious community, we may 
 naturally expect, what accordingly we find, numerous in- 
 stances of the exercise of authority, of the subsistence of 
 this connexion, and of the fruits of this subordination, in the
 
 13 
 
 conduct toward each other, of the respective meetings. 
 From the examples which are abundantly furnished us 
 in the evidence, I shall select a very few, and I pre- 
 fer, for obvious reasons, to take them from the minutes of 
 Burlington and Chesterfield meetings. The constant in- 
 tercourse, by representatives, and the frequent appoint- 
 ment 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 ecclesiastical history of their own times or of their 
 predecessors, or who have perused the testimony and do- 
 cuments before us. In second month, 1778, the quarterly 
 meeting of Burlington directed the times of holding cer- 
 tain preparative meetings, so as to be convenient to a 
 committee who were to visit them. In second month, 
 1820, the quarterly meeting refused to allow the holding 
 of an afternoon meeting for worship, in Trenton, and di- 
 rected their clerk to inform the monthly meeting of Ches- 
 terfield of their determination. In 1821, the Trenton pre- 
 parative meeting requested of the monthly meeting, per- 
 mission to continue their afternoon sittings, and leave for 
 one year was given. In fifth month, 1825, the quarterly 
 meeting declared, that certain persons admitted into mem- 
 bership in Chesterfield monthly meeting, were not mem- 
 bers, and the clerk was directed to communicate this con- 
 clusion to that meeting and to the individuals. In fifth 
 month, 1825, the quarterly meeting annulled the proceed- 
 ings of the Chesterfield monthly meeting respecting the 
 reception of a person as one of its members. In eleventh 
 month, 1825, Trenton afternoon meetings were disconti- 
 nued by order of the monthly meeting. In fourth month, 
 1826, the Trenton preparative meeting requested permis- 
 sion to hold an afternoon sitting, which, at the next 
 monthly meeting was refused. In 1826, Thomas L. Shot- 
 well, 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 disownment 
 was confirmed. In the Chesterfield preparative meeting 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 meet- 
 ings, and thus a stock, as it is called, is maintained in the 
 17
 
 14 
 
 vearly meeting. Occasional, or ex re nata, contributions 
 have also, at times, been made. The yearly meeting of 
 1827, recommended the raising of a large sum, three thou- 
 sand dollars, for a work of benevolence, and the prepara- 
 tive and monthly meetings of Chesterfield pursued the re- 
 commendation, and bore their usual and proportional part 
 in carrying it into effect. 
 
 A brief reference will show that individuals, as well as 
 meetings and the book of discipline, recognise and main- 
 tain the connexion 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 concerned, it might suf- 
 fice to refer, since whatever is admitted by both parties, 
 is, as it respects them, incontrovertible. But a recurrence 
 to the parts of the controversy, will show that what is said 
 on this topic in the pleadings, is the very language and 
 sentiment of this whole religious community. For the 
 sake of brevity, I will content myself with mentioning the 
 names of the witnesses, and the pages of the printed vo- 
 lumes, whither any one will resort who is disposed to exa- 
 mine them at large. Samuel Bettle, vol. 1.62,63,83; 
 Samuel Parsons, vol. 1. 170; Thomas Evans, vol. 1. 271, 
 272, 31 1 ; John Gummere, vol. 1. 316; Samuel Craft, vol. 1. 
 334; Abraham Lower, vol. 1. 379, 405; Halliday Jack- 
 son, vol. 2. 144, 178, 191 ; Charles Stokes, vol. 2. 218,229; 
 Josiah Gaskill, vol. 2. 297 ; James Brown, vol. 2. 321, 322. 
 
 From this view, it seems to me established beyond the 
 reach of doubt, that according to the constitution of the 
 society of Friends, a preparative meeting must be sub- 
 ordinate to and connected with a monthly meeting, which 
 is connected with and subordinate 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 gen- 
 erals to particulars, every preparative meeting within the 
 bounds of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, is, and must 
 be connected with, and subordinate to, a monthly meet- 
 ing connected with, and subordinate to, a quarterly meet- 
 ing, which is connected with and subordinate to, that 
 yearly meeting. There can be no preparative meeting 
 within those bounds, which is not so connected and sub- 
 ordinate. From this constitutional principle, the follow-
 
 15 
 
 ing rule results as a corollary. Every preparative meet- 
 ing within those bounds, which is, through and by its ap- 
 propriate links, connected with, and subordinate to, the 
 yearly meeting of Philadelphia, is a " preparative meet- 
 ing of the people called Quakers ;" and any preparative 
 meeting or assemblage of persons, calling themselves a 
 preparative meeting, not thus connected and subordinate, 
 is hot 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 necessary, a question much agitated and dis- 
 cussed, whether a monthly meeting can be laid down 
 without its consent. There is, however, another proposi- 
 tion connected therewith, which, so as to make use of it 
 hereafter, if necessary, I shall state barely, without a pro- 
 tracted or tedious inquiry, because I believe no one will 
 gainsay it. A preparative meeting, cannot be made or 
 constituted 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 quar- 
 terly 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 
 pecuniary nature ; and also, another topic somewhat dis- 
 cussed in the examination of the witnesses, if not by the 
 counsel on the argument, whether a superior meeting can, 
 without appeal, reverse the decision 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 connexion and subordina- 
 tion of meetings for business, I shall now proceed to show, 
 has been expressly applied to the preparative meeting of 
 Chesterfield. And as this topic bears much upon the re- 
 sult of our inquiries, 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 said society of Friends of Chesterfield .... 
 at Crosswicks : . . . that the said meeting at Crosswicks, is 
 under the control and jurisdiction of the said yearly meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia : that some oCthe members of a. num-
 
 16 
 
 her of quarterly and monthly meetings, which were under 
 the control and jurisdiction of the regular and constitu- 
 tional, 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 adjourned by them, to the second Monday of April, 
 1828; just one week before the time of the sitting of the 
 regular constitutional yearly meeting: that these reli- 
 gious dissensions and divisions found their way into the 
 meeting of the society of Friends, at Crosswicks afore- 
 said : . . . . that the ' Hicksite' party, and ' Orthodox' party 
 
 .....there, hold separate and distinct meetings, for busi- 
 ness 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 lias 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 prepa- 
 rative meeting of Friends, held at Crosswicks. There is 
 also a monthly meeting of Friends established at the same 
 place. That this defendant is now, and has been for 
 twenty years and upwards, a member of the said several 
 meetings : . . . . that the said Chesterfield preparative meet- 
 ing of Friends, at Crosswicks, to which he belongs, 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 Cross- 
 wicks, of which this defendant is a me-.nber, holds com- 
 munication 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 insists, is the 
 yearly meeting of the ancient and true society of Friends. 
 He denies that the society of Friends to which he belongs, 
 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 Philadel- 
 phia ; but the time of holding it has been changed from 
 ihe third second day in the fourth month, to the second
 
 second day of the same, .. , . there being no constitutional 
 time for the assembling of the yearly meeting, the time of 
 
 holding it was changed to the time it is now held 
 
 The said yearly meeting assembled again on the said se- 
 cond 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, vol. 1. Evid. 
 315, " Burlington monthly meeting, is a subordinate branch 
 of Burlington quarterly meeting, which quarter is subor- 
 dinate to the Philadelphia yearly meeting." Ibid. 318, 
 "That yearly meeting .... is held annually, on the third 
 second day of the fourth month, at Arch street meeting 
 house, in Philadelphia." Samuel Craft, vol. I. Evid. 334, 
 says, " From my earliest recollection, I have been a mem- 
 ber of Burlington quarterly meeting, and for about thirty- 
 six years past, I have been a member of Chesterfield 
 monthly meeting. This monthly and quarterly meeting, 
 now are, and have been, during all that period, subordi- 
 nate branches of Philadelphia yearly meeting, held for 
 many years past in the meeting house on Arch street, on 
 the third second day in the fourth month, annually." 
 Josiah Gaskill, vol. 2. Evid. 297, says, "The monthly 
 meeting, which I am a member of, does consider itself 
 members of Burlington quarterly meeting, which consid- 
 ers itself members of the yearly meeting of Friends held 
 in Philadelphia, on the second second day of fourth month, 
 at Green street." Ibid. 301, "The Burlington quarterly 
 meeting held at Chesterfield have sent representa- 
 tives to the yearly meeting of Friends held in Philadel- 
 phia, in fourth month ever since .... the second second 
 day in fourth month .... at Green street, instead e^ 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, vol. 2. 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 Burlington quarterly meeting, was a branch of the 
 yearly meeting, which, in fourth month, 1827, was, and' 
 17*
 
 18 
 
 for many years before had been held in Arch street, PhiU 
 adelphia." . . . . He "attended most part of the yearly 
 meeting in Arch street, 1827, as a member of the society, 
 and belonging to Chesterfield monthly meeting." Ibid. 322, 
 " We have not attached ourselves, as I apprehend, to any 
 other yearly meeting of Philadelphia, that is reorganized, 
 and held on the second second day in fourth month, annu- 
 ally We do not consider ourselves members 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 meet- 
 ing whereby Decow was appointed treasurer of the 
 school fund, as is elsewhere shown and expressed) " ac- 
 knowledge themselves, or claim to be, a part of the 
 monthly 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 meet- 
 ing of which Decow is a member, and from the confi- 
 dence reposed in that officer By the usages of the society, 
 and the intimate knowledge he must acquire and possess 
 of the acts, connexions, and sentiments of the meeting. 
 
 It thus appears there were and are, two distinct bodies, 
 each claiming to be the Chesterfield preparative meeting 
 of Friends at Crosswicks, 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 sep- 
 arately organized, in order to ascertain whether it was 
 before the appointment of Decow, as treasurer of the 
 school fund. And on account of the connexion, it may 
 be useful to look also, to the higher meetings. The sep- 
 aration in the Burlington quarterly meeting appears to 
 have occurred in the eleventh month, 1827. Samuel Em- 
 len, vol. 1. Evid. 325; Josiah Gaskill, vol. 2. Evid. 301; 
 Charles Stokes, vol. 2. Evid. 207. The latter witness says, 
 he " attended the Burlington quarterly meeting in the 
 eleventh month, 1827. At that meeting 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, Phila- 
 delphia, on tfcg third second day of fourth month ?" He
 
 answered, " The quarterly meeting considered itself a 
 constituent branch of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, 
 which had been held some years previously at the Arch 
 street house, on the third second day of fourth month; 
 but which,, owing to the circumstances 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 at Chesterfield, 
 or the session of two distinct bodies, and the transaction 
 of business separately by these bodies, took place as early 
 as ninth or tenth month, 1827. Samuel Emlen. vol. 1.. 
 Evid. 324, 328, 331 ; Samuel Craft, vol. 1. Evid. 336, 337 ; 
 Josiah Gaskill, vol. 2. 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 attend 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 farther testifies, that the representa- 
 tives, with one exception, attended the yearly meeting in, 
 the tenth month, 1827. 
 
 The separation in the preparative meeting of Chester- 
 field, bears date in the twelfth month, 1827. Samuel Em- 
 len, vol. 1. Evid. 325 ; Samuel Craft, vol. 1. Evid. 339, 347 ; 
 Josiah Gaskill, vol..2. 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 testimony 
 of James Brown is very explicit and satisfactory on this 
 topic, and its importance, from the station he held as clerk 
 of the meeting, has been already suggested. He says, vol. 
 2. Evid. 323, that the appointment of Stacy Decow as 
 treasurer of the school fund, was made after the time 
 when the separaiion of the preparative meeting of Ches-- 
 terfield into two bodies or meetings, each calling them-, 
 selves the Chesterfield preparative meeting* took place.. 
 
 It thus clearly appears, that before the appointment of 
 Decow as treasurer,. there were formed and existed, two 
 distinct bodies, claiming to be the Chesterfield preparative-
 
 20 
 
 meeting of Friends ; the one of them connected with a 
 body calling itself the ancient yearly meeting of Friends 
 of Philadelphia, which holds its sessions on the third second 
 day of April in a meeting house on Arch street, and the 
 other, and by which Decow was appointed, which dis- 
 claims all connexion with the above mentioned yearly 
 meeting, is connected with another body calling itself the 
 ancient yearly meeting of Friends of Philadelphia, which 
 holds its sessions on the second second day of April in a 
 meeting house on Green street. It also appears there ate 
 two separate 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 par- 
 ties; 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 1 have already noticed ; to which may be 
 added that of Halliday Jackson, an intelligent and well 
 informed witness examined on the part of Decow, vol. 2. 
 Evid. 155. 
 
 We are now brought to the inquiry, which of these two 
 bodies or meetings is the ancient yearly meeting of 
 Friends of Philadelphia ; an inquiry which, if I may judge 
 from my own feelings and reflections, is of the deepest in- 
 terest and importance. There is, and can be but one 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting of the society of Friends. 
 There is, and can be but one yearly meeting. A 
 preparative meeting must be connected with the year- 
 ly meeting of Philadelphia, and without such connexion, 
 no assemblage is a preparative meeting. One of these 
 bodies, or preparative meetings, is connected with the 
 one, and the other with the other of the yearly meet- 
 ings. Which then is the yearly meeting? Or to con- 
 fine our inquiry within the only requisite range, is the 
 'meeting or body assembling on the second second day 
 of the fourth month at Green street, the ancient yearly 
 meeting? If it is, Decow is the treasurer. If not, as I 
 have already shown, Hendrickson, once the acknowledged 
 treasurer and the obligee, named as such in the, bond, is
 
 entitled to the money. When such consequences hang on 
 this question, may 1 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 com- 
 mon head, according to the form of ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment adopted in England and already existing in some of 
 the more ancient colonies. In the year 1681 or 1685, (the 
 precise time seems to be controverted, and cannot influ- 
 ence our present pursuits,) a yearly meeting was estab- 
 lished, comprehending the provinces of New Jersey and 
 Pennsylvania, and the members of that religious society 
 and their already organized meetings and judicatories of 
 inferior grades. This body was not a mere incidenal, 
 casual, disconnected assemblage, convening without pre- 
 vious arrangement, ceasing to exist when its members 
 separated and formed anew when individuals came to- 
 gether again at some subsequent time. It was a regularly 
 organized and established body, holding stated sessions, 
 corresponding with other bodies of the same religious de^- 
 nomination, consulting together for the welfare of a por- 
 tion of their 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 jurisdic- 
 tion, which extended over the territories just mentioned, 
 white 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 altered by it. The time and place, how- 
 ever, 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 vear 1798, when in the conscientious dis?
 
 22 
 
 charge of duty, they assembled, undeterred by the ra- 
 vages of pestilence and the arrows of death. From the 
 year 1685, for nearly a century and a half, this body held 
 its periodical sessions; for years, alternately at Burling- 
 ton 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 occurred ; but always by a previous resolve, 
 by " the voice of that body," " in a yearly meeting capa- 
 city." In 1811, the place was 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 yearly meeting in 
 1806, and as already observed, the acknowledged constitu- 
 tion 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 
 authorized. 
 
 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 adjourned, 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 assembled. It 
 was composed of the representatives from the several 
 quarterly meetings, and of all such individuals as inclination 
 or duty had brought together. The regular constituent 
 parts were there. Those who are since so openly divided 
 by name, perhaps by feeling, peradventure 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 preced- 
 ing year, according to ancient rule, opened the meeting 
 in due order, for however simple, there was, nevertheless, 
 an established ceremony. The representatives were 
 called, certificates of visting 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 convened, was 
 assuredly the yearly meeting ; and up to the close of the
 
 23 
 
 forenoon, it sustained its constitutional existence. If that 
 assemblage ceased to be the Philadelphia yearly meeting, 
 something which occurred 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 dis- 
 solved, broken up " into its individual elements," (Abraham 
 Lower, vol. 1. Evid, 421,) and reorganized, in the ensuing 
 autumn, in the yearly meeting which assembled in Green 
 street, which became invested with the constitutional 
 powers and rights incident to the Philadelphia yearly meet- 
 ing, and, the successor, or rather the continuance of the 
 same body, which had been formed in the seventeenth 
 century, at Burlington, and had from thence conducted and 
 governed the affairs of the society, and connected with it- 
 self the subordinate meetings, and this whole religious 
 community. 
 
 Our next duty then, is to examine the causes which are 
 alleged to have deprived this body of constitutional exis- 
 tence. And these are, first, the acts of the body in a col- 
 lective capacity; second, the omission of the body to per- 
 form 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 be- 
 lieved, every operating cause suggested in the pleadings, in 
 the testimony of the witnesses, and in the arguments of 
 the counsel. 
 
 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 subor- 
 dinate meetings. 
 
 First, the appointment of clerk to the meeting. To re- 
 gard 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 circumstances in 
 which the meeting was placed, an unavoidable compliance 
 with, and adherence to, the ancient custom and order of 
 the society. 
 
 According thereto, the nomination of clerk is to be
 
 24 
 
 made, not in or by the meeting at large, but by the repre- 
 sentatives, as they are called, or in other words, the per- 
 sons deputed by the several quarterly meetings to attend, 
 not merely as individuals, but as the organs of those meet- 
 ings, in their official character. 
 
 The representatives, pursuant to the request already 
 mentioned, remained at the close of the forenoon session, 
 to discharge this duty. It is not my purpose to inquire 
 into, or relate in detail, what passed among them. In the 
 result, they could not agree, or did not agree, on the names 
 of any persons to be proposed for the offices of clerk and 
 assistant ; and a report to this effect was made to the 
 yearly meeting, when it opened in the afternoon. No 
 nomination was offered. Put, now, the case in the strong- 
 est 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 Discipline, it is true, pre- 
 scribes no guide or directory under such circumstances. 
 But ancient custom, founded on the obvious dictates of 
 reason, had established in this respect an operative law. 
 The clerk and his assistant, of the preceding year, were 
 to act, and without any new appointment or induction, 
 were authorised to continue or discharge their appropriate 
 functions, until the names of other persons, were regularly 
 brought forward, and united with, or in other words, ap- 
 pointed. In accordance therewith, and in view of the con- 
 dition 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 anj individual of the assembly, rose and 
 stated, that " it had been always the practice for the old 
 clerks to serve until new ones were appointed ;" and he 
 proposed to the meeting, " that the present clerks should 
 be continued for that year." (Thomas Evans, vol. 1. Evid. 
 265.) Some difference of opinion occurred and was ex- 
 pressed, as to the course most eligible to be pursued. Some 
 persons wished to refer the subject again to the represen- 
 tatives, for farther consideration. " Several of the re- 
 presentatives 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 
 expressed this opinion, was one of those who have since" 
 united with the meeting in Green street, " and he added,
 
 25 
 
 that although he should have been in favour of a change 
 in the clerk, if it could have been satisfactorily accom- 
 plished, yet as that 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 remain 
 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, vol. 1. Evid. 68,) was made and read. 
 " On the reading of the minute, some of those who" now 
 belong to the Green street meeting, "still continued to ob- 
 ject, when one of their number remarked, he believed it 
 was the best thing the meeting could do, under all the cir- 
 cumstances, and advised them to submit to it, as he did 
 not think it would make so much difference to them, as 
 some of them might imagine. Similar sentiments were 
 expressed by one or two others of that party,, and all ob- 
 jections 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 several 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 tes- 
 timony of Thomas Evans. It is fully sustained by the 
 depositions of Samuel Bettle and Joseph Whitall, and is, 
 in no material point, impugned by any contradictory 
 evidence. Some other witnesses, who speak of these 
 transactions, are not so full and minute in detail, and some, 
 it is to be regretted, do not recollect the occurrences of 
 very interesting moments ; as, for example, one of them, 
 speaking of the afternoon of the first day, and having re- 
 lated some of the events, added, " The meeting proceeded 
 on that afternoon. I don't remember particularly what 
 took place." (Halliday Jackson, vol. 2. Evid. 54.) In their 
 opinions, in their inferences, in their feelings, we observe, 
 as might be expected, a difference among the witnesses, 
 but it is pleasing to meet with no suoh collision of facts, 
 as to render necessary the delicate and arduous duty of 
 weighing and comparing evidence. 
 
 It is however said, the greater number of the represen- 
 tatives wished to release the former clerk, and to nomi- 
 nate another in his stead ; that a proposal was made to 
 take their sense by a vote ; and that this measure, which 
 18
 
 26 
 
 would have resulted in a majority 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 majority, 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 different 
 from that common to all civil or political, and to most ec- 
 clesiastical 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 op- 
 pose 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 
 unuer " 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, vol. 2. 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 extraneous matter, till some conclusion results ; the 
 clerk of the meeting then draws up a minute, containing, 
 as nearly as he can collect, the substance of this conclu- 
 sion ; this minute is then read aloud to the auditory, and 
 either stands or undergoes an alteration, as appears by the 
 silence or discussion upon it, to be the sense of the meet- 
 ing ; when fully agreed upon, it stands ready to be re-
 
 27 
 
 corded." (1 Clark^on's Portrait. Quak. 157.) The world at 
 large, and especially those who have not closely observed 
 the practical operation of these principles, in the peace 
 and harmony and prosperity of the internal affairs of this 
 religious community, may be strongly inclined to call in 
 question their expediency. A republican spirit may see 
 no just rule, but in the voice of a majority. A jealousy of 
 power may suspect too much confidence in the fairness 
 and candour 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 interfere 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 aggrieved. He is under no 
 restraint to remain among them. Whenever he is per- 
 suaded that either their faith or their practice, 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 num- 
 bers. 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 emphati- 
 cally, 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 show 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 Chesterfield monthly meeting, of sixth 
 month, 1691, because it is, of Chesterfield, and of very 
 ancient date. " The building of the meetinghouses being 
 taken into consideration, a meeting house on this side is 
 generally agreed upon to be built, and the greatest part of
 
 28 
 
 Friends think it best to have it at the grave yard." Here- 
 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 having the only un- 
 erring, infallible and certain judgment belonging to it ? 
 which infallibility is not necessarily annexed to any per- 
 sons, person or place, whatever, by virtue 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 I am, or have been, such an eminent 
 member, therefore my judgment is infallible, or because 
 we are the greatest number." (Barclay on Church Govern- 
 ment, 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 propo- 
 sal to take a vote, was an overture to depart, and the con- 
 summation of it would have been a departure, from an 
 ancient and unvaring 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 inquiry too, is of kttle importance, since, as I have 
 shown, 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 de- 
 stroy, 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 dissolution 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 shown, there was an ac- 
 quiescence in the measure, even if an unwilling one. And 
 this acquiescence was brought about by the agency and 
 recommendation of some of those, who are now the mem-*
 
 29. 
 
 bers of the rival yearly meeting. The following facts are 
 stated by the witnesses. " A proposition came from a 
 leading member," (Joseph Whitall, vol. 1. Evid. 218.) Af- 
 ter the minute was read, "one of their number 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, vol. 1. Evid. 2G6.) " One, and perhaps, 
 there were others, slated as their belief, it would be right, 
 and encouraged his friends to accede to the proposition" 
 for the continuance of the former clerks. (Joseph Whitall r 
 vol. 1. Evid. 217.) "Efforts were made by persons, who 
 have since" united with the Green street meeting, "to in- 
 duce an acquiescence with the minute. At length, all 
 opposition ceased." (Samuel Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 69.) 
 here, then, might have been opposition and dissatisfaction 
 at the outset. But it is clear there was an ultimate acqui- 
 escence. 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 de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 There is another fact worthy of much consideration, in- 
 looking into the propriety of these proceedings, which is, 
 that no person, save Samuel Bettle, the former clerk, was 
 proposed for the office. The importance of this circum- 
 stance in civil affairs, is thus shown in the recent Ameri- 
 can treatise on the law of corporations. " Where a ma- 
 jority protest against the election of a proposed candidate, 
 and do not propose any other candidate, the minority 
 may elect the candidate proposed." Angel and Ames on 
 Corp. 67. 
 
 After all these events, I can have no hesitation in yield- 
 ing to the entire and unqualified conviction, that the body 
 remained in its pristine vigour, 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 exist- 
 ence of the yearly 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 inconsistent with it, could work such sweeping 
 
 results. The purpose and authority of this committee* 
 
 18*
 
 30 
 
 were simply to visit, counsel and advise the inferior meet- 
 ings, with no power, whatever, to act upon or control the 
 rights or interests of any one, save by measures of per- 
 suasion. How far the temper or motive, which led to the 
 appointment of this committee may have been reprehen- 
 sible, I shall examine under another head. It is to the act 
 alone, that my attention is now directed ; and the act it- 
 self, was, in its nature, harmless. Let us, however, look 
 more closely into the circumstances. They are thus re- 
 presented by one of the witnesses. " A proposition was 
 brought from the women's meeting .... to appoint a com- 
 mittee to visit the quarterly and monthly meetings. This 
 called forth a great deal of excitement, and great op- 
 position \vas 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 cannot undertake to state the pro- 
 portions, 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, vol. 2. Evid. 56.) Another witness gives the fol- 
 lowing representation. "At the last sitting on seventh 
 day morning, a proposition was introduced from the wo- 
 men's meeting to appoint a committee to visit the respec- 
 tive subordinate meetings for their strength and encour- 
 agement. 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 better 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 pro- 
 ceedings, the private meetings, and opened the whole sub- 
 ject. It appeared to me evidently, to create uneasiness 
 and alarm on the part of those who had been concerned 
 in those meetings; some of them called in question the 
 accuracy of the statement that had been made, and seem- 
 ed disposed to deny it ; some did deny it ; others, how-
 
 sr 
 
 ever, said that the general statement was correct, and 
 acknowledged it. The propriety of appointing a commit-- 
 tee 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 
 expression of unity with the measure, than" the witness, 
 a clerk of several years' experience, "had often, if ever, 
 seen or heard." " I had," says the witness, " been watch- 
 ing the course of events, as clerk of the meeting, to know 
 how to act, and when all opposition 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 accordingly 
 made it, and united with ihem in their views; and a com- 
 mittee was appointed pursuant to the minute." (Samuel 
 Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 69.) Whatever difference may be in' 
 these statements as to matters of opinion ; whatever sus- 
 picions 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 testifies, and no one denies, that it was an ancient 
 custom of the society. (Samuel Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 70. 
 Halliday Jackson, vol. 2. Evid. 133.) Bad 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 suggestion of a 
 doubt of the right and power of the yearly meeting to ap- 
 point such committee ; the difference of opinion was con- 
 fined to the expediency of making the appointment at that 
 time." (Samuel Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 70.) Was the purpose 
 of the appointment laudable? It was to advise and coun- 
 sel 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 measures taken to 
 attain it, were otherwise, the- censure should rest on the 
 committee, the agents, and not on the meeting, the con- 
 stituents. Was partially exercised by the clerk, or any 
 other person, in the selection of the committee? No name
 
 32 
 
 which \vas proposed was rejected. Was there opposition 
 to the appointment ? Strong and decided at the outset. 
 Was there at length, an acquiescence ? " A greater and 
 more general expression of unity than usual," says one 
 witness. "The opposition pretty generally, if not alto- 
 gether ceasing," says another witness, " the meeting pro- 
 ceeded to appoint." (Joseph Whitall, vol. 1. Evid. 218.) 
 Another says, " As all opposition ceased, a minute was 
 made, and the committee appointed." (Thomas Evans, 
 vol. 1. 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 candour are not only above reproach, 
 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 meeting, and because it was manifestly their 
 sense that the appointment should take place. 
 
 Upon a careful examination of this measure, I can see 
 nothing, either in the act itself, or in the manner of its in- 
 ception, progress or adoption, subversive, in the slightest 
 degree, of usage or discipline, and least of all, any tiring 
 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 alle- 
 giance all those who previously owed fealty and submis- 
 sion to it. 
 
 These, then, are all the overt acts of the meeting, which 
 have been made the subject of complaint. It would, how- 
 ever, 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 transacted ; all, I believe, it may 
 be said, of the usual stated duties were discharged. Hai- 
 liday 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 oc- 
 cupy that body, such as considering the state of the so- 
 ciety from the answers to the queries that are brought up 
 from the different quarterly meetings in their reports ; the 
 reading of the minutes of the meeting for sufferings ; read- 
 ing reports from the committee who stood charged with 
 Westown school, and some other matters ; which occupied
 
 S3 
 
 the meeting through the week." (vol. 2. Evid. 55.) Another 
 witness says, "All the business usually transacted at a 
 yearly meeting, was gone through with, and several acts 
 consummated, which no other body than the yearly meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia was competent to perform." (Thomas 
 Evans, vol. 1. 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 meet- 
 ings, which were considered as new matter ; such as the 
 account from the southern quarter respecting the meeting 
 for sufferings, rejecting their representatives, and an ap- 
 plication, I think, from Bucks' quarter, respecting the man- 
 ner of choosing representatives to constitute the meeting 1 
 
 for sufferings, together with two cases that came up 
 
 from Philadelphia 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 gene- 
 rally 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 Jack- 
 son, vol. 2. Evid. 55.) It should be observed in general, 
 that these subjects were not the regular stated business of 
 the meeting, but occasional or special. In this remark, I 
 do not mean to deny or detract 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 more important consideration, is that the disposition 
 of these subjects, the course which was adopted and pmx 
 sued in respect to them, was the united act, and accord- 
 ing to the common wish, of all parties, of even those by 
 whom, or through whose instrumentality, they were 
 brought before the meeting. This important fact is denied 
 by no witness, and is expressly declared by more than one*
 
 34 
 
 The statement of one T have just no\v given. Farther be- 
 ing asked, if the subject from the southern quarter was not 
 dismissed 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 therefore, that subject, as 
 well as two others, were 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 yearly meeting was in; 
 and I can state what I have frequently 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 Betile, 
 would use his influence with his friends to have that sub- 
 ject passed over that was corning up from Philadelphia 
 quarter; which subjects it was apprehended, would pro- 
 duce a great deal of excitement in the yearly meeting, and 
 > which Samuel Bettle feared the consequences of; but how 
 far that influenced John Comly in favour of putting off 
 those subjects, I cannot say." (Halliday Jackson, vol. 2. 
 Evid. 132.) Another witness, Abraham Lower, being asked 
 whether the propositions from Bucks and the southern 
 quarter, were not disposed of, at the instance of members 
 from those quarters respectively, and who, since the sepa- 
 ration, have joined that portion of the society with which 
 he was in unity, answered, " I have no recollection of 
 the members of those quarters making such a proposition, 
 but I should think it quite probable." (Abraham Lower, 
 vol. 1. Evid. 392.) And the same witness, in another 
 place, testified, " as that yearly meeting was acknow- 
 ledged not qualified to enter upon the matters brought 
 up from the quarters, that case with others was con- 
 cluded not to be attended to." (Abraham Lower, vol. 1. 
 Evid. 373.) Samuel Bettle says he mentioned to John 
 Comly, " Had you not better withdraw the proposition
 
 35 
 
 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 with- 
 drawn, as it was not likely they would ever be adopted, 
 and would only occasion confusion and difficulty. The 
 propositions, w T hen again brought before the meeting, were 
 withdrawn by common consent." (Samuel Bettle, vol. I. 
 Evid. 69.) Thomas Evans testifies thus, " Those subjects 
 were all connected with, or had grown out of the contro- 
 versy, respecting the doctrines of Elias Hicks, and as there 
 was a general understanding that his friends were about 
 to separate and form a society of their own, those sub- 
 jects were at their suggestion, or by their consent refer- 
 red to the meetings from which they had come, or sus- 
 pended." (Thomas Evans, vol. 1. Evid. 276.) " In the 
 disposition of these subjects, there was a united conclu- 
 sion of the meeting, after as full an expression of opinion 
 as is usual ; and those that took part in this business, some 
 now belong to the new meeting, and others remained with 
 the old society, and participated with the deliberations of 
 the meeting which led to those conclusions." (Samuel 
 Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 87.) 
 
 Thus, then it appears, these omissions took place, cer- 
 tainly with the consent, and probably, at the request or 
 upon the suggestion of the very persons who now com- 
 plain. Under such circumstances, this measure, by no 
 means unusual, for Abranam Lower testified that he has 
 known cases brought to the yearly meeting and laid over 
 for the consideration of the next, does not afford ground 
 for censure, much less for annihilation, and least of all on 
 the objection 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? Was this unqualified state peculiar to one portion, 
 or common lo 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 agitation 
 and excitement, unfavorable to cool, deliberate and dis- 
 passionate investigation and decision, it was the part of 
 prudence, of Christian forbearance, of enlightened reason, 
 of patience and meekness, and of that spirit of peace and 
 submission which, may I not say without offence to others,
 
 36 
 
 so eminently characterizes this religious denomination, to 
 wait in humble expectation of the overshadowing 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 society can be held together, and attempts at order 
 and government, instead of the means of curbing, and re- 
 straining, and controlling the wayward passions of man, 
 do but afford him the opportunity of giving them extend- 
 ed and unbridled influence and action. 
 
 Besides these considerations, which are, I trust, suffi- 
 cient, conclusively to sustain the meeting in its constitu- 
 tional existence, there are some others, founded on the 
 acts and conduct of the members, and the component 
 parts of the society at large or the subordinate meetings, 
 which incontrovertibly evince the acknowledged existence 
 of the meeting, and its direct recognition as such, not only 
 during its session, but after it had closed its services for 
 the year. 
 
 John Comly, and I feel at liberty to refer to him, though 
 an individual, from his eminent standing and distinguished 
 character, 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 so- 
 ciety. John Comly acted throughout the meeting, from 
 the commencement to the close, as its organ, as an officer 
 of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia. He did, indeed, 
 request to Be excused from serving in that capacity. But 
 the fact remains that he did serve, and the reasons that he 
 gave for being inclined to withdraw, strengthen the infer- 
 ences to be deduced from the fact. Few men are, 1 be- 
 lieve, more distinguished for purity, candor, and every 
 other virtue. Did he say, I cannot serve this meeting, be- 
 cause I am not lawfully and rightly appointed an assist- 
 ant, and to act as such, would be, in me, usurpation and 
 oppression ? Did he say, he had been recorded as assistant 
 " in opposition to the voice of the larger part of the meet- 
 ing ?" Did he say, " the hedge was broken down ;" the 
 meeting was disorganized, a revolution had occurred, 
 there was no longer a yearly meeting, but the society was 
 dissolved into its original elements? Halliday Jackson 
 testifies thus : " The next morning, I believe, John Comly 
 did not take his seat at the table, at the opening of the 
 meeting, as usual." In this particular, perhaps not a very
 
 37 
 
 important one, the witness afterwards corrected him- 
 self, and said he believed Comly took his seat at the table 
 by the side of the clerk, when he first came into the meet- 
 ing, (vol. 2. 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 
 yearjy meeting appeared to be brought : that there were 
 two .parties, evidently two parties, that appeared to be 
 irreconcileable to each other, and therefore not qualified 
 to proceed in the weighty concerns of a yearly meeting 
 under those trying circumstances, and proposed that the 
 yearly meeting might adjourn, and Friends endeavour to 
 get cool and quiet in their minds, and that possibly they 
 might be favoured to come together again at some other 
 time, and be more in the harmony. .... And although 
 John Comly expressed his uneasiness at acting as assist- 
 ant clerk, at the request of some of his friends, and some 
 of the other party, also, he submitted again to go .to the 
 table." (H. Jackson, vol. 2. Evid. 54.) Other witnesses 
 state the transaction, not differently, though somewhat 
 more fully. " On third day morning, immediately after 
 the opening 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 feeling that he was 
 now there ; that the meeting was divided into two dis- 
 tinct and separate parties, and that under present circum- 
 stances those parties were irreconcileable ; that each of 
 these parties was striving for the mastery, and that if 
 either of them gained the ascendency, it must be to the 
 grievance and oppression of the other. He therefore 
 proposed that the meeting should suspend all farther busi- 
 ness, and adjourn ; but if the meeting was resolved to 
 proceed in its business, at all hazards, he could not con- 
 scientiously act as the organ of a meeting made up of 
 such conflicting parties, and must therefore request to be 
 permitted to retire. His proposal .... was but feebly 
 supported His party strongly objected to his leav- 
 ing the 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 the usual ex- 
 pression of approbation, to determine the sense of the 
 meeting on hie remaining at the table, so to continue, and 
 19
 
 38 
 
 to proceed with the business." (Thomas Evans, vol. 1. 
 E vid. 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, voL 1. 
 Evid. 69.) 
 
 Having seen the conduct of this very active and very 
 useful member, as he is called by one of the witnesses, 
 (Abraham Lower, vol. 1. 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 pro- 
 ceed, has just been mentioned. " The yearly meeting of 
 1827, was entirely conducted as it had been on previous 
 occasions." (Samuel Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 94.) "During 
 that meeting, persons who have since joined the other 
 meeting, were appointed on committees, and took an ac- 
 tive part in the concerns of the meeting throughout" 
 Ibid. In the afternoon of the first day's meeting, some of 
 the friends of John Comly "expressed, that they thought 
 the business of the meeting had better go forward." 
 (Thomas Evans, vol. 1. Evid. 266.) "During all the re- 
 maining sittings of the yearly meeting, he [John Comly] 
 and his friends continued their attendance, took part in its 
 deliberations, assented or dissented from its conclusions, 
 as opinion led them, and addressed it as the yearly meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia." (Thomas Evans, vol. 1. Evid. 267.) 
 "During the last hour of the sitting, all the proceedings 
 were read over, as is usual, at the close of the yearly 
 meeting; no objections were made by any one, to any 
 part of the minutes; the concluding minute was also read, 
 adjourning the meeting until the next year, at the usual 
 time and place, if the Lord permit." This conclusion is 
 the form common on such occasions. " After this minute 
 was read, a considerable pause ensued ; there was no ob- 
 jection made to it, and Friends separated from each other 
 in the usual mariner." (Samuel Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 70. 
 Thomas Evans, vol. 1. Evid. 268.) " Those who have 
 since" joined the Green street meeting, " were generally 
 present at the time of the adjournment. The yearly 
 meeting was as large and numerous at the last sitting, as 
 at any sitting during the week." (Joseph Whitall, vol. 1. 
 Evid. 218.) 
 
 One of the transactions of this meeting deserves, in the
 
 39 
 
 present connexion, particular notice. "There w.as 
 matter before the meeting which was of a humane and 
 benevolent character, that Friends, perhaps of both par- 
 ties, were pretty much united in." (Haliday Jackson* 
 vol. 2. Evid. 56.) " That was to raise three thousand- dol- 
 lars to aid our brethren in North Carolina, in removing 
 out of that state, many hundred coloured people, eight or 
 nine hundred of them at least, who were under the care 
 of the Carolina 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 proportions. 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 Ellis Yarnall, the treasurer of the yearly 
 meeting. The quarterly meetings that compose the yearly 
 meeting, all assembled, p.nd in conformity with the direc- 
 tion contained in the extract from the yearly meeting, 
 raised their quotas of the three thousand dollars, and paid 
 it to Ellis Yarnall, the treasurer." (Samuel Bettle, vol. J. 
 Evid. 70.) Chesterfield preparative meeting, bore its 
 wonted part. This transaction is of an unequivocal char- 
 acter. The resolve was an act, not of private or individ- 
 ual benevolence, but of the meeting in its collective ca- 
 pacity. The recommendation, by the extract, was such 
 as that meeting alone could perform. All, we are told, 
 united in it. Not a dissentient voice. It was received 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 authority. The effect of these circum- 
 stances cannot be weakened by the " humane and benev- 
 olent character" of this work of charity. It was indeed 
 proof of a noble and munificent spirit. But suppose the 
 general assembly of the presbyterian church, or the pro- 
 testant 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 consider- 
 ation of another of the heads into which this case has 
 been divided, the designs, plans, vie^s, feelings and acts
 
 40 
 
 of individual members of the society, and under thisr 
 head shall notice, so far as I think it necessary, the con- 
 duct of subordinate meetings, and of whai 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 sug- 
 gested 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 contin- 
 ued 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 remained, 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 sepa- 
 ration about which so much has been said and written in' 
 the course of thrs cause, or with the division and separa- 
 tion, except so far as they may operate on the legal exist- 
 ence of the assemblies of this society. A separation has, 
 indeed, taken place. Those who formerly offered their 
 sacrifices on a common altar, now no longer worship or 
 commune together. Many who once went up to the an- 
 cient temple have left it, and go up to another mount. 
 They had the right to do so. Our civil and religious lib- 
 erty, whereof we have such just reason for congratulation 
 and gratitude, left them free from all restraint, save con- 
 science and the divine law. We are not here to approve 
 or condemn them, nor to inquire 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 inquiry into religious 
 faith or opinions. Not that I doubt the power of this 
 court. For while I utterly disclaim the idea that this 
 court, or any court, or any human power, has the right
 
 4U 
 
 to enforce a creed, or system of doctrine or beTfef, on 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 ascer- 
 tain, by competent evidence, what are the religious prin- 
 ciples 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 so- 
 ciety 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 justice 1! How far, then, this separa- 
 tion 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 effect on 
 this society and the ancient assembly, is the outermost 
 bound of our inquiry. 
 
 Third. Inasmuch as our research, properly and almost 
 exclusively relates, as I have endeavoured to show, to the 
 yearly meeting in its collective capacity, it is of little 
 worth to inquire into the plans, designs, or views of indi- 
 viduals, or even the acts, of inferior bodies, since these, 
 however incorrect, or hostile, or indefensible, 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 
 forbearing spirit of Christianity ; if a party had sprung up, 
 resolved, as was said, " to rule or to rend ;" if even month- 
 ly or quarterly meetings had violated the wholesome rules 
 of common discipline, it by no means follows that the 
 bonds of the society were broken, their compact dissolved, 
 their discipline at an end, their constitution destroyed, and 
 their existence annihilated. Such a government is n 
 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 con- 
 dition of mankind, could not exist, abundantly proves that 
 such principles are unsound. The basis of all govern- 
 ment, 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 coit-
 
 42 
 
 duct. If otherwise, the edifice is built of such stuff a* 
 dreams are made of, and is as unsubstantial and as little to 
 be valued as a castle in the air. If the state of Georgia 
 shoiud disregard the decision of the federal judiciary, or 
 even resist the executive power of the United States, is the 
 constitution dissolved ?. If designs exist in South Carolina 
 " to rule or to rend," our government, surely, is not there- 
 fore 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 minority ? Cough, in his history, makes this judi- 
 cious and appropriate remark. "The independency 
 claimed by the discontented party, is incompatible with 
 the existence of society. Absolute independency in so- 
 ciety being a contradiction in terms." 3 Gough's Hist. 24. 
 
 This view of the subject would, I think, excuse any ex- 
 amination in detail ; yet to see these principles in their 
 practical application, 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 ad- 
 vert to some of the prominent topics of dissatisfaction 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, vol. 1. 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 Elias Hicks was, with the 
 consent and approbation of that monthly meeting, engaged 
 in the women's department in the prosecution of his reli- 
 gious concern." The occurrence took place " between 
 1819 and 1821," (Ibid.} Now, if a prominent member of 
 that meeting was guilty of rudeness or impropriety, it is 
 plain, that he should have been individually dealt with, 
 brought to confess, his error,, or disowned. If the meet- 
 ing, as such, acting from his example or under his influ- 
 ence, were guilty of censurable disrespect, " such meet- 
 ing ought" to have been required u to render an account 
 thereof." I use, here, the words, of the book of discipline,, 
 the meaning of which is well understood* But it is claim-, 
 ing too much, to assert, that the society is thereby rent 
 asunder, when no measures to punish the offenders were 
 ineffectually assayed, when years have shed their healing
 
 43 
 
 influence over it ; or that the religious rights and privf* 
 leges of all the other meetings and members, within a large 
 district of territory have been jeoparded, and the subse- 
 quent 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." (Abra- 
 ham Lower, vol. 1. Evid. 369.) The affair is thus repre- 
 sented 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 1 
 a pamphlet, to be composed of extracts- from the writings 
 of our early Friends, and from what some of us saw of the 
 disposition of those persons, who have since denominated 
 themselves ' Orthodox'. ... we felt afraid that something 
 was about to be got up, calculated to trammel our con- 
 scientious rights, and when the pamphlet was prepared, a 
 small number of us expressed our dissatisfaction with the 
 undertaking, and with, the matter of the pamphlet,, 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, L 
 
 think, ten thousand of them printed but it was de- 
 tained, not published. And when the minutes of the meet- 
 ing for sufferings came to be read as usual, in the yearly 
 meeting, to my surprise, that pamphlet appeared to-be re- 
 corded on the minutes, and when it was read, the yearly 
 meeting appeared very much dissatisfied with it. It was 
 proposed, and generally united with, and so expressed, 
 that it should be expunged from the minutes of the meet- 
 ing for sufferings... . It was finally left,, with the conclu 
 sion 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 sufferings.. . . 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, 
 vol. 1. 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 op testimonies
 
 44 
 
 are misrepresented in works that are published, to endea- 
 vour to induce the editors of those works to give the views 
 that Friends hold in respect to the doctrines thus misre- 
 presented. In the year 1822, there was a discussion in a 
 public paper, printed at Wilmington, conducted under the 
 signatures of Paul and Amicus ; Paul attacking Friends, 
 and Amicus speaking in their behalf, and in a manner too, 
 which showed, that he was speaking for the society, clear- 
 ly. After this discussion had progressed for a considera- 
 ble time, Amicus avowed doctrines, as part of the Chris- 
 tian faith, which we could not accord with ; they appeared 
 to be of a socinian character, 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 committee 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 mi- 
 nute 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 pub- 
 lishing 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 objec- 
 tions were made to that part of the proceedings The 
 
 excitement being considerable, the meeting adjourned un- 
 til the next morning. When the meeting assembled the 
 next morning, it was proposed that the extracts should be 
 stricken off the minutes of the meeting for sufferings ; ob- 
 jecjtion was made to that, on the ground that it would be 
 a disavowal of the doctrines held by Friends, these extracts 
 being taking 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 proposition was finally acquiesced in, and the business 
 so settled." (Samuel Bettle, vol. 1. Evid. 72.) How far 
 this explanation may serve to show 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 conscien- 
 tious rights, or to abridge the right of private judgment, I
 
 43 
 
 shall not undertake to decide. It is enough to say, that If 
 such a design existed, if such an effort was made, the de- 
 sign was frustrated, 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 cannot believe that 
 the proposal, by a committee of congress, of an unconsti- 
 tutional or oppressive law, would annihilate that body, or 
 abrogate the constitution. The wildest and most vision- 
 ary theorists would not, I believe, venture on such bold 
 and untenable ground. 
 
 This matter, of religious faith and doctrine of a creed, 
 has directly or indirectly filled up a large portion of the 
 volumes of evidence before us, was the subject of many 
 remarks in the arguments 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 lamented rupture 
 in this most respectable society. I fear the matter 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 
 the tenets of Confucius, of Bramah, or of Mohammed. 
 They believe "in Christ and him crucified." 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 de- 
 claration 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 Philadel- 
 phia, in or about 1730. It is, I suppose, the same which 
 is to be found in Sewell's History, (vol. 2. 472.) It pur- 
 ports to be " a declaration of what our Christian belief 
 and profession has been and is," and contains an exposi- 
 tion of belief, in respect to Jesus Christ, his suffering, 
 death, and resurrection, and the general resurrection of 
 the dead, and the final judgment. Sewell, (vol. 2. 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 
 meeting, as early as 1701, by their direction and at their 
 expense, circulated Barclay's Apology, and his Catechism,
 
 46 
 
 and Confession of Faith, as containing the doctrines and 
 tenets of the society of Friends. What is a creed but 
 an exhibition of faith and doctrine 1 Why, then, should 
 the tocsin now be sounded among a people, \vho, a well 
 informed member tells us, have more frequently than any 
 other religious community, exhibited to the world their 
 principles and their faith ? Were the early Friends less 
 anxious for the cause of truth, less jealous of encroachment 
 on their religious 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 judg- 
 ment ? 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 meet- 
 ing of Philadelphia, (Thomas Evans, vol. 1. Evid. 304.) 
 are fraught with so much good sense, practical wisdom, 
 and genuine piety, that they cannot be too frequently 
 pondered by all, of every name or sect, who feel an in- 
 terest in the cause of religious truth and order. " 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 obligatory upon believers. I an- 
 swer affirmatively, she hath ; and shall prove it in divers 
 instances, both from Scripture and reason ; for, first, all 
 principles and articles of faith which are held doctrinally, 
 are, in respect to those that believe them, matters of con- 
 science Now, I say, we being gathered into the be- 
 lief of certain principles and doctrines, without any con- 
 straint or worldly 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 prac- 
 tices necessarily depending 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 doc- 
 trines to be wrong, with which we cannot have unity, nor 
 yet any more spiritual fellowship with those that hold 
 them Now, this cannot be accounted tyranny and
 
 47 
 
 oppression Were such a principle to be received or 
 
 believed, that in the church of Christ no man man should 
 be separated from, no man condemned or excluded the 
 fellowship and communion of the body, for his judgment 
 or opinions in matters of faith, then what blasphemies so 
 horrid, what heresies so damnable, what doctrines of 
 devils but might harbour itself in the church of Christ? 
 What need then of sound doctrine, if no doctrine make 
 unsound? .... Where a people are gathered into the be- 
 lief 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 communion." (Bar- 
 clay's Anarchy of the Ranters, 53, &c.) On the present 
 occasion it is not my purpose, because for the determina- 
 tion of the controversy before us, I do not find or deem 
 it necessary, to inquire whether the society of Friends can, 
 or may, or will, according to their rules, disown a member 
 who holds unsound or heretical doctrines, who should disa- 
 vow 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 distinctive 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 mistake in this, when I read such a 
 passage as I have quoted from Barclay, a standard of the 
 society, acknowledged, received, revered 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, publish- 
 ed by them, resorted to by them as their light and guide 
 in the hours of darkness, and doubt, and difficulty ; in 
 those trying hours, which come to them as they come to 
 all men of religious 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
 
 4$ 
 
 3n every year, to certify to its quarterly meeting, hi an- 
 swer to one of the queries, " whether ministers are sound 
 in word and doctrine 1 ?" Soundness is a relative term, 
 meaning freedom from error and fallacy, and necessarily 
 requiring some standard whereby the word and the doc- 
 trine 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 fel- 
 low man, be compared and tried ? If, however, I may \ 
 mistake in thus reverting to these venerated sources, let 
 us for a moment, recur to the evidence. Abraham Lower, 
 (vol. 1. Evid. 369.) says, in connexion 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 righteousness.' " 
 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 ex- 
 pressed, to the author and the book from which I have 
 just quoted. In this connexion, 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 ascertained 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 de- 
 parture from a sound belief, be made a subject of com- 
 plaint? How is such a denunciation to be reconciled 
 with the alarm at a creed, or the dreaded attempt to con- 
 trol conscience and abridge the right of private judg- 
 ment? 
 
 The meeting for sufferings, by the rejection of certain 
 persons, appointed by the southern quarter as representa- 
 tives, are charged to have given " reason to apprehend 
 that they were determined to control the operations of 
 society according to their wills," and to have furnished 
 41 evidence of their iiaving 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, vol. 1. Evid. 370.)
 
 49 
 
 The meeting for sufferings, is a subordinate depart" 
 ment for the business of this society, and especially to ex- 
 ercise care during the intervals between the sessions of 
 the yearly meeting. If this body did improperly reject 
 the representatives, if in this respect they violated the 
 discipline, it' is very obvious that their act, their unconsti- 
 tutional act, could impart no censure whatever to the 
 yearly meeting, 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 declining or 
 neglecting their attendance 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 re- 
 lease two of the persons, who were then sitting as mem- 
 bers of the meeting for sufferings under their appoint- 
 ment ; and appointed others. The meeting were of opin- 
 ion that such a measure was not contemplated by the dis- 
 cipline; that the quarter had a right to fill, but not to 
 create vacancies; and that the only case which consti- 
 tuted a vacancy and called for a new appointment, was 
 death, resignation, 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 for- 
 warded to the yearly meeting of 1827 for their care, and 
 was one of those, which as already mentioned, were 
 postponed. (Exhib. No. 47, vol. 2. Evid. 477.) Here, 
 then, appears to have been a difference of opinion, on the 
 construction of a clause in the book of discipline, respect- 
 ing the power of the quarterly meeting. Without under- 
 taking 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 examinar 
 20
 
 50 
 
 tion 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 was sanctioned by a practice of seventy 
 years, coeval with the existence of that meeting. Now 
 an honest diversity of opinion as to constitutional powers, 
 could not " dissolve 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 determina- 
 tion of the quarter, until the matter could be investigated 
 and decided by the ultimate and competent tribunal, the 
 yearly meeting. But in whatever light we may view this 
 matter, it is, as already observed, the act of the meeting 
 for sufferings, not of the yearly meeting. The course pur- 
 sued by the latter, and the reason of that course, have 
 been already mentioned and considered. If, indeed, " this 
 circumstance" had produced, as is said by one of the 
 witnesses, (Halliday Jackson, vol. 2. Evid. 48.) " as great 
 a sensation throughout the society, as, perhaps, any other 
 circumstance that occurred previously to the yearly meet- 
 ing 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 prac- 
 tice of the society of Friends, are very manifest. 
 
 The remarks which I have made on these cases, se- 
 lected by way of example, and for the sake of illustration, 
 render it unnecessary that I should particularly notice, or 
 enter at large into the statement or consideration of others 
 of the same general character. If the principles which I 
 have endeavoured to establish, and have applied to these 
 cases, are correct, the others can have no greater influ- 
 ence on the question of the 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 yearly meeting, and which I have shortly, un- 
 der this head, expressed by the phrase, " feelings of indi- 
 viduals." 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 interrupted ; a division exists 
 among us, developing views which appear incompatible 
 with each other, and feelings averse to a reconciliation."
 
 51 
 
 Now admitting this to be true, and it may, perhaps, be 
 rather to be lamented than denied, that such incompatible 
 views and averse feelings existed in both parts of this 
 body ; what consequence can fairly, legally, upon any prac- 
 tical principles of human action, result to the existence of 
 the meeting, and the connexion of the society? What 
 consequence, on the pacific 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 re- 
 concile 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 justly said to the others, "Let there be no strife, I 
 pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herds- 
 men arid 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 depart to the 
 right hand, then I will go to the left." But without even 
 an attempt at such a voluntary separation, I can see no 
 safe principle, which will entitle a portion of those who 
 entertained such views and feelings, on account of their 
 existence and prevalence, to disfranchise the rest, to de- 
 clare the ancient meeting dissolved, the society broken up 
 into its individual elements, and th'ti proceed 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 foundations and principles. 
 
 If a portion of this religious community found, or be- 
 lieved to exist, in another portion, such feelings and views 
 as rendered it impracticable for them any longer to fra- 
 ternize, any longer peacefully, harmoniously and profita- 
 bly to meet and commune and worship together, a very 
 sufficient 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, would have sustained them 
 in the measure, and allowed them to join any other reli- 
 gious community, or form another association, of what- 
 ever name, for religious purposes. But the existence of 
 such feelings and views, woujd, np.t deprive those who re-
 
 52 
 
 mained of their ancient name, rights and privileges, if 
 they retained their ancient faith and doctrine, maintained 
 their wonted testimonies, and adhered to their ancient 
 standards ; nor would the act of withdrawal, even if by a 
 majority, confer on them the form and name, the power 
 and authority of the ancient community. In like manner, 
 if a portion discovered in the rest, or in some of the 
 more influential members, a determination " to rule or to 
 rend," although hereby, in conscience, a sufficient reason 
 to excuse or justify a withdrawal might be found, yet 
 could not even a majority carry with them, the power 
 and authority and rights of the whole, unless the dispo- 
 sition or determination had been carried out into overt 
 acts; for, of the latter 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 endeavoured to examine and weigh, in de- 
 tail, 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 meeting 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 func- 
 tions for the time, in the usual manner, and by the ancient 
 minute, was the legitimate body, it is enough for the pre- 
 sent occasion, nor need we look at its future history, be- 
 cause 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 unprofitable to state in this connexion, as ap- 
 pears 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 represent the society of Friends, or to pos- 
 sess or exert any power of disownment. 
 
 If the body which thus held and closed its session, was 
 the regular, constitutional yearly meeting, it follows, as 
 an inevitable consequence, that the assembly which con- 
 vened in October, of the same year, in Green street, could
 
 53 
 
 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 in 
 life, another of the same powers, rights, and jurisdiction, 
 could not, according to the discipline of the society, ac- 
 cording to the simplest elements of reason, according to 
 the immutable rules of action, which must govern and 
 control all human assemblages, of whatever nature, and 
 whether religious or civil, according, indeed, to the avow- 
 ed doctrines of the pleadings in this cause, and the con- 
 sentaneous declarations of counsel, a second, a subse- 
 quent 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 meet- 
 ing was fixed by the voice of the yearly meeting, which 
 alone had the authority in this respect, and alone could 
 change it. The time was directed by the constitution or 
 book of discipline, to which we have had so frequent oc- 
 casion to refer. The time could, indeed, be altered by the 
 yearly meeting, but by it alone. There was no adjourn- 
 ment made by the yearly meeting, to a shorter day than 
 the annual period. There is no provision in the constitu- 
 tion for an intermediate, or as it is commonly denomi- 
 nated, a special meeting ; 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 of whomsoever composed, 
 which may have convened in the intermediate period 
 could, conformably to the 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 together to confer on the state of 
 the society. They resolved to meet again, and accord- 
 ingly 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 
 20*
 
 54 
 
 this meeting, is said by Stacy Decow, in his answer to 
 the bill of interpleader, to be, "the true and legitimate 
 yearly meeting of Philadelphia," and by one of the wit- 
 nesses, is called " the yearly meeting reorganized," (Abra- 
 ham Lower, vol. 1. Evid. 404.) We are now to examine 
 whether it was so, and in the present inquiry I propose to 
 lay out of view the fact, which I believe has been fully 
 demonstrated, that the yearly meeting was actually in 
 full vigour and capacity. 
 
 This inquiry is to be conducted under two different as- 
 pects, first, on the assumption that the constitution or dis- 
 cipline of the society remained in force ; and secondly, 
 on the assumption that the hedge was thrown down, the 
 bond of union unloosed, the society broken up into its in- 
 dividual elements, the constitution or discipline not pro- 
 viding 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. 
 Neither can be changed without the resolution and au- 
 thority of the yearly 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, consti- 
 tute " a contingent adjournment," nor contemplate " the 
 circumstance .... of Friends not being again permitted 
 to assemble at that time ;" but were designed to acknow- 
 ledge their humble and entire dependence on the Great 
 Master of assemblies, without whose permission they 
 neither expected nor wished again to convene. A special 
 meeting of the yearly meeting is an anomaly, and unpro- 
 vided for. Neither the few nor the many, have power 
 given to them to convoke such meeting. If then, the 
 constitution was in force, the meeting 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 lib-- 
 erty to act from individual minds. Was the meeting en- 
 titled to the name it then assumed ? There are three in- 
 surmountable obstacles. First, it was not convened as the 
 ancient yearly meeting. Second, the members at large, 
 the only constituent parts, or in other words, the individ-
 
 55 
 
 ual elements, were not, and a portion of them only was, 
 invited to assemble. Third, it was not composed or con- 
 stituted as the ancient yearly meeting. 
 
 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 issued, the faintest idea is not held 
 out that the ancient yearly meeting was to be convoked ; 
 no hint is given that the ancient meeting was to be reor- 
 ganized, or to be settled on its ancient foundations and 
 principles. On the contrary, the idea is conveyed with 
 comprehensible distinctness, that a new yearly meeting 
 was to be formed. The address, which bears date in 
 June, contains, in the first place, an avowal of the design 
 or object in view, " to regain harmony and tranquillity 
 .... 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 intro- 
 duced, and seem disposed to continue, such disorders 
 among us." There is nothing here of remaining in the 
 ancient yearly meeting, nor of continuing or reorganizing 
 it. But let us proceed. " We therefore .... have agreed 
 to propose for your consideration, the propriety and ex- 
 pediency of holding," what? The ancient yearly meet- 
 ing? No. " A yearly meeting for Friends in unity with 
 us, residing within the bounds of those quarterly meetings 
 heretofore represented in the yearly meeting held in Phil- 
 adelphia." And farther, " It is recommended that the 
 quarterly and monthly meetings 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 favourable 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 prominent points. First, the meet- 
 ing was to be composed of representatives from the 
 monthly as well as the quarterly meetings. Now, the an- 
 cient 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 reorganiza- 
 tion of it, nor a settling of it on its ancient principles.
 
 56 
 
 Second, It was to be, not the Philadelphia yearly meeting, 
 but " a yearly meeting of men and women Friends ;" 
 and thirdly, It was to be formed on the principles of the 
 early professors of our name, not on the platform of the 
 yearly 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 Philadelphia 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 reorganize, as they are said to have orig- 
 inally formed, it is a very clear proposition, and not to be 
 controverted, that all the individuals of the society ought 
 to have been called; none should have. been directly or 
 indirectly excluded. Whatever dissensions 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 law- 
 ful, the true and legitimate yearly meeting cannot be there. 
 Now, the recommendation or invitation to assemble, was 
 not comprehensive, but exclusive, not general, but limited. 
 A particular class or description only were invited ; all 
 the rest were debarred and shut out. The maxim, expres- 
 sio unius. est exclusio alterius, is adopted in the law, only 
 because it is the dictate of common sense. For whom 
 was the meeting 7 Who were to attend 7 " For Friends 
 in unity with us." Not for Friends in general, not for the 
 members of the ancient yearly meeting, but for such only 
 as were in unity with those who made the proposal. Who 
 were invited to send representatives? All the monthly 
 and quarterly meetings 7 By no means. " The monthly 
 and quarterly meetings zvhick may be prepared for such a 
 measure." This language cannot be misunderstood 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 7 All 
 the society 7 All ether members 7 Not so. " Other mem- 
 bers favourable to our views." Was then the yearly 
 meeting convoked ? Was even a general meeting of the
 
 57 
 
 society of Friends called ? Ingenuity cannot pervert, blind- 
 ness cannot mistake, such perspicuity. If I may be per- 
 mitted to use a term, because it is so common as to be well 
 understood, 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 qualifica- 
 tion, but a party. And such a convocation, of a portion 
 only of the society, the rest whether majority or minor- 
 ity, or however small in comparative numbers, being ex- 
 cluded, cannot be the true and legitimate yearly meeting, 
 cannot be the ancient yearly meeting reorganized and set- 
 tled again on its ancient foundations and principles. 
 
 Third. The meeting in October was not composed or 
 constructed as the yearly meeting. 
 
 I have, incidentally, adverted to this subject, in show- 
 ing the nature of the call, or who were invited to attend 
 the meeting ; but 1 now present it as a characteristic dif- 
 ference between this assemblage and the yearly meeting. 
 The yearly meeting is composed of members of two 
 classes, individuals, and the quarterly meetings ; the latter 
 being represented by delegates. Such is not only the case 
 since the present book of discipline was published 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 meet- 
 ing in London. This meeting is constituted of repre- 
 sentatives deputed from each quarterly meeting in Eng- 
 land, from the half yearly meeting in Ireland, and some- 
 times from other parts, yet without restraining any mem- 
 ber in unity with the society from attending." (2 Gough's 
 History, 163.) But the meeting in Green street was com- 
 posed of three classes, individuals, quarterly meetings, 
 and monthly meetings; some of the latter, as bodies, 
 Mount Holly, Chesterfield and Radnor, being represented 
 by their delegates. (Exhib. 9.) It is no answer, that mem- 
 bers of this society are entitled 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 remembered,
 
 perform the important service of nominating a clerk to 
 the meeting. And hence, the clerk who acted for, and 
 was appointed by this meeting was nominated, at the least 
 in part, by the representatives of monthly meetings, who 
 were irregularly there. And the incongruity of this pro- 
 cedure farther appears from this, that the individual mem- 
 bers first appointed, in their monthly meetings, the repre- 
 sentatives of those meetings, and then themselves attend- 
 ed 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 religious 
 faith existed, were of an inferior and evanescent nature. 
 It seems to me, though, perhaps, I am unable, not being a 
 member of the society, properly to appreciate the matter, 
 that patience, forbearance, brotherly kindness and charity, 
 the meek and mild spirit which has been believed to char- 
 acterize and adorn the genuine Friend, would, under the 
 smiles and blessing of Providence, have wrought out a 
 perfect reconciliation, have brought again these discord- 
 ant minds to the wonted harmony, and the unity of spirit 
 would have again prevailed. If, indeed, a difference of faith 
 and doctrine had grown up and become strong, if either 
 portion had fallen off from the ancient 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, " between 
 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 re- 
 member any charge that the members of the society, who 
 remain connected with the Arch street meeting, have de- 
 parted from the doctrines and principles of Friends, as 
 stated by their founder and his early followers ; and I re- 
 joice that I have not been constrained to inquire 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 or rea- 
 sons sufficient to induce a separation. With these, I do 
 not profess, for this court, in the present cause, to inter-
 
 59 
 
 fere. It is with the legal consequences of their acts, we 
 are to concern ourselves. A separation of a portion does 
 not necessarily destroy or impair, nor, as it respects legal 
 existence, even weaken the original institution. This doc- 
 trine 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 Jer- 
 sey, which is, through and by its connecting links, con- 
 nected with, and subordinate to, the yearly meeting of 
 Philadelphia, 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 subordinate, is not a preparative meeting 
 of that people, within the meaning of their constitution 
 and discipline, 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 preparative meeting having author- 
 ity to appoint the treasurer of the school fund, is the pre- 
 parative meeting of Chesterfield, connected with, and sub- 
 ordinate to, the yearly meeting of Friends of Philadel- 
 phia. We have seen that the preparative meeting where- 
 by Stacy Decow was appointed treasurer, was not, at 
 the time of that appointment, connected with, and subor- 
 dinate to, the Arch street meeting, but had previously dis- 
 united itself therefrom, and connected itself with the 
 Green street meeting ; and that, therefore, it was not the 
 Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends, at Cross- 
 wicks, 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, conse- 
 quently, the legal right to recover the money. 
 
 I do, therefore, respectfully recommend to His Excel-
 
 60 
 
 lency the Chancellor, to decree upon this bill of inter- 
 pleader, that the principal and interest mentioned in the 
 said bond, and intended to be secured by the said mort- 
 gage, 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. 
 
 Opinion of ASSOCIATE JUSTICE BRAKE. 
 
 The present controversy has grown out of the prosecu- 
 tion of a certain bond and mortgage, bearing date the sec- 
 ond day of the fourth month (April), A. D. 1821, executed 
 by Thomas L. Shotwell to Joseph Hendrickson, Trea- 
 surer of the School Fund of Crosswicks' Meeting, to se- 
 cure the payment of two thousand dollars, with interest, 
 at six per cent., to the said Joseph Hendrickson, Trea- 
 surer 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, to- 
 gether with the principal, composes the sum now in dis- 
 pute. 
 
 It is admitted, that the money, for which these securi- 
 ties were given, is part of a fund, the principal part of 
 which was raised about the year 1792, by the voluntary 
 subscriptions of a considerable number of the members 
 of the preparative meeting of the people called Quakers, 
 at Crosswicks, in the township of Chesterfield, county of 
 Burlington and state of New Jersey ; for the purpose of 
 creating an interest, or annuity, "to be applied to the edu- 
 cation of such children, as now do, or hereafter shall, be- 
 long to the same preparative meeting, whose parents are 
 not, or shall not be, of ability to pay for their education." 
 And this fund was to be " under the direction of the 
 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 some-
 
 61 
 
 times designated as the Chesterfield preparative meeting, 
 at Crosswicks ; and at other times, as [the preparative 
 meeting of Friends, at Crosswicks. It was an associa- 
 tion, 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 sum- 
 mer or autumn of 1827, when disputes arose in that meet- 
 ing, and others with which it stood connected, which re- 
 sulted 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 January, 
 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 ca- 
 pacity, to have the custody of this fund. As both ha-oe 
 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 preparative meet- 
 ing. And inasmuch as two several bodies pretend, each, 
 to be the true preparative meeting, and one only is con- 
 templated 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 prepara- 
 tive meeting of Friends was divided, by the minority of 
 the members, assembled at that time, withdrawing to an- 
 other 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. 
 
 If this preparative meeting were an independent body, 
 acting without the influence of any conventional principle 
 operating upon this point, the act of the minority on this 
 occasion would not affect the powers of the majority who 
 remained in session ; however it might expose itself, and 
 the members composing it, to disabilities. But the right 
 to make appointments, and to fixer cise the other functions 
 21
 
 62 
 
 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 connexion with the 
 society of Friends, and the history of that society, so far 
 as it influences the separation in this preparative meeting, 
 in order to determine the question, 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 1 time when 
 this school fund was created, and thence down to the 
 year 1827, was an association of Christians, bound together 
 by a distinct government, peculiar testimonies, and, as one 
 party contends, by certain religious doctrines, deemed by 
 them fundamental. For their government, the Friends, 
 residing in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as early as the 
 year 1689, established a general meeting, called a yearly 
 meeting, in which the numerous inferior meetings have 
 been represented, and which all the members of the soci- 
 ety have had a right to attend, (vol. 1. Evid. 333.) That 
 yearly meeting, soon after its institution, adopted and pub- 
 lished certain articles of government, called " Rules of Dis- 
 cipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in Phila- 
 delphia." 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 xvilling to be tried. 
 In this publication, we find that their meetings for disci- 
 pline are declared to be ; (Intro. Discip. 3.) " First, pre- 
 parative meetings ; which commonly consist of members 
 of a meeting for worship ; second, monthly meetings, each 
 of which commonly consists of several preparative meet- 
 ings; third, quarterly meetings, each of which consists of 
 several monthly meetings ; and, fourth, the yearly meet- 
 ing, which comprises the whole." 
 
 And the connexion and subordination of these meeting?, 
 are declared to be thus; (Discip. 31.) "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 pro- 
 ceedings of any inferior meeting ; or the quarterly meet- 
 ing with the proceedings of either of its monthly meetings ; 
 
 * 7 Serg. and Rawle, 460 ; 5 Binney, 485 ; 5 Johnson, 39 ; 1 Bos. and 
 Pul. 229 ; 2 Dessausseure, 583 ; 16 Mass. 418.
 
 63 
 
 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 there- 
 of, when required." 
 
 This preparative meeting at Chesterfield, was establish- 
 ed at an early period. It was, ever since its origin, con- 
 nected with, and, in the sense of the book of discipline, 
 subordinate to the Chesterfield monthly meeting ; which 
 was subordinate to the Burlington quarterly meeting ; and 
 that, to the Philadelphia yearly meeting. 
 
 Such were the connexions sustained by this preparative 
 meeting, 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 meet- 
 ing, at the close of that year. During the same year, a 
 division took place in the Philadelphia yearly meeting, 
 which was followed up by divisions in all the subordinate 
 meetings, or at least all, with which this preparative meel- 
 ing was connected in its subordination. The division so 
 resulted, that as early as tenth month, 1827, there were 
 two yearly meetings in existence, (vol. 1. Evid. 622; 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 inferior 
 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, (vol. 2. Evid. 207, 8.) which resulted in two distinct 
 quarterly meetings ; one assembling at the city of Burling- 
 ton, and the other at Chesterfield. And a division also took 
 place, in ninth or tenth month, 1827, in Chesterfield month- 
 ly meeting. A dispute arising, respecting the propriety 
 of granting a certificate of membership to an individual, 
 to be presented to Green street monthly meeting ; which 
 dispute was founded on the question, whether that meeting 
 still retained its connexion 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 favour of making
 
 64 
 
 the certificate, they considered him as refusing, or at least, 
 as neglecting to serve the meeting, and at once called an- 
 other person, Jediah Middleton, to the chair, to serve 
 them as clerk. (Vol. 1. Evid. 337 ; vol. 2. Ibid. 284.) Af- 
 ter which, the two parties conducted their business sepa- 
 rately ; the minority and old clerk, adhering to the Bur- 
 lington quarterly meeting, in connexion with the Arch 
 street yearly meeting, and the other party sending repre- 
 sentatives to the Green street yearly meeting, (vol. 2. 
 Evid. 296, 7. 323.) 
 
 It was after this complete division of the Chesterfield 
 monthly meeting, that the transaction took place in the 
 preparative meeting before noticed. These meetings were 
 composed, in some measure, of the same persons. The 
 clerk, James Brown, and many other persons there, had 
 previously manifested their partiality 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 meet- 
 ing, 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 re- 
 turn to Jediah Middleton, the clerk of that monthly meet- 
 ing, connected with the Chesterfield quarter, and Green 
 street yearly meeting ; (vol. 2. Evid. 323.) thus acknow- 
 ledging the meeting of which he was clerk, to be a branch 
 of that yearly meeting. He had also denied the authority 
 of the monthly meeting, of which David Clark was clerk, 
 (vol. 1. Evid. 325 ; vol. 2. Ibid. 323.) In eleventh month, 
 1827, the Burlington quarter, connected with the Arch 
 street yearly meeting, appointed a committee to visit its 
 subordinate "meetings. (Vol. 1. Evid. 325, 6.) On the 
 twenty-seventh of twelfth month (December) that com- 
 mittee presented themselves before the Chesterfield pre- 
 parative meeting then assembled. A committee also pre- 
 sented itself from the Burlington quarter, connected with 
 the Green street yearly meeting. An inquiry was made 
 of the clerk, or meeting, in what connexion this prepara- 
 tive meeting was then acting. No direct reply was given. 
 It being manifest that the harmony of the meeting was 
 broken, and all parties knowing the predilections of them- 
 selves and others to be so fixed, that it was useless to spend 
 time in debate, the minority, wishing to sanction no pro- 
 ceeding which would change their connexion or allegiance,
 
 65 
 
 withdrew; protesting against any forfeiture 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 respective parties, in effecting these divisions; but 
 I do not regard the particular acts, or formalities, observed 
 by these subordinate meetings, as of much consequence, 
 seeing there is a complete separation of the society into two 
 distinct bodies, acting under separate governments; al- 
 though each still professes to adhere to the ancient disci- 
 pline 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 meet- 
 ing 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. Every Friend is a member of his yearly meet- 
 ing. It is the yearly meeting which overlooks, controls, 
 and exerts a care over all that are in connexion with it ; 
 which hears their appeals in the last resort; which pre- 
 serves their uniformity in discipline, and in the mainte- 
 nance of their peculiar testimonies; in a word, which 
 identifies them as a body of Friends. And in order to de- 
 termine which is the true preparative meeting, at Cross- 
 wicks, we must ascertain which is the true yearly meet- 
 ing of Friends, held in Philadelphia. 
 
 The yearly meeting was established in Burlington, in the 
 year 1681. (vol. 1. Proud's Hist. Penn. 160, 61.) It was 
 held alternately, at Burlington and Philadelphia, from 1684, 
 to 1761 ; after which it was removed entirely to Philadel- 
 phia, and was held there annually 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 dissen- 
 sions, 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 purifica^ 
 tion of the old one. It will be necessary to look a little 
 into particulars, to discover the character of this transact 
 2.1*
 
 66 
 
 tion, and what should be its effect upon the present case. 
 And I would here observe, that I use the word party, or 
 parties, " Orthodox" and "Hicksite," in this opinion, merely 
 to designate individuals, or bodies of men, acting together, 
 and not with any reference to the feelings, motives, or 
 principles, upon which they may have acted. 
 
 Questions of importance were expected to arise at the 
 yearly meeting of 1827, upon which disagreement was 
 anticipated. The respective parties made such prepara- 
 tions for the approaching business 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 nomina- 
 tion of a clerk to the yearly meeting, was the appropriate 
 business of the representatives from the quarterly meet- 
 ings, (vol. 1. Evid. 68, 217.) In the meeting held by them 
 for that purpose, Samuel Bettle and John Comly were nom- 
 inated. Each party advocated the pretensions of its fa- 
 vourite candidate, but neither candidate was agreed upon.. 
 Upon its being reported to the yearly meeting, that the re- 
 presentatives 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, (vol. l.Evid. 68,218.) 
 In this, there was, at least, a partial acquiescence of the 
 opponents of the old clerk, (vol. 1. Evid. 69, 218. vol. 2. 
 16. 21, 267, 392.) He took his seat 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 irrecon- 
 cileable parties ;" but for some reason or other, he again 
 acquiesced, and acted as assistant clerk the residue of the 
 meeting. One other subject of dispute occurred towards 
 the close of that meeting. It was respecting the appoint- 
 ment of a committee to visit the inferior meetings. To this, 
 there was considerable opposition, but the clerk finally re- 
 corded a minute in favour of the appointment. After 
 which, the meeting adjourned, " to meet at the same time 
 and place the next year." (vol. 1. Evid. 70.) 
 
 On the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first of April, 
 1 827, 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 sub-
 
 67 
 
 scribed, by direction and in behalf of said meeting, by John 
 Comly, and others ; in which address, after alluding to the 
 divided state of the society in doctrine and in feeling, and 
 to measures of the yearly meeting deemed oppressive, 
 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 confusion." (vol. 2. Evid. 454.) They 
 adjourned, to meet again in the same place on the fourth 
 day of sixth month (June), 1827. At which second meet- 
 ing, they agreed on and published a second address, in 
 which, after adverting to disorders and divisions in the 
 society, and transactions of the late yearly meeting, against 
 the sense, as they considered, of the larger 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 con- 
 vince our brethren of the impropriety of such a course, 
 and that being favoured to see the evil consequences of 
 such conduct, they might retrace their steps. But hith- 
 erto, we have waited in vain. Time and opportunity for 
 reflection have been amply afforded, but have not pro- 
 duced the desirable results. On the contrary, the spirit of 
 discord and confusion have gained strength, and to us 
 there appears now, to be no way to regain 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 seemed disposed to con- 
 tinue, such disorders among us." The address concludes, 
 by proposing for consideration, " the propriety and expe- 
 diency of holding a yearly meeting of Friends in unity znth 
 us, residing within the limits of those quarterly meeting?, 
 heretofore represented in the yearly meeting held in Phi- 
 ladelphia, on the third second day in tenth month, (then) 
 next." (vol. 2. Evid. 455, 456.) At which time, a yearly 
 meeting was accordingly held, in Green street, Philadel- 
 phia ; which has been continued, at the same place, from 
 year to year; and which is the same yearly 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, (vol. 1. 
 Evid. 50.) 
 
 Which of these yearly meetings represents the society
 
 68 
 
 of Friends contemplated in this trust ? A first view strongly 
 inclines us to answer, it is that held in Arch street That 
 was regularly adjourned 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, and a new place. One is the old meeting, in 
 form at least, and the other the neu\ But some circum- 
 stances attending this separation, involve the case in some 
 degree of doubt. Those who formed the Green street 
 meeting, claim to be the majotity. They complain of va- 
 rious abuses existing in the society, for the preceding five 
 years; that " measures of a party character were intro- 
 duced" into some of their meetings for discipline, and that 
 " the established order of society was infringed, by carry- 
 ing 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 conspicuous. Means were recently taken therein 
 to overrule a greater part of the representatives, and a clerk 
 teas imposed upon the meeting without their concurrence or con- 
 sent." 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 attendance." (vol. 2. Evid. 
 456.) 
 
 In connexion with these complaints, we must take into 
 consideration 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 dis- 
 cipline, are not entitled to equal weight in their decisions ; 
 so that the clerk, whose business it is to ascertain and re- 
 cord the sense of the meeting, should not count the num- 
 ber of persons present, and decide with the majority of 
 voices, but should pay more attention to elderly, pious, and 
 experienced men, than to those of an opposite character, 
 (vol. 1. 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 opinion of the majority, in numbers ; 
 or at least, that he should not record a minute against the 
 sense of the majority, (vol. 1. Evid. 43, vol.2. Ib. 244.) 
 Another peculiarity, is this, insisted on by the Arch street
 
 party, and apparently conformable to usage, that until the 
 appointment of a new clerk, the old one is to act. It may 
 be easily perceived, that the effect of these principles com- 
 bined, may be to place a meeting under the control of a 
 minority, however small, or even of 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 meeting of 
 fourth month, 1827, was deprived of its rights, it would 
 incline me very much, to endeavour to distinguish this 
 case from that of an ordinary secession from the govern- 
 ment of a religious society. 
 
 The complaint, that the majority was overruled, relates, 
 I presume, more particularly to the meeting of representa- 
 tives 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 proceedings 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 in- 
 quiry into the facts, or to decide those which are contro- 
 verted. 
 
 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 pre- 
 sumption that they were the majority, arising from the fact 
 that they insisted that the majority ought to govern, and 
 endeavoured to take measures to ascertain it. (Vol. 1. 
 Evid. 372, 3.) This was resisted by the other party, either 
 from conscious inferiority of numbers, or from a consci- 
 entious desire, not to violate the ancient usage of the so- 
 ciety, as to the mode of ascertaining the solid sense of a 
 meeting. 
 
 As to the true mode of ascertaining the sense of a meet- 
 ing, 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 resorting to a formal count, or division 
 of parties. (Vol. 1. Evid. 64. 330. 458. vol. 2. Ib. 169. 250.) 
 This society commenced in persecution, and has, hereto- 
 fore, been distinguished for its harmony. Believing in the 
 operation of the spirit of truth on their minds, not only in
 
 70 
 
 worship, but in business, if properly 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 argument, or noisy declamation. Hence, few 
 have attempted to speak on questions. And these would 
 naturally be the experienced and aged. A few voices from 
 such quarters, unopposed, has always been sufficient to 
 
 fuide the clerk. If a contrariety of views appeared, it 
 as not been the practice to continue the debate 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, princi- 
 pally, in gathering the sense of the meeting. And this 
 practice being ancient and uniform, and withal counten- 
 anced by some of their most respected writers, and con- 
 nected with their religious faith, strengthens 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 minute in 
 opposition to the sense of the majority in numbers. (Vol. 1. 
 Evid. 35. 64. 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, (vol. 1. Evid. 43. vol. 2. Ib. 244.) and that 
 however much the young and inexperienced 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 ex- 
 pedient to preserve it. Indeed, it appears to be of almost 
 vital importance to a religious society like this ; into 
 which members are admitted without any public declara- 
 tion of their faith, arid even as a birthright. And yet it 
 is difficult to apply it, and act upon it, under such circum- 
 stances 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 
 important questions, and each tenacious of its opinions. 
 How shall their controversies be decided 1 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. (Vol. 1. Evid. 85. 333.) How, 
 then, is he to distinguish between them 1 The usage to 
 accord superior weight to superior piety and experience, 
 has, indeed, been uniform, yet it seems to want that de- 
 gree of certainty in its application, 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 
 government if not a democracy, very much resembles a 
 monarchy. Neither party would be willing to call it the 
 latter, unless by supposing 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 
 decision 1 We come back again to the clerk. Will he al- 
 ways declare them truly ? 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 unu- 
 sual and trying circumstances which existed. The persons 
 nominated by the two parties, were respectable men, of 
 great worth and experience. They had both, for a long 
 time, served the society very satisfactorily, in the most re- 
 sponsible stations, those of clerk, and assistant clerk. 
 But both had, or were suspected to have, partialities, 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 " Ortho- 
 dox" did not believe that John Comly could serve the 
 meeting faithfully, and the " Hicksites" were equally dubi- 
 ous 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, (vol. 1. Evid. 64.) 
 They believe that the Head of the Church, when properly 
 invoked, will shed his influence upon their meetings, and 
 be "a spirit of judgment, to those who sit in judgment." 
 Hence, the clerk is suffered to gather the feeling and sense 
 of a meeting, from those who have long manifested a spi- 
 ritual walk and conversation, aided by the agency of the 
 spirit of truth, in his own mind. But, it is at least possible,
 
 72 
 
 that a meeting should be unfitted, in a measure, for this 
 intercourse with the spirit; and that the clerk may be in- 
 fluenced 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 govern- 
 ment 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 ? 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 1 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 they took, or save them from 
 the legal consequences of a secession. I would only ob- 
 serve, further, on this branch of the subject, that were this 
 a mere 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 considered, not merely as a trustee, but as having a 
 beneficiary interest, inasmuch as the fund is to be expend- 
 ed 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 acknowledging 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 connect- 
 ed themselves with the wrong head, (supposing this to be 
 a mere dispute as to government, or discipline) I should 
 feel very reluctant to conclude that they could have no 
 further right or interest in the fund. But as I before in- 
 timated, I mean not to form, or express an opinion on this 
 subject ; for, in surveying the pleadings and testimony in 
 this cause, the conviction urges itself strongly upon my 
 niind, that there is another great distinction between these
 
 73 
 
 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 decision 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 doctrines have always 
 been held and maintained by them." (Vol. 1. 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, 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 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 ex- 
 pressly 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 
 expressly laid down in the Scripture, and have not con- 
 sidered themselves warranted in making deductions, how- 
 ever specious. 
 
 " In the second place, the people called Quakers, have 
 always believed in the doctrine of the atonement, that the 
 divine and human nature of Jesus Christ were united ; 
 that thus united, he suffered, and that through his suffer- 
 ings, death, and resurrection, he atoned for the sins of 
 men. That the Son of God, in the fullness of time took 
 flesh', became perfect man, according to the flesh, descend- 
 ed 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, 
 22
 
 74 
 
 and that by him again man receiveth and partaketh of 
 these mercies ; that Christ took upon him the seed of Abra- 
 ham, 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 
 proceeding 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 person may entertain repug- 
 nant to the doctrines of the Scriptures, which are unerr- 
 ing, 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 entertain- 
 ed by the ' Orthodox' party aforesaid, to which party this 
 defendant belongs. That these doctrines are, with the said 
 religious society, fundamental ; and any individual enter- 
 taining sentiments and opinions 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 call- 
 ed Quakers, and is treated accordingly." And he further 
 alleges, that previous to the separation, the society be- 
 came 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 the doctrines above stated. 
 That the 'Orthodox' party hold to them, but that the 
 ' Hicksite' party do not adopt and believe in them, but en- 
 tertain opinions entirely and absolutely repugnant and 
 contrary thereto." 
 
 Decow, in his answer alleges, that "the society of 
 Friends acknowledge no head but Christ, and no principle 
 of authority or government in the church but the love and 
 power of God operating upon the heart, and thence influ- 
 encing 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
 
 75 
 
 all its members as the effective bond of union ; the right 
 of each individual to judge of the true meaning of Scrip- 
 ture testimony, relating to the doctrines of Christianity, ac- 
 cording to the best evidence in his own mind, uncontrolled 
 by the arbitrary dictation of his equally fallible fellow man, 
 hath been as well tacitly as explicitly, acknowledged by 
 the society." (vol. 1. 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 
 comely order in its internal polity ; partly to the observance 
 of the principles of morality and justice, by all belonging 
 to it; and partly to the maintenance of its peculiar testi- 
 monies." 
 
 He further alleges, that " the Chesterfield preparative 
 meeting of Friends, at Crosswicks, to which he belongs, 
 is the same Chesterfield 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 succession, and are a part of the 
 ancient society of Friends. That they believe in the Chris- 
 tian religion, as contained in the New Testament, and as 
 professed by ancient Friends, and adhere to the religious 
 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 unto 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 ; although they differ in this, that one points out 
 certain doctrines, which he considers as parts of that faith, 
 and that they are essential parts; while the other, without 
 directly denying these to be the doctrines of Friends, or 
 that his party in the society hold doctrines repugnant 
 thereto, contents himself with alleging that " they believe 
 in the Christian religion, as contained in the New Testa- 
 ment, and as professed by ancient Friends :" and their ad- 
 herence to their peculiar testimonies, some of which are 
 specified ; and distinctly advances " the right of each in- 
 dividual to judge of the true meaning of Scripture testi- 
 mony, relating to the doctrines of Christianity, according to 
 the best evidence in his own mind." And by enumerating
 
 76 
 
 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 Chris- 
 tian religion, as contained in the New Testament." All 
 sects of Christians, however widely separated, unite in 
 professing this. But if I can understand the liberty claimed 
 in this answer for the members of the society, it is, that 
 they may interpret the Scriptures, in reference to the doc- 
 trines 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 mea- 
 sure, declared 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 into the consciences or faith of mem- 
 bers 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 
 connected with other religious persuasions, or of no reli- 
 gion 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 occa- 
 sion, 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, sure- 
 ly, inquire into the badges of distinction, by which the so- 
 ciety of Friends are known ; and if they are characterized 
 by established doctrines, we may inquire what those 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 court cannot take notice of religious 
 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 
 opinion, not necessary to inquire whether there were any 
 
 * 1 Dow's Rep. 1. 2 Jacob and Walk. 248. 3 Merrivale, 412, 419. T 
 Serg. and Rawle, 460. .3 Degsaiisguj-e, 57,
 
 77 
 
 differences of opinion among their ancient writers, provi- 
 ded the society had for a long time before this fund was 
 established, promulgated as a body, their religious doc- 
 trines, and had settled down in harmony under them. It 
 is a body of Friends, with its settled and known charac- 
 teristics, 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 distin- 
 guished for religious inquiry, 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 them- 
 selves Christians and protestants, but appear to have re- 
 quired from those seeking to become united with them, no 
 formal 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 principles became the subject 
 of inquiry, and of misrepresentation, by reason of which, 
 they were exposed to reproach and persecution, and it be- 
 came necessary for them to come out and avow their 
 leading doctrines to the world. This was done by their 
 leaders and principal men, professing 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, being assailed with these misre- 
 presentations, and especially with this, that they denied 
 God, Christ Jesus, and the Scriptures of truth; "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 ad- 
 dressed to the governor 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 inspi- 
 ration of the Scriptures, is most fully and explicitly avowed, 
 (vol. 2. Fox's Jour. 145, 138, 316, 338, 367. vol. 1. Ib. 4, 
 56, 57.) Elias Hicks intimates that George Fox, for pru- 
 dential reasons, disguised his real sentiments, (vol. l.Evid. 
 116. vol. 2. Ib. 417.) But this ill agrees with the history of 
 Fox, and I suspect with the belief of Friends, as to his real 
 22*
 
 78 
 
 character. Sewell has given his character in this respect, 
 as drawn by a contemporary, in these words : " He was 
 indeed, a heavenly minded man, zealous for the name of 
 the Lord, and preferred the honour of God before all 
 things. He was valiant for the truth, bold in asserting it, 
 patient in suffering for it, unwearied in labouring in it, 
 steady in his testimony to it, immoveable as a rock." (vol. 
 2. Sewdl's Hist. 464.) 
 
 In 1689, the British parliament passed an act for ex- 
 empting protestant dissenters from certain penalties, by 
 which the Quakers had suffered for many years. To ob- 
 tain the benefit of this exemption, they subscribed, among 
 other articles, the following: " I, A. B. profess faith in 
 in God, the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his eternal son, the 
 true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for- 
 evermore ; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of 
 the Old and New Testament, to be by divine inspiration." 
 The historian adds, " we now see the religion of the 
 Quakers acknowledged and tolerated by an act of parlia- 
 ment." (vol. 2. Sewell, 447.) 
 
 In 1693, the doctrines of the society being misrepresent- 
 ed by George Keith and others, " they found themselves 
 obliged to put forth their faith anew in print, which they 
 had often before asserted, both in words and writing, 
 thereby to manifest that their belief was really orthodox, 
 and agreeable with the Holy Scriptures, (vol. 2. Sewell, 
 471,) And being charged with some socinian notions, 
 a short confession of faith, signed by one and thirty per- 
 sons, of which George Whitehead was one, was, in De- 
 cember following, presented to the parliament. (2 Sewell, 
 483, 499. vol. 1. Evid. 297. 3 Gough's Hist 386.) In these 
 public declarations, we find these enumerated doctrines 
 recognized and avowed. At that time, and afterwards, 
 the society of Friends in this country, acknowledged the 
 London yearly meeting as their head, and appeals were 
 taken from their meetings in this country, and decided 
 there, (vol. 1. 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 "Apolo- 
 gy"* purporting to be an explanation and vindication of 
 the principles and doctrines of the people called Quakers 
 
 * 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.
 
 70 
 
 these principles are distinctly exhibited 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 be- 
 lieved by the churches of Christ, in Great Britain and Ire- 
 land, who are reproachfully called by the name of Qua- 
 kers." In these, the doctrines above mentioned, are most 
 fully and explicitly taught and professed.f 
 
 It is in evidence, that Barclay's Apology, and his Cate- 
 chism, and Confession of Faith, purporting as aforesaid, 
 have been published and circulated by the Philadelphia 
 yearly meeting, by the use of its own funds, and as their 
 minutes express, " for the service of truth," as early as the 
 year 1701, and on several occasions since, (vol. 1. Evid. 
 76, 297.) 
 
 There is much other evidence laid before us, by docu- 
 ments 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" party, 
 (vol. 2. 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 de- 
 gree of reverence, uncommon, even among Christians. 
 Feeling it presumptuous to speculate upon what is obscure, 
 they have, in doctrinal matters, adopted its explicit language, 
 but rejected the ingenious deductions of men; they have 
 been unwilling to be wise above what is written. And in 
 matters of practice, they have endeavoured to apply its pre- 
 cepts literally; and this is the foundation of their peculiar 
 testimonies. 
 
 But are these doctrines essential? There is strong evi- 
 dence of this, in the very nature of the doctrines them- 
 selves. 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 difference between the pagan, 
 
 t See pages 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 134.
 
 80 
 
 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 
 become 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 necessity for all the divisions which have 
 taken place. Many of the controversies in the church, 
 have doubtless arisen from minute and subtile distinctions 
 in doctrine, which have been maintained, 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 dissensions. And when- 
 ever the civil government, or the prevailing party, in a re- 
 ligious society, have formed creeds, and required profes- 
 sions of faith, descending to these minute points, it has, 
 necessarily, caused the separation of those, or at least the 
 honest part of them, who could not believe up to the pre- 
 cise line of orthodoxy. Hence, no doubt, many separa- 
 tions have taken place in churches, upon points of doctrine, 
 which would never have disturbed the harmony of the as- 
 sociation, had not public professions of faith been required, 
 descending into minute and non-essential particulars. In 
 these days many Christians find themselves able to unite in 
 worship with those of different denominations, and to for- 
 get the line of separation between them. But, although 
 unnecessary divisions 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 religious society may har- 
 monize in their public worship and private intercourse, so 
 as to experience the benefits of associating together. Of 
 this description, is the belief 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 answer; to make and to perform his promises, can- 
 not 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 conceives to be idolatrous. 
 
 And with respect to the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 The belief in the divine nature and atonement of Jesus 
 Christ, and indeed, of the Christian religion itself, is inti-
 
 81 
 
 mately 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- 
 
 farded as the truth of God, the pride of human reason is 
 umbled before them. It afterwards exerts its powers to 
 understand, and to apply, but not to overthrow them. 
 Faith may repose in confidence upon them, and produce 
 its fruits in a holy life. To a people like the Friends, who 
 pay so much attention to the light within, but who at the 
 same rime, 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 dic- 
 tated by the spirit of truth, they necessarily become pre- 
 cious ; 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 what spirit they are of. For, in the language of Bar- 
 clay, " they are certain, that whatsoever any do, pretend- 
 ing 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 families, 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 operation 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 saving truths declared in them. (Disc. 12.) And 
 hence, by the same discipline, ministers are liable to be 
 dealt with, who shall misapply, or draw unsound inferences 
 or conclusions from the text. (Ib. 62.) And a periodical 
 inquiry is directed to be made whether their ministers are 
 sound in word and doctrine. (Ib. 95.) 
 
 I have before said, that their great regard for the Scrip- 
 tures, and desire to comply with them literally, is the foun- 
 dation of their peculiar testimonies. These are acknow- 
 ledged by Decow and his party, to be essential, and a de- 
 parture from them, a ground of disownment. (vol. 1. Evid.
 
 82 
 
 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 defend 
 these testimonies, they do not refer us to the light within. 
 They do not say that this has taught them that oaths are 
 unlawful, &c. But they point to passages of Scripture, as 
 authority, and undoubted authority, on these subjects. But 
 why are they authority? 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." (vol. 2. Fox's Jour. 147. 
 vol. 1. Evid. 78.) Can it be that the rejection of, or 
 nonconformity to, particular passages, is ground of dis- 
 ownment, and yet that their members are at liberty to re- 
 ject the whole ?" What would this be but to permit their 
 fellow man to select and garble as they please, and dic- 
 tate what should be believed, and what might be disbelieved ? 
 These testimonies regard the practices of the members. 
 Robert Barclay did not consider deviations from them, as 
 the sole causes of disownment. He says, " we being gath- 
 ered together into the belief of certain principles and doc- 
 trines ; those 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 w 
 become centered into one body and fellowship, and dis- 
 tinguished from others. Now, if any one, or n.ore, so en- 
 gaged 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 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 con- 
 clude, that where a people are gathered together into the 
 belief of the principles and doctrines of the gospel of Christ, 
 if any of that people shall go from those principles, and 
 * Anarchy of the Ranters, pages 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59.
 
 83 
 
 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 
 endeavours to convince and reclaim them, upon their ob- 
 stinacy, to separate such, and to exclude them from their 
 spiritual fellowship and communion. For otherwise, if 
 these be denied, farewell to all Christianity, or to the main- 
 taining of any sound doctrine in the church of Christ." 
 And, surely, these remarks must be applicable to doctrines 
 as radical as those above stated. 
 
 In 1722, the yearly meeting of Philadelphia issued a tes- 
 timony, accompanying Barclay's Catechism and Confes- 
 sion of Faith, which they styled " The ancient testimony 
 of the people called Quakers, revived." In which, after a 
 long enumeration of evil practices which the apostles tes- 
 tified against, and through which some fell away, they add, 
 " and some others, who were then gathered 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 endeavours to convince 
 and reclaim these backsliders, to exclude them from our 
 spiritual fellowship and communion, as also the privileges 
 they had as fellow-members ; which power we know by 
 good experience, continues with us, in carrying on the dis- 
 cipline of the church in the spirit of meekness." (vol. 2. 
 Evid. 11.) And in answer to what was said in argument, 
 as to the extent of the discipline appearing in its introduc- 
 tory paragraph, I would observe that this testimony was 
 issued soon after that introduction commences, by refer- 
 ring to it, and may be considered as in a manner explana- 
 tory of it. But the discipline itself is not silent on this 
 subject. Its object is declared to be, " that all may be 
 preserved in unity of faith and practice" Now, what is 
 unity of faith? Does it not reqfuire unity of interpretation ; 
 unity of views, of the meaning of texts of Scripture, in- 
 volving important doctrines? It does not require submis- 
 sion to the dictation of others. But it does require an ac- 
 commodation 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 
 Catechism and Confession of Faith and Apology of Bar- 
 clay, as guides to opinion, and it will not suffer even the
 
 84 
 
 less essential doctrines there promulgated, to be questioned, 
 if it be done in a contentious or obstinate spirit, without 
 subjecting the offender to discipline. This is plainly indi- 
 cated in the testimony above referred to. (Disc. 12.) And 
 with respect to the more important doctrines now in dis- 
 pute, the discipline expressly says, " Should any deny the 
 divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the immediate 
 revelation of the Holy Spirit, or the authenticity of the Scrip- 
 tures ; and it is manifest they are not one in faith with us, 
 the monthly meeting where the party belongs, having ex- 
 tended due care for the help and benefit of the individual 
 without effect, ought to declare the same, and issue their 
 testimony accordingly." (Disc. 23. vol. 1. Evid. 385.) 
 
 In addition to all this, several respectable witnesses tes- 
 tify that the denial of these doctrines has always been held 
 to be ground of disownment, and they adduce many in- 
 stances of actual disownment for these causes, (vol. 1. 
 Evid. 60. 99. 108. 171. 306.) 
 
 Upon reviewing the testimony, I am satisfied that the 
 society 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 doc- 
 trinal, show that the party called " Orthodox," insisted on 
 these doctrines. The offensive extracts of the meeting for 
 sufferings, declares them. (vol. 1. Evid. 217. vol. 2. Ib. 414.) 
 And these have been published by the yearly meeting of 
 that party, in 1828. And there is much testimony by wit- 
 nesses, that the Arch street meeting adheres to them. (vol. 
 1. Evid. 60, 99.) and none to the contrary. 
 
 So that it appears to me, that Hendrickson has suffi- 
 ciently established that the preparative meeting at Chester- 
 field, 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 are 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
 
 85 
 
 inquiry into their doctrines, further than as they have pub- 
 licly declared them, is inquisitorial, and an invasion 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 ascertain it. And this must be done by such evi- 
 dence as the nature of the case admits of.* 
 
 I have already stated, that the answer of Decow ap- 
 peared to me indirectly to deny that the faith of Friends 
 embraces the enumerated doctrines insisted on by Hen- 
 drickson, and to claim freedom of opinion on those points. 
 I feel more 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 appears, to show 
 a want of uniformity among ancient writers of the society, 
 when treating 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 ; be- 
 cause they must interfere with another acknowledged fun- 
 damental principle of the society the guidance of the 
 light within. Now if it be established, that these doctrines 
 are part of the religious faith of Friends, can it be neces- 
 sary, 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 Friends 
 do hold these doctrines : Decow's party does not ; there- 
 fore 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 essen- 
 tial doctrine 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 society whatever. 
 
 But as I may have mistaken the meaning of Decow's 
 answer, which is certainly not very explicit in this parti* 
 
 * 3 Merrivale, 411, 413, 417. 3 Dessaussure, 557. 
 23
 
 86 
 
 cular, I will next turn to the evidence, and discover, if I 
 can, what is the fair result of the examination of that. 
 
 Decow offers no testimony respecting the belief of his 
 party in the particular doctrines in question. His witness- 
 es refuse to answer 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 ascertained. 
 
 Several public addresses were issued by the party called 
 "Hicksite," 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, 
 views which appear incompatible with each other, and feel- 
 ings averse to a reconciliation. Doctrines held by one part 
 of the society, and which we believe to be sound and edi- 
 fying, 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 
 opposed in their meetings for worship, and laboured with 
 contrary to the discipline. Upon looking into the testi- 
 mony, we find that the prominent individual who furnished 
 occasion for these complaints, is Elias Hicks; and that the 
 interruptions and treatment of him, deemed exceptionable, 
 had their origin in the doctrines which he preached. (voL 
 1. Evid. 308, 474, 478.) Can it be denied, then, that dif- 
 ferences 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 
 have facts. The belief should refer to specific doctrines, 
 that the court may judge as well as the witnesses, 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 created for the education of the poor children of a 
 certain preparative meeting of the religious society of 
 
 1 vol. Evid. pages 387, 381, 406, 475. 2 vol. Ibid, pages 13, 90, 206.
 
 87 
 
 Friends. That body has lately become separated. Its 
 unity is broken; the -views of its members are incompatible; 
 and doctrines held by one party to be sound, are pronounced by 
 the other party to be unsound. And two distinct meetings 
 exist at this time, and each claims the guardianship 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 allege 
 that they hold the faith of Friends ? but instead of proving 
 it, they call upon their adversaries to prove the contrary. 
 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 at the creation of the fund ; 
 and which has furnished prima facia evidence that it has 
 withdrawn, or separated from that meeting, 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 know- 
 ledge, 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 ap- 
 pear that they correspond with the religious faith of the 
 society of Friends. 
 
 I would merely add, that if it be true, that the " Ortho- 
 dox" party believe in the doctrines above mentioned, and 
 the Hicksite" party consider that every member has a 
 right to his own belief on those subjects, they well might 
 say that their differences were destructive of their unity. 
 If their members and ministers exercise perfect freedom 
 of thought and speech on these points, their temples for
 
 88 
 
 i 
 
 worship, and it is to be feared, their own hearts, would 
 soon be deserted by the place-loving spirit of the Master. 
 There is an essential incompatibility in adverse views, 
 with regard to these doctrines. The divinity of Christ, 
 and the authenticity of the Scriptures, cannot be debated 
 in a worshipping assembly, without defeating the proper 
 purposes of meeting together. 
 
 And upon this supposition too, the propriety, as well as 
 legality, of this court's noticing the doctrines of the pre- 
 parative meeting, which is to superintend the expenditure 
 of this fund, is too manifest to admit of doubt. We have 
 already seen, by reference to the discipline of this society, 
 with what earnestness they endeavoured 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 effect these purposes, their 
 yearly meeting has directed their attention to the subject 
 of schools. " The education of our youth," says the dis- 
 cipline, " in piety and virtue, and giving them useful learn- 
 ing under the tuition 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 meetings, it is renewedly de- 
 sired, that quarterly, monthly and preparative meetings 
 may be excited to proper exertions for the institution and 
 support of schools ; for want of which, it has been observed, 
 that children have been committed to the care of transient 
 persons of doubtful character, and sometimes of very 
 corrupt minds." " It is, therefore, indispensably incum- 
 bent on us, to guard them against this danger, and pro- 
 cure such tutors, of our ou-n 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 superior 
 meetings, (vol. 2. Evid. 345, 346, 436, 437.) as well as of 
 the members of the Chesterfield preparative meeting, this 
 school at Crosswicks was established, and this fund raised 
 for its support. It thus appears, that the fund was intended 
 to promote, not merely the secular knowledge of the pupils, 
 but their growth in the religious principles deemed funda- 
 mental 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
 
 89 
 
 their children from the faith of their fathers. Could these 
 meetings, and these contributors have contemplated that this 
 fund should fall into the hands of men of opposite opinions, 
 or of no opinions 1 Could these men, who acknowledge the 
 obligation of this discipline, enjoining, as it does, upon pa- 
 rents and heads of families " to instruct their children in the 
 doctrines and precepts of the Christian religion, as con- 
 tained in the Scriptures," and, " to prevent their children 
 from having or reading books and papers tending to pre- 
 judice the profession of the Christian religion, or to create 
 the least doubt concerning the authenticity of the holy Scrip- 
 tures, or of those saving truths declared in them, lest their 
 infant and feeble minds should be poisoned thereby." I 
 say, is it possible that such men could have expected that 
 their children should be taught by Elias Hicks, that the 
 Scriptures "have been the cause of fourfold more harm 
 than good to Christendom since the apostles' days." And 
 that " to suppose a written rule necessary, or much useful, 
 is to impeach the divine character 1 ?" Or, that they should 
 be taught by him, or by any one else, that each individual 
 must interpret them for himself, entirely untrammelled by 
 the opinions of man ; and that the dictates of the light 
 within are of paramount authority 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 endeavoured to show that doctrines may justly 
 have an influence on the decision of the question now be- 
 fore us. And without coming to any conclusion with re- 
 spect to their doctrines, I am of opinion, that this fund 
 should be awarded to that meeting which has shown, at 
 least to my satisfaction, that they agree in doctrine with 
 the society of Friends, as it existed at the origin of this trust. 
 
 I do, therefore, respectfully recommend to His Excelr 
 lency the Chancellor, to decree upon this bill of interplea- 
 der, that the principal and interest due on the said bond, 
 of right belong, and are payable to the said Joseph Hen- 
 drickson ; and that he be permitted to proceed on his ori- 
 ginal bill of complaint, or otherwise, according to the rules 
 and practice of the court of chancery. 
 
 GEORGE K. DRAKE. 
 23*
 
 THE 
 
 PURCHASE LAW SUIT. 
 
 THE following observations and statements will explain 
 the origin of the suit, in which the annexed opinion of the 
 Supreme Court of the State of New York has been pro- 
 nounced. 
 
 The meetings of the Society of Friends for the manage- 
 ment of its internal affairs, consist of four grades, between 
 which there is a regular connexion and subordination. 
 First, Preparative Meetings, which are the lowest in au- 
 thority, and subordinate and accountable to the monthly 
 meetings. Second, Monthly Meetings, in which the exe- 
 cutive power is principally lodged. These are generally 
 composed of several preparative meetings, and are subor- 
 dinate and accountable to the Quarterly Meetings, which 
 mostly consist of a number of monthly meetings, and are 
 responsible to the "Yearly Meeting, which is the supreme 
 head. Preparative and monthly meetings have the care 
 of providing for those members who may be in indigent 
 circumstances ; and it frequently happens that funds are 
 raised either by donations or legacies, and placed under 
 their care, the income of which is applied to the mainte- 
 nance of the poor, the education of their children, and 
 other purposes of the Society. 
 
 The preparative meeting of Friends at Purchase, in the 
 county of Westchester, state of New York, held and ma- 
 naged such a fund, amounting in lands and money to about 
 three thousand dollars, the income of which was to be 
 appropriated to schooling the children of members of that 
 preparative meeting. The fund was raised by the vol- 
 untary contributions of the members, and by legacies, and 
 the preparative meeting appointed one of its members as 
 treasurer.* 
 
 * This meeting is subordinate and accountable to Purchase monthly 
 and quarterly meeting.
 
 91 
 
 James Field, treasurer of this fund, and plaintiff in the 
 suit, loaned to Charles Field, the defendant, on his note, 
 payable to him or his successor, the sum of five hundred 
 dollars, part of the fund, for which he was to pay inte- 
 rest. Subsequently to this, the unhappy controversy in- 
 troduced by Elias Hicks and his doctrines, produced a 
 separation in the Purchase preparative and monthly meet- 
 ing. The plaintiff went with the Hicksite party, and the 
 defendant remained with the Friends. There were now 
 two bodies, each claiming to be the Purchase preparative 
 meeting. The Hicksites continued James Field as their 
 treasurer, and in the First month, (January,) 1830, the 
 preparative meeting of Friends released James Field, and 
 appointed Thomas Carpenter treasurer of the fund on its 
 behalf. 
 
 Charles Field, the defendant, declined recognizing James 
 Field as treasurer, and paid the note to Thomas Carpenter, 
 the person appointed by Friends. 
 
 The Hicksites had possession of ten meeting houses out 
 of the eleven in Westchester county, and of the whole of 
 this school fund except the five hundred dollars in question. 
 On finding that Charles Field declined making'any further 
 payments to James Field as treasurer of the fund, a suit 
 at law was commenced for the recovery of the money. 
 The cause came on for trial before Judge Emott, at a cir- 
 cuit court of Oyer and Terminer, held at. Bedford, West- 
 Chester county, in the Ninth month, (September.) 1830. 
 
 The counsel for the prosecution took the ground that 
 the case was to be viewed simply as a money transaction 
 between two individuals, without reference to the char- 
 acter of the trust, or the connexion of the treasurer with 
 the society of Friends. On the other hand, it was con- 
 tended by the counsel for Friends, that the question 
 whether James Field should recover or not, must depend 
 upon the fact of- his being the legal treasurer of the fund, 
 this again must depend on the character of the meeting 
 that appointed him. There were before the court, two 
 bodies of people, each claiming to be the Purchase pre- 
 parative meeting of Friends, and also two persons, each 
 assuming to be treasurer of the fund under the authority 
 of the respective meetings by which they were appointed. 
 James Field having no claim to this money in his own 
 right, but only as the representative of the preparative 
 meeting, for whose use it was held, his right to recover
 
 92 
 
 must depend on the character of the meeting which ap- 
 pointed him. Both the meetings could not be the Purchase 
 preparative meeting of Friends ; consequently one must 
 be the genuine and the other a spurious meeting. It was 
 proved that every preparative meeting of Friends must be 
 in connexion with a regularly organized monthly meeting 
 of the Society, and subordinate to it, and subject to its 
 control. That the separation took place in the monthly 
 meeting with which the Purchase preparative meeting 
 was thus connected, in the Sixth month, (June,) 1828. 
 That the monthly meetings of the Society of Friends are 
 always opened by the clerk, who reads a minute to that 
 effect, after which the meeting proceeds to business. That 
 at the monthly meeting above alluded to, Henry Griffin, 
 the clerk duly appointed, was prevented from taking his 
 seat at the clerk's table as usual, by the violent and tumul- 
 tuous conduct of some of the Hicksite party, who com- 
 pelled him and those Friends who wished to preserve the 
 order of the meeting, to leave the house, and withdraw to 
 the yard, where he opened the monthly meeting in the 
 usual manner, and proceeded with its business. That this 
 meeting has been continued ever since as a regular month- 
 ly meeting of the Society of Friends, in connexion with 
 its proper quarterly and yearly meeting. Hence it was 
 maintained, that as the Purchase preparative meeting 
 which appointed Thomas Carpenter its treasurer, was held 
 in connexion with, and subordinate to, the authority of this 
 monthly meeting, it was the meeting for the use of whose 
 members the trust was created, and he must be considered 
 as the legal treasurer, entitled to the money in controversy. 
 That the Hicksite party remained in the meeting house, 
 after having expelled Friends, not having the clerk, or 
 being in any way organized, had no claim to be the month- 
 ly meeting of Friends, and that as the preparative meet- 
 ing which continued James Field treasurer, was in con- 
 nexion with this latter body, it took its character from it, 
 and could have no claim to interfere with the fund, as it 
 was not the Purchase preparative meeting for whose 
 benefit the trust was created. It was also proved, that in 
 the meetings of the Society -of Friends, it was contrary to 
 settled usage and principles to decide any question by vote, 
 count of numbers, or a reference to majorities, and con- 
 sequently that no majority of the Hicksite party could 
 render their acts valid, if they proceeded contrary to the
 
 93 
 
 discipline and usages of the Society of Friends, or enter- 
 tained doctrines adverse to those which it had always held 
 and acknowledged. The counsel for the defendant offer- 
 ed to prove that the Hicksite party had departed from the 
 established doctrines of the Society of Friends, and from 
 its discipline and customs, and therefore could have no 
 claim to the control of the fund in question, which was a 
 trust for the exclusive benefit of the members of that So- 
 ciety. 
 
 On the part of the plaintiff it was urged, that the Hicks- 
 ite party comprehended a large majority of those who 
 had belonged to the preparative and monthly meetings 
 previous to the separation, and consequently that they 
 had a right to control and manage the fund. 
 
 Several of the witnesses produced, were members of 
 Purchase preparative meeting, and their evidence was re- 
 fused by the court, on the ground of their having an in- 
 terest in the fund in question : of the number thus re- 
 jected, Thomas Carpenter, the treasurer appointed by the 
 Purchase preparative meeting of Friends, was one. The 
 court also refused to hear any testimony respecting the 
 doctrines of the Society of Friends, or those entertained 
 by the Hicksite party. In his charge to the jury, the judge 
 took the naked facts as they were presented in the evi- 
 dence, stripped of all the collateral circumstances, and 
 charged the jury, that as the Hicksite party included a 
 majority of the members, and as James Field, the plaintiff, 
 was the treasurer at the time the note was given, and still 
 was considered so by the greater portion of the persons 
 then constituting the Purchase preparative meeting, he 
 must recover. The jury, after being out a short time, 
 brought in a verdict accordingly. 
 
 The cause was brought before the Supreme Court of the 
 state on a bill of exceptions, for the purpose of obtaining 
 a new trial at the Fifth Month (May) term, 1832, in the 
 city of New York, and was ably argued by David B. 
 Ogden, and Hugh Maxwell, for the defendant, and James 
 Talmage, and William Silliman, for the plaintiff. Justices 
 Nelson and Sutherland sitting, Justice Sutherland being 
 absent from indisposition. The opinion, in which the 
 bench united, was delivered by Judge Nelson, at the Oc- 
 tober (Tenth Month) term last, in Albany.
 
 OPINION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 STATE OF NEW YORK, &c. 
 
 JAMES FIELD vs. CHARLES FIELD. 
 BY THE COURT NELSON, JUDGE. 
 
 THE objections to the recovery on the ground of variance, 
 between the date of the instrument produced, and the one de- 
 scribed in the declaration is untenable. There is none in sub- 
 stance or fact. The pleader does not profess to set out the in- 
 strument verbatim. 
 
 The judge erred in excluding the testimony of Thomas Car- 
 penter, for under no view of the case that we can take, was he 
 directly interested in the event. He had an interest in the fund 
 in common with the other contributors or members of the Pur- 
 chase preparative meeting, but he was called against that inte- 
 rest, so far as it was immediately involved in the issue then 
 trying. At all events as between the immediate parties to the 
 suit, his interest was in favour of the plaintiff, as the fund, if 
 collected, was for the benefit of the proprietors; and as regarded 
 his position, upon all the facts disclosed on the trial, we think 
 he was indifferent, or at least, his interest was neutralized. It 
 is said he was interested in sustaining the payment of the mo- 
 ney to himself as treasurer, by the defendant, but we appre- 
 hend it would be difficult to show in what way he could be thus 
 interested. Admitting that he would be, at law or in equity, 
 bound to refund the money to the defendant if he could not sus- 
 tain his right or title to receive it as treasurer, the result of 
 this suit did not necessarily determine that question, as he was 
 not a party to it, and would not be bound by it. Whether he 
 would be bound to refund the money, would depend upon a suit 
 directly between the parties themsel/as. A recovery by the 
 plaintiff in this case, would have perhaps an essential bearing
 
 95 
 
 upon that question, but would not control it, and the interest 
 would be too remote and contingent to affect the competency of 
 the witness. But conceding that, upon the recovery by the 
 plaintiff here, the witness was under obligations to refund, how 
 could he be interested ? The fund was not his, and whether he 
 paid it to the defendant, or held or disbursed it as treasurer, so 
 far as his own interest was involved, it was indifferent to him. 
 If he was bound to refund, it would be confessedly upon the 
 ground, that he is not the legal treasurer or trustee of the fund, 
 and that the present plaintiff is. And so far as the witness' 
 original and joint interest in the fund is involved, it is the same 
 to him in judgment of law, whether the fund is held or dis- 
 bursed by himself as treasurer, or by the present plaintiff as 
 treasurer, for we are bound to believe either would perform his 
 duty with fidelity. I am therefore clearly of opinion, the wit- 
 ness was not interested so far as to render him incompetent, on 
 the ground 
 
 1st. As to his position as treasurer holding the fund, he was 
 but a naked trustee, and his own interest would be unaffected, 
 whether he retained the fund, or was obliged to repay it ; and 
 further, even supposing it to be affected by the repayment, that 
 event was not a direct and necessary consequence of the reco- 
 very in this suit, and was too remote and contingent to exclude 
 him, and. 
 
 2d. So far as his joint and fractional interest in the fund 
 was involved in the suit, he was called in favour of it, for the 
 ground upon which the plaintiff claimed the right to recover 
 was as trustee of the fund, for the benefit of the proprietors, 
 and there can be no doubt if he recovers he is bound so to hold 
 it. The decision of this question is not very important in the 
 case, as probably, every material fact which could be proved 
 by this witness was subsequently sworn to by others. 
 
 The great and important question involved in the case is, 
 whether payment of the note was established on the trial, and 
 this involves the inquiry as to the legality of the appointment 
 of Thomas Carpenter as treasurer of the Purchase preparative 
 meeting school fund, on the 1st January, 1830. If he was, the 
 issue, under the pleadings was established in favour of the de- 
 fendant, and payment to the treasurer would be a good defence. 
 The material facts upon which this question must depend, and 
 upon which alone we must determine it, are not contested in the 
 case, though the generality of them leave in a measure some of 
 the leading features of it, in a little obscurity. We should have 
 been better satisfied if the case presented a more minute and 
 full account of the origin, purpose, and also the manner of con- 
 trolling and disposing of the Purchase preparative meeting
 
 96 
 
 school fund, which, at the same time, would necessarily have 
 given us, with more particularity, its connexion with the Pur- 
 chase preparative meeting of the Friends. 
 
 We must take the case, however, as we understand it from 
 the testimony ; which is, that this fund many years ago was 
 raised by voluntary contributions from members of the Pur- 
 chase preparative meeting of the Friends, residing within its 
 limits, and by legacies. That such fund belongs exclusively to 
 the members of said meeting, and is managed under its direc- 
 tion by a treasurer appointed by them. The fund in 1817 
 amounted to $860, besides 150 acres of land left as a legacy 
 from one Clapp. The meetings of the Friends are divided in- 
 to yearly, quarterly, monthly, and preparative. No quarterly 
 meeting is to be set up or discontinued but by a yearly meeting ; 
 no monthly but by a quarterly meeting, and no preparative but 
 by a monthly, with the approbation of the quarterly meeting, 
 and these meetings are subordinate and accountable in the man- 
 ner just stated. The Purchase preparative meeting of the 
 Friends, in this case, was set up as early as 1790, and has been 
 regularly continued since, down to the separation in April, 
 1828, and since that time each division has held separate meet- 
 ings. The plaintiff was their treasurer at the time of the se- 
 paration. Thomas Carpenter has been since appointed by the 
 division called the orthodox Friends. It further appears that 
 according to the rules and usage of the Friends at their meet- 
 ings, no meeting is considered organised until the clerk of the 
 meeting takes his place at the table, makes a minute of the meet- 
 ing, and reads it, after this it proceeds to business. 
 
 The monthly meeting, after the separation in New York, was 
 in June, 1828, at which H. Griffin attended, and was forcibly 
 prevented acting as clerk, by persons who had surrounded the 
 table. The clerk withdrew with a nurnfeer of the Friends, and 
 assembled in the yard of the house, where they met, and there 
 opened the meeting according to the usual course of business. 
 It was this monthly meeting that appointed the Purchase pre- 
 parative meeting at which Thomas Carpenter was appointed 
 treasurer, 1st January, 1830. The Purchase preparative meet- 
 ing at which the appointment was made was held, and the trea- 
 surer appointed, according to the rules and discipline of the 
 Society, as known and acted upon for many years. 
 
 It was offered to be proved on the trial, that the Hicksite 
 party had abandoned the religious faith of the Society of 
 Friends, with the view of contending that this section of 
 Friends, who continued the plaintiff as a treasurer of the Pur- 
 chase preparative meeting, had forfeited their character as such, 
 and all the rights and privileges belonging to it. We think the
 
 97 , 
 
 judge was right in rejecting this proof. In a court of law 
 we can look only to the legal rights of the parties to control 
 the fund in question, and they must depend upon the constitu- 
 tion and principles of the association of the Friends and modes 
 of proceeding, as the Purchase preparative meeting confessedly 
 have the exclusive management and direction of it. So long 
 as the forms and modes of proceeding by the association, under 
 whose direction the original contributors placed the fund, are 
 strictly complied with in its management and control, a courf 
 of law are incompetent to interfere. If there has been, or is 
 about to be, a diversion of the fund from the original purpose 
 and object of it, under the form of legal and constitutional 
 proceedings by the association, or otherwise, it belongs pecu- 
 liarly to the jurisdiction of a court of equity to interpose and 
 corrector prevent the error. Thus, if the object of the origi- 
 nal contributors of this fund was the instruction and educa- 
 tion of their children in the faith and doctrine of the Society 
 of Friends, as understood and believed at the time it was 
 placed under the direction of one of their associations or meet- 
 ings, it is quite clear, both on principle and authority, that 
 such objects should be strictly observed by those who have the 
 management of it, and an ample remedy exists against any 
 perversion of them. Tn such case, the question is not, which 
 faith or doctrine is the soundest or most orthodox ? This is 
 not the object of the inquiry ; but for what object or purpose 
 was the fund originally established by the founders of it ? 
 The court proceeds to enforce the observance and execution of 
 ascertained trusts in which rights of property are concerned, 
 not the peculiar doctrines or faith of either party, though their 
 existence and the nature of them, may be incidentally involved 
 in the course of proceeding. This part of the case is very fully 
 discussed by Lord Eldon in the case of the Attorney General 
 vs. Pearson, 3 Merivale Reports, 352, and principles applica- 
 ble to it are there clearly stated. 
 
 If we look at the constitution and modes of proceeding of 
 the monthly and preparative meetings of the Friends, as detailed 
 by the witnesses on both sides in the case, I cannot entertain a 
 doubt that Thomas Carpenter was legally appointed the succes- 
 sor of the plaintiff, in the office of treasurer of the Purchase 
 preparative meeting, on the 1st of January, 1830. It is said 
 that the monthly meeting, in June, 1828, under which the Pur- 
 chase preparative meeting was held, was not the legitimate one, 
 and that the latter, according to the system of the meetings of 
 the Friends, was therefore held without authority. The fact 
 is otherwise, if we regard the only account we have of the 
 rules and practice of their proceedings. H. Griffin was tho 
 24
 
 98 
 
 clerk of that meeting. This office is the most important one 
 belonging to it. He decides all questions that arise, after 
 hearing the discussions and opinions of the members, and in 
 the language of the witnesses, according to the " solid sense" 
 of the meeting as understood by him, without vote, or regard to 
 numbers. This may be a singular mode of proceeding, and of 
 questionable merit, but the fact is undisputed, and we are not to 
 disregard it. This officer, also, has a right to open and or- 
 ganize the meeting, according to undisputed evidence. He 
 did open the monthly meeting at the time and place appointed 
 according to the custom, and under, and in pursuance of, this 
 authority, was held the Purchase preparative meeting, at 
 which T. Carpenter was regularly appointed. 
 
 It is true, by the turbulence of some of the members, he was 
 prevented from taking his seat at the table in the room prepared 
 for the meeting, and was compelled to hold it in an adjacent 
 place, but this did not deprive him of his office, or prevent the 
 discharge of his duty, nor the orderly organization of the 
 meeting : much less did it legalize the tumultuous assemblage 
 which he left, who were without the only officers that, accord- 
 ing to their ancient and accustomed proceedings, could organize 
 them or dispose of their business. 
 
 The question is not whether the meeting, in the absence of the 
 clerk, or of his incompetency to act for any other cause, had 
 not the power to appoint one in his place. There can be no 
 doubt it would have that power from necessity, and to preserve 
 it from dissolution. But can they by mere force and caprice 
 drive away this officer, whose term had not expired, in viola- 
 tion of all the forms of their proceedings and principles of their 
 society. It is said that a majority of the meeting concurred in 
 this act, and the judge at the circuit, supported its legality, 
 upon this ground. We cannot assent to this position. In order 
 to maintain it, the plaintiff must show that the monthly meet- 
 ings of the Friends were governed upon the principle that a 
 majority should control. Even were we to assume, in the ab- 
 sence of any proof on the subject, that this popular principle 
 was applicable to them, we are not at liberty to do so, as the 
 contrary expressly appears. In no instance do the opinions of 
 a majority of the members control their proceedings, according 
 to long established discipline and usage ; and other modes of 
 deciding all questions which arise, are universally practised. 
 
 Besides, even the majority principle was not applied in eject- 
 ing the clerk in this instance. No vote was taken. None of 
 the usages and principles of the meeting were observed. No 
 organization of it had taken place. The act was done by force 
 of a disorderly and promiscuous assemblage of Friends, against
 
 99 
 
 established usage and acknowledged rules of proceeding, and 
 which numbers cannot justify or legalize. Was the meeting 
 to be broken up by this proceeding ? We think not. This would 
 be virtually giving countenance and effect to acts of tumult and 
 violence, over order and law. The clerk and those members 
 of the meeting who desired peaceably to assemble, and transact 
 its business according to established rules and usage, were right 
 in withdrawing and organizing for that purpose. Could there 
 be a doubt of the propriety or legality of this course, if the or- 
 ganization of the meeting at the place appointed had been pre- 
 vented by an assemblage of persons other than the Friends ? 
 And what difference in good sense, or in judgment of law, can 
 there be whether the act of force and lawlessness was commit- 
 ted by Friends or strangers ? In this respect one had as much 
 right as the other, or to speak more accurately, neither could 
 claim any right or authority thus to act or interfere. 
 
 But it is said that a majority of the members of the monthly 
 meeting did not attend at the place where the clerk opened the 
 meeting. Neither does it appear that a majority attended at the 
 place where the Friends first assembled, and so far as this ob- 
 jection goes, it is equally applicable to both the meetings, and 
 if sound, neither meeting was legitimate. The true answer 
 however to the objection, if applicable at all to meetings of 
 Friends, as .they do not decide questions by vote, is, that the 
 appearance of a majority of the members of the monthly meet- 
 ing is not, essential, legally to constitute it. The rule of the 
 common law is, where a society or corporation is composed 
 of a indefinite number of persons, a majority of those who ap- 
 pear at a regular meeting of the same, constitute a body com- 
 petent to transact business. Rex vs. Mayor of Portsmouth, 
 Cowp. 240. Rex vs. Bellinger, 4 F. R. 822. 3 Ep. Wilcox, 7. 
 Gown. 400 10. (Note.) There is nothing in the case to show 
 that any particular or specified number of the Friends are ne- 
 cessary to constitute a regular monthly meeting, and the rule of 
 the common law therefore applies. 
 
 I have not deemed it important to examine at large the objec- 
 tion to the recovery, on the ground that the defendant is a part- 
 ner in the fund, and that no suit at law can be sustained against 
 him, and that as the Purchase preparative meeting is not a cor- 
 porate body, the suit should be in the names of all the parties 
 interested. I consider this objection wholly unfounded. Though 
 the defendant has a right to participate in the benefits derived 
 from the use of the fund, he has no right or claim to the control 
 of it, except according to the usage and custom of the Purchase 
 preparative meeting of the Friends, under whom the fund was 
 placed, as a member of that meeting. It is this meeting that
 
 100 
 
 has by the consent of the owners of the fund, of which the 
 defendant is one, the exclusive management of it. They have 
 placed it in the hands of the treasurer, who has the immediate 
 control of it. He loaned it to the defendant, who engaged under 
 hand and seal to pay it to him, (the then treasurer,) or his suc- 
 cessor in office. So far as the rights of the parties are con- 
 cerned, upon the evidence in the case in connexion with the 
 fund, the defendant is to be viewed in the light of a stranger to 
 it. He has no right to possess himself of it, or control it, any 
 more than a stranger, and cannot in this respect be deemed a 
 partner. This view is also applicable to every other individual 
 member of the Purchase preparative meeting. 
 New trial granted. Costs to abide the event.
 
 A 000616936 1