( 
 
 
 1.IBRARY OF PRINCETON 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 FEB- 8 2005 
 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 
OP CERTAIN 
 
 PROCEEBI^GS ANO PRINCIPLES 
 
 OP 
 
 THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 
 
 CALLED QUAKERS. 
 
 BY ELISHA BATES. 
 
 P^inally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are 
 honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, 
 whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; 
 if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these 
 things. Phil. iv. 8. 
 
 ST. CLAIRSVILLE: 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY IIORTOH J. HOWARD. 
 1837. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/examinationofcer00bate_O 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In presenting the following work to the notice of the 
 Christian public, it is necessary to remark, that the subjects 
 have an intimate relation to the common doctrines of our 
 holy religion. Had the proceedings of the Society of 
 Friends in my case, related to me alone, I never should 
 have offered a history of them to the world. 
 
 The case however is widely different from this. It is a 
 tissue of the most arbitrary and oppressive measures, first 
 by private influence, and then by imauthorized Church 
 Power, to destroy the religious character, and the religious 
 rights of an individual. But while an iridividual was made 
 the objeci; of an unexampled course of persecution for 
 years, it is a fact, well known to the parties, that there is a 
 large number of persons in the Society of Friends, who 
 arc menaced by these proceedings. Thus the case is found 
 to affect not merely one but many. The cause, too, is not 
 ofaprivate, but of a public character. It is not for offences, 
 disturbing the public peace, nor endangering the happi- 
 ness of men . It is not for letting down the authority of the 
 Word of God, or any of the doctrines contained in it. It 
 is for recurring to the Holy Scriptures, as a divinely au- 
 thorized record of the will of God: and maintaining that 
 the Apostles of the Lord Jesus were both commissioned by 
 Him, and qualified by the Holy Ghost, to establish a sys- 
 tem of Faith and Practice, in perfect accordance with the 
 willof God, and binding on men to the latest generations. 
 
 At a time when, in the Dispensations of Providence, 
 Gospel light is spreading In a most remarkable manner in 
 the earth — when religious enquiry is awakened, not only 
 in Christendom, but in the Heathen parts of the world, 
 and the Holy Scriptures are sought and read in regions, 
 
VI 
 
 INTRODrCTION. 
 
 where the grossest darkness, and the strongest prejudices 
 had for ages prevailed — one single Society, admired for 
 the mildness of its manners, is found to be struggling to shut 
 out the light which isbreakinginupon.il; from heaven — 
 alarmed at the increasing attention to the Bible among its 
 members — opposing the plain and undeniable doctrines it 
 contains — letting down the authority of the Apostles — 
 making their practice, a ground of disownment — and con- 
 tending for sentiments and practices which marked the his- 
 tory of its Founders, from which common decency must re- 
 coil. 
 
 Does this statement surprise the reader? I intrcat his 
 patience, and it will be exemplefied, even beyond his first 
 impressions. 
 
 The doctrines which have been brought into discussion, 
 in the recent proceedings of the Society of Friends, are of 
 the most deeply interesting character, and those which de- 
 mand the close and practical attention of every Christian. 
 The perusal of the work, on this ground, may therefore be 
 attended with advantage. 
 
 But there is another point of view, in which the subject 
 demands the attention of Christians of all denominations. 
 Christianity is a system of universal benevolence. It 
 prompts its possessors to seek the good of all; and to spread 
 around, the light and the blessings of the Gospel. The 
 consistent believer in the Lord Jesus, cannot feel indiffer- 
 ent to the errors, and the dangers, in which his fellow crea- 
 tures are envolved. It is one and the same spring of heav- 
 enly feeling, from which he derives the admiration of the 
 goodness of God, the joy and peace of believing, and the 
 ardent desire that others, as well as himself, may be deliver- 
 ed from spiritual bondage, and made heirs of an eternal in- 
 heritance in heaven. 
 
 The Christian public, therefore, cannot feel indifferent 
 to the state of a Society, like that of the Friends. There 
 Bhould be a lively solicitude, in the mind of every one that 
 
TNTnODLTTIOX. 
 
 V 
 
 loves tiie Lord Jesus, thai the inembers of this Society 
 should abandon every sentiment, and every custom, which 
 obstructs, in any degree, the full and heart-felt adoption of 
 the doctrines of the Apostles, who preached the Gospel 
 with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. This solici- 
 tude, not merely arising froin a love for the doctrines of the 
 Apostles, but with a deep sense of their divine authority, 
 as coming from God himself, points to the present and 
 eternal happiness of those who may have been entangled 
 in opinions and practices, at variance with those which are 
 written for the instruction and correction of succeeding 
 ages. 
 
 The nature of the case demands a concise histoiy of the 
 events, connected with the controversy in which I have 
 been involved with the Society of Friends. In addition to 
 this, it will be necessary to examine the charges which have 
 been brought against me, and show the departure from up- 
 rightness — from the rules of the Discipline, and from the 
 doctrines of Christianity, which have been made in those 
 proceedings. 
 
 It will be proper also, in defence of myself and of the 
 Truth, for which I have been persecuted, to show that the 
 Society of Friends,is most imperiously called upon to make 
 a reformation in practice, and an expurgation of their ac- 
 credited writings, in matters of Fundamental importance. 
 I shall show that the Early Friends and their writings can- 
 not be relied on, as conclusive authority in matters of Faith 
 and Practice, but that sentiments lie scattered through 
 their works, which have^been productive ofthc mostdanger- 
 ous errors, and which, so long as they arc recognized, char- 
 acterize the Society as unsound in the Fundamentals of re- 
 ligion. I shall show that these things arc utterly irrecon- 
 cileable to the sound declarations which have been made 
 by the Society on the same points, and that to retain error, 
 is to abandon Truth. 
 
 As some attacks have been made upon me in print, I 
 
VI 
 
 IXTRODUCTTOV. 
 
 think it proper to pcvtew such pubHcations,so far as thev 
 a,re at all entitled to notice. 
 
 And finally, it will be proper, in the conclusion, to correct 
 some of my own past errors, contained in the work called 
 "The Doctrines of Friends,'' and give my present views of 
 certain doctrines, treated on, in that work. . 
 
 To understand the proceedings of the Friends, in the pros- 
 ecutions they have carried on, it is necessary to give a brief 
 sketch of the origin of the Society, and the system of Church 
 government, which it has established. 
 
 The Society was founded by George Fox, about the 
 year 1647, for at that time, the first meetings appear to 
 have been formed. 
 
 G. Fox was born in lG"3i. In early life, he appears to 
 have been of a remarkably grave and religious tarn of 
 mind. His sense of moral obligation appears to ha.ve 
 been acute; and his state of mind was strongly m.arked with 
 Irouble, in his religious exercises. 
 
 His father was a member of the Church of England, and 
 a '.veaver by trade. Gecrgc was put apprentice to a shoe- 
 maker, and was considerably imployed in keeping sheep. 
 His opportunities of education a,ppear to have been ex- 
 tremely limited, though it may be fairly inferred, that in 
 the course of his life, his -reading was considerable. It 
 has been said by some friends, that he had acquired some 
 knowledge of the Hebrew language, and it is a curious 
 fact, tliut in oneof his pieces in the Book called Doctrinal?, 
 p. 45G, he (or his friends for him) has actually introduced 
 a quotation in Greek, which he undertakes to explain. I 
 have my doubts however, whether he did understand any 
 thing of cither of those languages or not. His knowledge 
 of the English tongue was certainly. extremely defective — 
 though from reading, and from conversation with educated 
 persons, it must be supposed that he could generally ex- 
 press himself, so as to convey the idea which he intended. 
 
 At the age of nineteen he left his master, and his rela- 
 
INTRODUCriO:S. 
 
 yn 
 
 tives and friends, as he supposed, by a divine command, and 
 travelled from place to place in great trouble of mind. — 
 These troubles continued several years; during which, his 
 apprehensions of having extraordinary revelations, in- 
 creased. Under these impressions, he supposed that he 
 had revelations of f/odmies without the help of any man, 
 book or writing. He supposed that he %vas in the same 
 spirit and power that the apostles and prophets were in, — 
 that he had come up, through the flaming sword, into the 
 Paradise of God — rand into the state that Adam was in be- 
 fore he fell — that the creation was opened to him — and he 
 was at a stand in his mind, whether he would not practice 
 medicine for the good of mankind, seeing the nature and 
 virtues of the creatures were so opened to hirn by the Lord, 
 
 If he was not mistaken in respect to these openings, it 
 must be regarded as an irretrievable loss to science, as well 
 as a great neglect of an extraordinary Revelation, that he 
 has left no record of the nature and virtues of the creatures. 
 
 From the condition of Adam, he writes, he was taken up 
 in Spirit, "to-see into another or more steadfast state than 
 Adam's in innocency, even into a state in Christ Jesus that 
 should never fall." Journal, Part 1, p. 53. On the same 
 subject he says: "Moreover, the Lord God let me see 
 (when I was brought up into his Image, in righteousness 
 and Holiness, and into the Paradise of God) the sfate, how 
 Adam was made a living soul : And also the stature of 
 Christ, the mystery that had been hid from ages and gen- 
 erations, which things are hard to be uttered, and cannot 
 be borne by many. For of all the sects in Christendom 
 (so called) that I discoursed withal, I found none, that 
 Gould bear to be told, that any should come to Adam's 
 perfection, into that image of God, and l ighteousness and 
 holiness that Adam was in before he fell; to be so clear 
 and pure without sin, as he was. Therefore, how should 
 they be able to bear being told, that any should grow up 
 to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, when 
 
VIII 
 
 I>TRODUCTIO.\. 
 
 they cannol, bear to hear thg,t any siiall come whilst up- 
 on earth, into the same power and spirit that the Pro- 
 phets and Apostles were in? Though it be a certain truth, 
 that none can understand their writings aright, without 
 the same spirit, by which they were written." Journal, 
 Part 1 p. 59, 60.* 
 
 The reader will observe here, that the assumption of 
 being in the state which Adam was in, before he fell, is un- 
 equivocal. And I leave every one to judge for himself, 
 whether G. F. did not speak of coming to the measure of 
 the sta;ture of the fulneSs of Christ, in the same sense, in 
 w^hich he spake of coming into the state that Adam was 
 in, before he fell? It was something so far beyond the 
 state of Adam before the fall, and also beyond being in the 
 same power and spirit that the Prophets and Apostles were 
 in, that as the attainment to these states could not be be- 
 lieved, he does not admire that many could not bear to be 
 told the other. I ask then what was it, that was so far be- 
 yond the state of Adam before he fell, and beyojid being in 
 the same Power and Spirit that the Prophets and Apostles 
 were in, but the character or state of Jesus Christ? 
 
 He claimed for his own communicatibhs, the title of 
 "the word of the Lord," "the word of God," "the word 
 of the Lord God," while he strenuously denied these 
 terms to'the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 He professed to have visions, to hear voices, to have 
 seen an Angel, to have wrought miracles, of various 
 kinds — healing the sick — restoring the disabled — casting 
 out devils, &c. — Speaking of preaching through a town 
 on a market day, he says — "And so dreadful was the 
 power of God that was upon me, that the people flew 
 like chaff before me into their houses," Journal, Part 1 . 
 p. 153. He relates that at one place he was taken for 
 
 *In the Friends' Library this passage is quoted, but with omis- 
 sions, and changes of sundry words, 
 
INTRODLCTION. 
 
 an Angel or Spirit; and on others that the people thought 
 the house shook where they were. 
 
 In such a time oi" excitement the Society was formed. 
 And the more the history of its origin is examined, the 
 more evident it will appear, that an unusual excitement 
 in regard lO the character and supernatural qualifications 
 of G. Fox,.contrihuted to the rapid increase of its mem- 
 bers. That many of the new converts were wild and 
 extravagant in their views, is proved by the worship 
 which was offered to James Naylor; the adoration and 
 titles of Deity which were given to George Fox* — and 
 by the numbers that went naked in streets and other 
 public places, as signs, — by the great opposition which 
 was made to the establishment of any system of Church 
 Government, on the plea of its being superceded by the 
 teaching of the Spirit to cac'ii individual; and by many 
 other circumstances which mi^ht be mentioned. 
 
 From the number of fen al s which signed Petitions 
 to Parliament in the year 1659, it would seem that at 
 that time, the whole number of members could not have 
 been less than 30,000. The present number in Great 
 Britain is estimated at 18,000. The greatest accession 
 of numbers was certainly during a few of the first years 
 of George Fox's ministry; and before any system of 
 Church Governiiient was established. 
 
 Among the peculiarities whieh first distinguished the 
 new sect, were. 
 
 An extraordinary profession of revelation, and this 
 independent of the Scriptures. 
 
 A mystical view of the Blood of Christ, which was sup- 
 posed to be in all men. Being in a great meeting, where 
 they were discoursing of the Blood of Christ, G. F. says: 
 
 *George Richardson, a zealous Conservative, anil advocate of G. 
 F., fully concedes that this delusion was the same in both cases, 
 and that it prevailed to a considerable extent in the Society. But 
 of this I shall say more hereafter. 
 
 B 
 
X. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 "And I cried out among them, and said: 'Z)o ye not see the 
 blood of Christ? See it in your hearts, lo sprinkle your hearts 
 and consciences from dead works, to serve the living God.'' For 
 I saw it, the Blood of the New Covenant, how it came 
 into the heart. This startled the Professors, who wouM 
 have the Blood only without them, and not in them." 
 Journal, Part 1, p. 49. 
 
 The disuse of the usual modes of salutation, and the 
 use of the singular pronouns, when hut one person was 
 spoken to. This rested upon a special revelation to 
 George Fox. The account which he gave of the matter 
 is as follov.'s: 
 
 "Moreover, when the Lord sent mo forth into the 
 world, he forbad me to put oiT my hat to any, high or 
 low. And I was required to 7^Aee.and Thou all men and 
 women, without respect to rich or poor, great or small. 
 And as I travelled up and down, I was not to bid people 
 Good Morrow, or Good Evening; neither might I Bow or 
 scrape with my Ltg. And this made the sects and pro- 
 fessors rage." Journal, Fart 1, p. 63. 
 
 To preach freely without stipend,* and severely to 
 censure those who did not. 
 
 To refuse to take an Oath, as being contrary to the 
 express command of Christ. 
 
 To make silence a prominent .part of -public worship. 
 
 It does not appear, h*Qwever, that George Fox and the 
 leading ministers, in the first formation of the Society, 
 were very frequently in the practice of silence in public 
 meetings. And yet it was made quite remarkable. The 
 first notice which I find of it-in the Journal of G. F. was 
 in the year 1651, or four ycari after the Society was 
 
 * 1 use the word stipend, for it dues not ppi i^ar ihtit G. F. was 
 averse to receiving' aid from those who freely jr^vc it. For he was 
 liberally supported by his friends, ai.d died possessed of some con- 
 siderable estate — one item, being upwards of ]()00 acres of land, not 
 far from Philadelphia, which vms given to him by Wm. Penn. 
 
INTROUUCTIOX. 
 
 XI 
 
 formpi. The accouiit which is given of it, is remarka- 
 ble. 
 
 " ' passed on to another town, where there Avas a great 
 meeting, and the old Priest before mentioned went along 
 with me; and there came professors of several sorts to it. 
 Now I sat on a Jlaystack, and spake nothing for ievcral 
 hours; for I was to famish them from words. And the 
 professors would ever and anon be speaking to the old 
 Priest, and asking him when I would begin? and when I 
 would -speak? And he bad tlicm wait; and told them, 
 That the people waited upon Christ a long time before he 
 spaka." Journal, Part 1. p. 123. 
 
 This was a long silence — "Several hours. " And the 
 design of it does not appear to have been to obtain a qual- 
 ifvcation for himself to spc.ak — but to famish the people 
 from words. So novel a procedure, and in an age of su- 
 perstition, when they sometimes thought he was an angel 
 or spirit; (Jour. Part 1. p. 110) when it was supposed, 
 that the house was shaken when he prayed; (Jour. Part 1. 
 p. 49) or preached, and some even hastened out of the 
 church for fear it would fall upon their heads; (ib. 154) 
 when on certain -occasions, "the people flew like chaff 
 before him into their houses," (ib. 153) — w^as calculated to 
 work up expectation to the highest point — especially 
 when the old Priest, was comparing this wailing on G. F. 
 to the waiting of the people on Christ for him to speak. 
 
 The result of this meeting, in which G. F. was silent 
 several hours, while the people were ever and anon speak- 
 ing, and having their expectations worked up, — was, that 
 nearly the whole company became converts to him. 
 
 As early as the year 1653, G. F. says, "Now Friends be- 
 ing grown very numerous in the northern parts of the na- 
 tion," &c. 
 
 There was no system of Church Government, for many 
 years after the formation of the Society. — The present 
 form, or rather the ground work of it, was not settled till 
 
XII 
 
 IN*TROD"JCriO\. 
 
 the year 1G78, when a Yearly Meeting of rcpresenlatives, 
 (which had been held once before), v/as estabUshed in 
 London. This was then the Superior Meeting of the 
 whole Society, 
 
 Since that time, a gradual change lias taken place in 
 the General Constitution, and in the rules of Discipline. 
 
 Before the establishment cf the Y. M. of Representa- 
 tives in London, there was a Yearly Meeting of Ministers 
 held there, which exercised a general care over the whole 
 Society. Thus the governing power was first vested in 
 the ministers. And the judgment delivered by this body, 
 was considered binding on the members, as being directed 
 by the Spirit. 
 
 But this principle was by no means settled. For a 
 large number of the first converts to Quakerism, carried 
 out the doctrine of immediate guidance of the Spirit, to 
 a decided objection to Church Government. The per- 
 sonal authority of George Fox, no doubt, governed the 
 Societj' in its infancy, and exerted a controling influence 
 as long as he lived. But he soon found the necessity of 
 uniting the influence of others with himself. The first 
 arrangements for this purpose, did not appear entirely to 
 reach the object. And something more systematical was 
 Koon called for. When this was attempted, it produced 
 a strong excitement. Many regarded it as a departure 
 from the original principles of the Society: and it cannot 
 be denied that thtre was much plausibility in the olrjcc- 
 tion. It certainly was a very important change in the 
 Constitution of the Society, after it had existed about 20 
 years, and through the period of its most rapid growth, 
 and most severe sufferings. But George Fox, Robert 
 Barclay, AVilliam Penn, George Whitehead, and other 
 persons of distinction, no doubt saw, that without the 
 adoption of some system, such a state of anarchy and con- 
 fusion would be produced, as totally to destroy the new 
 Society. . . 
 
INTRODITCTIOX. 
 
 XIII 
 
 Whether the libcriy wliich had been enjoyed hy ilie 
 early Friends, before the adoption of Discipline, led to 
 the formation of a reprcscnta*:ive form of government or 
 not, I do not pretend to determine; but this was the form 
 which prevailed. 
 
 The wiiole Society was divided into certain districts, 
 and subdivisions. The smallest fbrmcd meetings for wor- 
 ship, commonly called Particular Meetings. These, be- 
 sides meeting for worship, convened once a month to trans- 
 act minor matters of business, or to digest those that were 
 more important, in order to send them up to the Superior 
 Meetings. Hence they arc called, as respects their busi- 
 ness character. Preparative Meetings. 
 
 Several of these Preparative Meetings, when small, 
 constitute a Monthly Meeting, which, as its name imports, 
 meets monthly. Th& powers of the. Monthly Meeting 
 are Judiciary. They attend to the common concerns of 
 riie Socj'ety — set parties at liberty to marry — grant certifi- 
 cates of removal — receive converts into membership — 
 treat with offenders and disown them — set ministers at 
 liberty to travel as ministers, (within certain limits), «S;sc. 
 &c. and receive from the Preparative Meetings, tb.e 
 accounts which the Ovrrsccrs make out, of the state of the 
 respective meetings — given in answer to certain Queries. 
 
 Several Monthly Meetiags, except in cities, or where 
 those meetings are large, constitute a Quarterly Meeting, 
 held once in three months. These receive the Answers 
 to the Queries from the Monthly Meetings^ — assist the 
 Monthly Meetings when thought necessary, and try Ap- 
 peals from them. - •-• v. - 
 
 The Yearly Meeting embraces the whole Society within 
 certain limits. This Body possesses both Legislative and 
 Judiciary powers. It adopts all rules of Discipline, pos- 
 sesses a supervisory control over the Quarterly and other 
 Meetings, and tries Appeals, which are brought up from 
 the judgment of the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings. 
 
XIV 
 
 IN'TnODrC'TION. 
 
 The Monthly Meeting is the only body that can Disown 
 a member. When the party disowned is dismlisfied, he 
 can appeal to the Quarterly and from that to the Yearly 
 Meeting. 
 
 Representatives are appointed by the Monthly to the 
 Quarterly, and by the Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting. 
 Tliese R-'presentatives may be regarded as constituting the 
 Meeting. But in practice, all members not under deaUng, 
 are allowed to attend and take part in the transaction of 
 business. 
 
 No oiiicer presides in those meetings, except tiie Clerk, 
 who records the conclusions arrived at by the meeting. 
 And all those meetings when convened for the transac- 
 tion of business, have a meeting for worship, in the first 
 place, which begins with silence. 
 
 When proceeding to Business, -the men and women 
 separate, and transact their business apart. 
 
 For the prompt attention to important business, affect"- 
 ing the Society at large, or the interests of the Yearly 
 Meeting, there is a body called the Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings. It is composed of 26 members appointed by the 
 Yearly Meeting, and four by each Quarterly Meeting; 
 making in all (in Ohio Yearly Meeting) forty-six. 
 
 All acknowledged ministers have a right to attend — - 
 but other members have not. • 
 
 They meet twice in the year, once at the time of the 
 Yearly Meeting, and once at the time of the Quartei ly 
 Meeting at Mountpleasant in the 2nd month. But they 
 have the power of calling a meeting on any emergen- 
 cy, v.'hen four members concur in considering it neces- 
 sary. 
 
 To this meeting is given the inspection of writings, 
 relating to the doctrines of the Society. This rule of 
 Discipline, however, has been frequently disregarded in 
 latter times, by all the parties by which the Society has 
 
 i 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XV 
 
 been marked, as, the Hicksites, tlie Orthodox, the Con- 
 servatives, and the Evangelical Friends. 
 
 The Meeting for Sufferings is considered as the repre- 
 sentative of the Yearly Meeting during i!s recess. But 
 it has no power to adopt rules of Discipline or articles 
 of Faith, or to try appeals, or to treat with offenders, 
 touching their rights of membership. 
 
 From the infancy of the Society, the Ministers have 
 held meetings apart from the ordinary members, hence 
 they have frequently been called select meetings. In 
 1727 the order of Elders v/as instituted. These are in- 
 tended to be experienced persons, but not ministers, and 
 they are associated with the ministers in their select capa- 
 city, and are designed to have a care over them. 
 
 Females, equally with the men, fill the stations of Min- 
 isters and Elders. 
 
 In Government there is no specific rule, as to office or 
 sex: but it results in practice, as individuals happen to 
 acquire influence. 
 
 All persons have a right to speak in meetings for wor- 
 ship, either in preaching or prayer, unless their communi- 
 cations be disapproved by the Elders. 
 
 After a person has spoken frequently as a preacher, if 
 his or her communications are approved by the meeting 
 of ministers and elders, that body lays the case before the 
 monthly meeting, by which the minister is recognized as 
 such. But they pass no examination on doctrines or other 
 qualifications for the office. 
 
 Ministers have no special charge of any meeting or 
 congregation; and there is, as respects the office, no 
 grades of ministry. 
 
 There is no provision for the support of ministers, 
 except they be poor, and then their outfit and travelling 
 expenses, when they travel, arc paid by the meeting that 
 sets them at liberty to travel. Their common wants are 
 generally supplied by private acts of benevolence. 
 
XVI 
 
 INTHODUCTIOX. 
 
 Those who liavc piopertv, pursue the common avoca- 
 tions of life, Hke other people. 
 
 The Ministry of ihe Friends, has much of an itinerant 
 character. But the Society cakes no care that its meet- 
 ings should be supplied with rninisters. And where min- 
 isters reside, they neither arc charged with the christian 
 instruction of the members, nor are they at liberty to ap- 
 point a meeting, without the concurrence of the monihly 
 meeting, or the elders. 
 
 If they wish to travel as ministers, a certificate of the 
 monthly meeting must be obtained, stating the extent of 
 the proposed visit, and expressing the concurrence of the 
 meeting. 
 
 If the visit is to extend within the limits of another 
 Yearly Meeting, tlie concurrence of the Quarterly Meet^ 
 ing is required. . 
 
 A visit beyond the seas, or a general visit to the society 
 on this continent, requires a certificate from the Yearly 
 Meeting of Ministers and Elders. 
 
 The Ministers and Elders of each Monthly Meeting, 
 meet once in three months, in a select capacity, to attend 
 to the affairs of this part of the Society. This is called 
 a Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders. These 
 meetings, within each Quarterly Meeting, form a Quar- 
 terly Meeting of Ministei-s and Elders. And these again 
 uniting, constitute a Yearly Meeting of Ministers and 
 Elders. These meetings respectively are composed of 
 both sexes, which do not transact business separately, as 
 the meetings for the general administration of Discipline 
 do. 
 
 The children of members, are members in full connec- 
 tion. It is made the duty of parents to bring up their 
 children in a manner conformable to the views of the 
 Society. But there is no officer charged with the reli- 
 gious instruction of the members. 
 
 Once in three months the Overseers make out in wri- 
 
liSTKODLCTiON. 
 
 XVII 
 
 ting, Answers to certain Queries, relating to the observ- 
 ance of moral duties, and the peculiar views of the Soci- 
 ety. These Answers are laid before the Preparative 
 Meeting, and by that sent to the Monthly Meeting, and 
 thence to the Quarterly Meeting — And once a year the 
 Quarters send up the embodied answers from the Monthly 
 I\Ieetings to the Yearly Meeting. These answers are in- 
 tended to represent the state of the Society. A similar 
 course is taken by the Meetings of Ministers and Elders. 
 
 There is, from the sameness of the subjects inquired 
 after, much sameness in the Answers. And from habit, 
 or some other cause, these Answers do not generally vary 
 with the varying state of the Society. But the Queries 
 and Answers bringing many subjects into view, afford op- 
 portunities for those who know the actual state of things, ■ 
 to give suitable admonition and advice in those meetings 
 which take notice of w hat is called "The State of Soci- 
 ety."- But the cases of individual .delinquents are not 
 noticed in the "Answers," or in any proceedings growing 
 out of the Answers. 
 
 When a member violates the rules of Discipline, it is 
 the business of tlie Overseers to visit the offender and 
 endeavour by private labour to reclaim him. If this 
 prove ineffectual, the Overseers report the case to the 
 Preparative Meeting, which sends a written statement of 
 the charges, to the Monthly Meeting. 
 
 The Monthly Meeting is to appoint a Committee to 
 visit the delinquent, and endeavour ia convince him of 
 his error. If he inclines to make "satisfaction," he pre* 
 pares an "acknowledgment" — that is, a paper confessing 
 his offence, condemning his conduct, requesting the meet- 
 ing to pass it over, and promising to do better in future. 
 These are the general outlines of an Acknowledgment, 
 but in practice there is great variety of forms. This is 
 to be shown to the committee, and if approved by them, 
 when the minute relating to the case is read, the com- 
 C 
 
XX 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ings of Ministers and Elders, until he is recommended as 
 at first. In others words, he is displaced from the Station 
 of a Minister, by the sole action of the Ministers and 
 Elders, and it may be without even a charge of immoral 
 conduct, or unsound doctrine, or breach of disipline in any 
 respect. 
 
 This power must be seen to be liable to great abuses. — 
 If personal influence can be acquired, which is no very 
 difficult matter, personal dislike or unsoundness of prin- 
 ciple in ruling members, may be brought to bear upon a 
 Minister, to his official degradation, however sound he 
 ma,y be in his ministry, however fair in his moral charac- 
 ter — however lively in his piety. And when he is dis- 
 placed from the ministrj", should he speak as a Minister, 
 which is the common privilege of all, he is liable to be 
 disowned. 
 
 The Disipline giving this almost unbounded power, to 
 the select body, as to the degradation of a JNfinister, re- 
 quires that the Elders should treat with himin j^riuaie-thcn 
 bring his case before the Preparative Meeting of Minis- 
 ters and Elders — then the Quarterly Meeting bi the same 
 class. These steps of dealing in his case, are all the safe- 
 guards which he has for his dearest rights, involving his 
 most sacred duties. 
 
 The foregoing sketch of the organization of the Society 
 andof its'rules of Disipline, is necessary for aji understand- 
 ing of the transa ctions noticed in the following work. 
 
 The work is submitted to the impartial judgment of an 
 enlightened community. 
 
 Mozfntp!eGsantj7ih mo., 1837. 
 
EXAMINATION, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 In the Pamphlets which I have recently published, and 
 in the last ten numbers of the 5th vol. of the Repository, I 
 have shown what were the leading points of Doctrines, 
 embraced in the Hicksite controversy. I have shown also, 
 both in these and in the former part of the Repository., 
 that I supposed the Early Friends to mean what they 
 said, in their soundest declarations, of the Inspiration and 
 divine authority of the Holy ScTiptures, and of the doc- 
 trines contained in them. 
 
 I freely confess, that my strong prepossessions in favour 
 of our "forefathers," induced me to- make too large an al- 
 lowance for their indiscretions; and to grant too wide a 
 range for arguments and forms of expression which are 
 to be found in their writings. Still the rallying point 
 with me, as to those writings was, a solemn fleclaration 
 made by Robert Barclay, in his Apology, which, in sub- 
 stance was. That they never refused, and never should, to 
 bring all their doctrines a7id practices to the Scriptures to be 
 tried by them, as the Judge and Test, freely admitting that 
 whatever was not according to their testimony, should therefore 
 be rejected as false. 
 
 This completely places all the doctrines and practices of 
 the Society, on the ground of a Scriptural examination at 
 all times. And not only so, but gives a pledge, that every 
 innovation of simple Scripture doctrine, should be re- 
 jected as false. If this declaration had been made with 
 sincerity by the writer, (which I am not about to call in 
 question,) and held in good faith by his successors, it 
 would have warranted not only a selection of the soundest 
 things that were written by Early Friends, as exhibiting 
 Quakerism; but it would have sanctioned to the full ex- 
 
22 PROCEEDINGS AXD ^SIJiCiPLES OF 
 
 tent, the principle of Reformation. It would not only 
 have allowed us to lake the best^ and only the' best parts of 
 their writings, hut have subjected even these, to the most 
 rigid scrutiny, and correction by Scripture. 
 
 It will require but little argument, with unbiased minds, 
 to show that this is absolutely right. To hold any opin- 
 ions or doctrines of men, as not subject to correction by the 
 Scriptures, is plainly and palpably to set such doctrines or 
 opinions above the Scriptures, however this result may be 
 denied. To refue to. allow the examination^ is to carry 
 the assumption, in favour of the authority of such opinions, 
 in opposition to the Scriptures, still higher. 
 
 If I had not supposed that the declaration of Robert 
 Barclay, was to be considered as identical with Quaker- 
 ism, I never should have been found among its advocates. 
 But I did suppose it was to be held in good fciith; and on 
 this ground, I selected the soundest parts of the writings of 
 early Friends, without feeling myself bound by such pas- 
 sages of an opposite character, as were quoted by others 
 in support of the doctrines of Elias Hicks. _I did indeed 
 indulge the hope that the writers did not mean what they 
 said, or seemed to say in the passages selected by the 
 friends of E. H. But the declaration of R. B. and others 
 of a similar character, passed over this question, to more 
 certain and substantial grounds. They refered all ques- 
 tions of FaiLh and Practice—not to themselves for deci- 
 sion, but to the Scriptures. 
 
 In refering to the views of the Early Quakers, vrc made 
 one class of quotations, the Hicksitcs made another. The 
 doctrines thus presented were irreconcilcablc to each 
 other, and the Society was rent asunder, with violence. 
 
 In close connection v/iih the Separation, we made a 
 strong effort to introduce among our members, a more in- 
 timate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures. Inquiries 
 were instituted, under the derection of the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, how far the m.embers were furnished with the Bible, 
 
THE SOCIETV OF rr^EXDS. 
 
 23 
 
 •md whether they were in the daily practice of reading it, 
 in families collected — or willing to adopted that regula- 
 tion. Many families were found not furnished. In one 
 Quartely Meeting in Indiana, upward? of Eighty Families 
 were found in this situation: and the Reports of the Bible 
 Association of Friends of America sho-w a surprising de- 
 ficcncy in various pari;s of the Society. In the visits which 
 were made by committees to the families of Ohio Yearly 
 Meeting, ti very large proportion w^crc found not in the 
 daily practice of reading the Scriptures collectively — and 
 some were not vv'illing to adopt i^, for fear of formality.. 
 
 This collective reading- was strongly recommended, in 
 connection with opportunities for ether devotional exer- 
 cises; and, for a time, much interest was excited in this 
 attempt to introduce the reading of the Bible, and the 
 daily exercise <jf devotion in families collected. But that 
 interest evidently subsided, while a zeal for the writings 
 of early Friends, and the maintenance of what was grave- 
 ly called "Old fashioned Quakerism" increased. At one 
 time, a number of associations were formed, under the 
 character of Scripture Schools, being designed to promote 
 the mutual study of the Sciipturcs. But they excited 
 much alarm, and many prominent members exerted their 
 influenceso effectually, tliat in this section of the Society, 
 and in many other places, they arc entirely put down. 
 
 In the discharge of my duty as a Minister of the Gos- 
 pel, I continued, (after the Separation from the followers 
 of E. H.) to preach the same great doctrines, w hich I had 
 maintained in that controvcysy ; and to carry them out, 
 in their practical application. It is well known, that 
 E. H. and others held, tha.t Christ was an inward principle^ 
 and identical with the Holy Spirit — and this was describ- 
 ed as a universal inward light, that the body and blood of 
 Christ, were but terms, designating this Inward Light, 
 and therefore were to be found in the heart. It was a 
 counterpart of the same theory, to deny "the outward per- 
 
PROC'EJtlDlIS'GS AXD I'KINC'IPLES Of 
 
 son tliat suflered" — the man "that walked about the 
 streets of Jerusalem" to be the Christ, or that the blood 
 shed upon the cross, was the blood by which we are 
 cleansed from sin. Justification was made to rest upon 
 works, through the operation of the Spirit, "Internal 
 Light," or inward blood of Christ, which was explained 
 as the "Life." The doctrine of a future state was brought 
 into notice but not very extensively discussed; as the 
 Character of Chist, his blood, and the nature of his death 
 at Jerusalem, obtained the largest share of attention. 
 E. - H. however, very much discarded the idea of Heaven 
 as aplace — and regarded it merely as a state — considered 
 the final Judgment to be in this life — and the end of the 
 world, to be the end of each one's life. And he very 
 much let down the authority of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 I held the conclusive authority of the Bil^le, and in con- 
 formity with it, I maintained that Jesus of Nazareth, was 
 the Christ, the son of God — that to him give all the 
 Prophets witness, that through Name whosoever be- 
 lievethin him shall receive remission of sins: that in his 
 death"" upon the cross at Jerusalem, and the actual shed- 
 ding of his Blood, was offered that sacrifice for our sins, 
 without which none could be saved, and which was repre- 
 sented by the Atoning sacrifices which had been offered by 
 the Fathers, and under the Law. This doctrine of Christ, 
 of his death, and of the Shedding of his blood, when carried 
 out, necessarily, led to that of Justification by Faith. We 
 , were reconciled to God by the death of his Son — Justified 
 by his Blood: — and thus made partakers of that redemption 
 which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a 
 propitiation through Faith in his blood. 
 
 This naturally involves repentance toward God, and 
 Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Here a change of 
 heartis produced, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, for 
 no man can repent of that which he once delighted in, with- 
 out a change of the feelings and desires of the heart. 
 
•ruE SOCIUTY OF i'U.'ENDS. 
 
 35 
 
 RepeutiuiCi.' nai a uecL'ssciry couuection w'lCn the <loc- 
 Iriiie o.''accouuUibility. "God commandetli men every 
 whereto repent. ffc'caM.vc he hath appointed a day in which 
 he will Judge the world in righteousness, by that man 
 whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance 
 unto all men, in that he hath i aised him from the dead." 
 
 This accountability involves the doctrine of the Resur- 
 rection of the Dead, and of the Day of Judgment. And 
 all that we.can fear, and all that we can hope for, combine 
 to admonish us to the discharge of the duty of prayer — and 
 of walking by the Spirit — and of laying hold of that salva- 
 tion which comes by Jesus Christ. 
 
 These doctrines, in connection with the others which 
 pertain to the Gospel of Christ, Twent on to preach, after 
 the Separation. But it was not long before I discovered 
 indications of the disapprobation of certain prominent 
 members of the Society. These indications appeared to 
 be confined to a few, and were irregular as to duration. I 
 still pressed on, in the discharge of m^^ duty, as a Minister, 
 and travelled in most parts of the Society on this continent. 
 
 In 1832 I obtained the usual credentials from the Month- 
 ly and Quarterly Meetings of Short Creek, and the 
 Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders of Ohio, to pay a 
 religious visit to Friends and others, in some parts of 
 Great Britain and Ireland. The following is a copy of the 
 latter Document. 
 
 " To Friends in Great Britain and Ireland. — Our beloved 
 Friend Elisha Bates, in a feeling manner, sprea.d before 
 this meeting a prospect which has, for a number of years, 
 impressed his nfiind, to pay a visit in Gospel love, to Friends 
 and others, in some parts of Great Britain and Ireland; 
 and that he apprehended the time had come for disclosing 
 the concern to his friends. He produced a certificate of 
 the unity of Short Creek Monthly Meeting, endorsed by 
 the Quarterly Meeting cf Short Creek. 
 
 The subject thus opened, engaged our weighty con- 
 D 
 
PIIOCEEDINGS AM) I'UIJiCH'HiS 
 
 sideratioii ; and with feelings of near sympathy with this 
 our dear and much devoted friend, and full unity with him 
 in the important engagement, Ave haVe believed it right to 
 set him at liberty to pursue the prospect, as best wisdorh 
 may direct; certifying that his conduct and conversation 
 are exemplary : in his ministry he is sound in doctrine; 
 and careful to wait for divine ability. 
 
 We commend him to the care of the Shepherd of Israel, 
 disiringthat through an humble dependence upon Him, 
 and the unfoldings of his counsel, he may not only ex- 
 perience support and preservation through every Baptism 
 and conflict, but that he may be enabled to perform the 
 service required of him, to the comfort and edification of 
 the Churches where his lot may be cast, and to the peace 
 of his own mind. 
 
 Signed by the direction of Ohio Yearly Meeting of Min- 
 isters and Elders, held at Moantpleasant, by adjournments 
 on the 1st, 5th and 7th of the 9th month, 1837. 
 
 BENJAMIN W. LADD Clerk:' 
 
 Immediately after the Yearly Meeting, I obtained a 
 certlficcite from the Monthly Meeting of Short Creek to 
 attend the Yearly Meeting of Indiana. It was shortly 
 after this visit, that a sudden and violent excitement was 
 produced throughout the Yearly Meeting of Ohio — and 
 spread to other places, in consequence of my preaching 
 the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the 
 Day of Judgment, in Scripture language. I saw more and 
 more of the necessity to stale doctrines in Scriptui'e language. 
 And this produced a difficulty on the part of the dissa- 
 tisfied — in making objections to my doctrines. For as I 
 carefully kept to Scripture language in setting forth the 
 doctrines — these could not be called in question, without 
 coming directly into, collision with the Scriptures. But 
 the excitement was not the less violent on this account. 
 Nor were, the efforts to destroy my religious reputation, 
 the less active and persevering, because they could not 
 
TiiF. soorriTV of fhiends. 
 
 27 
 
 successfully make war on the Sciiptiircs witli which I wa3 
 fortified. Private defamation and detraction, both by 
 word and writing, were resorted to, in order to produce an 
 effect, where it was impossible for me to counteract it. 
 
 It was during this excitement that I wrote the Address 
 to the members of Ohio and Indiana Yearly Meetings, 
 and presented it, for approval, to the Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings, specially convened for that purpose. By the Dis- 
 cipline, the ministers have the right to attend the settings 
 of the Meeting for Sufferings. And those members of 
 the meeting who, according to the provisions of the Dis- 
 cipline, took upon them the calling of a special meeting, 
 to examine the Address, determined to invite the minis- 
 ters, both men and women, within the Yearly Meeting, 
 which was accordingly done. 
 
 I have stated in the Refutation, that I had read the 
 Essay of the Address to a company of Friends, previous 
 to the call of this meeting — that the character of it was 
 well known— that Benjamin W. Ladd, who was one of 
 that company, requested a friend to use her influence to 
 induce me to take out the passages of Scripture in the 
 Address, relating to the Resurrection, and insert, instead 
 of them, quotations from the writings of Early Friends. 
 I stated also that the Address was decidedly, (I might have 
 said, violently)^ opposed in the meeting, by sundry promi- 
 nent and influential members — such as William Flanncr, 
 William Wood, Jacob Ong, Jacob Branson, Benjamin 
 Hoyle, &c. — that B. W. Ladd proposed the appointment 
 of a committee, to see if such a modification .of the Ad- 
 dress could not be made, as would relieve my mind, and 
 satisfy the objecting Friends — that he was put on that 
 committee, and with two others of it, Jesse Kenworthy 
 and Jordan Harrison, called on me the same evening. — 
 After much discourse on the subject, in which he insisted 
 that the end of the world, was the end of each man's life, 
 he made thr- proposition, wliirli no donM Iic hnd in his 
 
28 
 
 PROCEEDINOS AND PRINCIPLi::- OF 
 
 mind In proposing the nppointnien;: of (lie commiilec to 
 modify the Address, viz. to take out the pnssagcs of Scrip- 
 ture and supply their places with quotations from the 
 writings of Friends. Th" ^inmere condescension, I agreed 
 to do, but on reflection I declined it, and withdrev,- the 
 Address. 
 
 In withdrawing the Address, I said that it coniained 
 my sentiments on the subjects of the Resurrection and 
 final Judgment, and entreated those who had niosc severe- 
 ly reflected on me, on account of those doctrines, to show 
 the grounds of their objections. This they steadily de- 
 clined to do; and thus the meeting closed. 
 
 Bui. though these mlnisiers and elders, entirely declined 
 to enter into discussion with mp on the doctrines in ques- 
 tion, they did not decline to calumniate me behind my 
 back; but made it their business to impugn the doch incs 
 I held, when I was not present to defend myself. 
 
 The spring of 1833 was now advancing, and ihc time 
 appeared every day, more and more pressing!}' to demand 
 that I should prosecute my visit on theoi:her side of the 
 Atlantic. In the mean time, the state of the Society, and 
 the trealment I had received from those I had regarded 
 as my friends, so operated upon my mind, as to destroy 
 my health, and a severe attack of illness ensued. The 
 appearance of hostility gradually subsided: and while I 
 was confined with this illness, W. Planner called to see 
 tne, in an apparently friendly disposition, and encouraged 
 me to look towards the prosecution of my transatlantic 
 visit, as soon as I could prepare for it. He never had 
 had one word of conversation with me, on the doctrines to 
 which he had shown so much aversion; nor did he enter 
 at all on the subject now. Others treated me with appa- 
 rent friendship, and no one made objection to my going. 
 I left home the 26th of the 6th month 1833. About' a 
 week before, my certificate had been resigned in the 
 
THE SOCITTY OF FKIRN'DR. 
 
 29 
 
 monthly meeting, .md liberty was granted me, io haAC 
 two meetings in Mountplcasant. 
 
 I went directly to Baltimore to attend the General 
 Committee; appointed b}' the several Yearly Meetings, 
 except Philadelphia, which was very decidedly opposed 
 io the measure. 
 
 I was i\\cn on my way to embark for a foreign land, 
 with all the credentials that the order of the Society de- 
 manded. And the separation from my Am.crican friends 
 was very sensibly felt. During the session of the Gene- 
 ral Committee, a meeting for business occurred in Balti- 
 more. I am not certain whether it was a Pvlonthly or 
 Preparative Meeting. Wishing a parting opportunity 
 with my friends, I requested it — but it was opposed by 
 one of the mast prominent members, on the ground, as he 
 said, that I had no!; a certificate addressed to them; and 
 they did not therefore know me officially as a minister — 
 though all of them knew me as a minister — and as a 
 delegate to the General Committee from Ohio Year- 
 ly Meeting, and as liberated to visit Great Britain and 
 Ireland as a minister of the gospel. The objection, how- 
 ever, was overruled, and the opportunity was granted me. 
 
 I mention this fact, to show tiie manner in which a 
 wide-spread dissatisfaction with mo operated, while pro- 
 fessed unity with me was maintained, and while I was 
 liberated and encouraged to travel as a minister into fo- 
 reign countries. 
 
 Facts have abundantly proved, that those by whom this 
 underworking was carried on, v. cre rather pleased than 
 otherwise, with my absence from this -coimtry, that 
 they might make their arrangements, and prepossess the 
 minds of friends against me, while I was gone. The 
 hope, too, might be entertained, that the Conservatives in 
 England,- would find some hold to take on me, by which I 
 might be led into difficulty there. But the Lord was on 
 
30 
 
 PROC EEniN'oS AND PRIXCIPLES OF 
 
 my side, and those who watched for m}- halting were disap- 
 pointed. 
 
 I have already given some sketches of sentiments, that I 
 met with on that side of the Atlantic : and I refer to the 
 recent numhers of the Rcpositor}-, for information in 
 regard to transactions in that country. The Letters also 
 that I shall give in a subsequent part of this work, will fur- 
 ther elucidate the subject. 
 
 On my return home in the 11th month 1834, my health 
 was such as to confine me to my room a considerable time. 
 In the 2nd month 1835, 1 attended the Quarterly Meeting. 
 It was in the Meeting of Ministers and Elders at that time, 
 that I made some remarks, on the importance of soundness 
 in the fundamental doctrines of religion, on the part of 
 Ministers and Elders. I exhorted them to seek for the 
 help of the Holy Spirit in the exercise of their gifts, and 
 expressed my full persuasion that if this were the case, a 
 new spring of ministry would be opened among them. I 
 gave it as my belief, that the ministry had not been tho- 
 roughlj^ purged by the kite separation, but that the essen- 
 tial doctrines of Hicksism were still in the Society. And 
 by way of elucidation, I referred to the command which 
 was given to Saul, utterly to destroy. Ameleck. But he 
 destroyed only that which was vile and refuse, and saved 
 the best of the spoil, and spared Agag the King alive. And 
 I expressed m}- strong apprehensions, that the Society had 
 only thrown off the grosser matters which were found in 
 it, while the very essence of the unsoundness was still re- 
 tained. And I entreated my friends to take the subject 
 deeply into consideration. 
 
 At the close of this meeting, both Benjamin Iloyle, a 
 minister, and B. W. Ladd, an elder, called upon me for 
 explanations of this discourse. At tlic close of the latter 
 interview, B. W. Ladd remarked, in substance, as follows: 
 " Well, Elisha, if thee goes bcjond our earl}' Friends, thee 
 will be a reformer, ;ind rairy off a party."' On my answer- 
 
TIIK SOCIKTV OF FRlCNDi?. 
 
 31 
 
 ing, that I intended to keep very close to the Scriptures, 
 he rephed, "No — the writings of our Early Friends are 
 something that has risen up between us and the Scriptures, 
 and we must not go beyond them." This was in the pre- 
 sence of Dr. Parker and Benjamin Wright. The Doctor 
 does not seem to remember this part of the interview, 
 though he does not deny that it took place. But B. 
 Wright does remember the conversation just recited. 
 
 In the 5th month I obtained a certificate to attend the 
 Yearly Meeting on Rhode Island. And there I found a 
 number of my former friends, quite changed in their feelings 
 towards me — but some were not. In New York, I learned 
 from an estimable minister who attended the Yearly Meet- 
 ing in Philadelphia, that it was confidently stated there, at 
 that time, that I would receive no certificate from the 
 Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders, to be held in 
 London the last of the 5th month — that is, more than a 
 month after it Avas announced in Philadelphia. 
 
 That a private decision should thus be made up by indi- 
 viduals, so long beforehand, for a body professing to act 
 under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, is cer- 
 tainly not to the credit of the parties concerned in such 
 transactions. 
 
 Agreeably to this previous conclusion, when the Meet- 
 ing of Ministers and Elders convened in London, the 
 attempt was made to decline giving me a certificate of sat- 
 isfaction with my visit, as is usual in such cases. And so 
 determined were the objectors, that they overruled the 
 other part of the meeting, and it was concluded to give no 
 certificate. 
 
 But information of this decision got out, and the question 
 was asked in the Yearly Meeting, whether such was the 
 fact or not. The Yearly Meeting being the Superior 
 Meeting, the call for information was imperative, and the 
 state of the case was disclosed. The decision of the Min- 
 isters and Elders was overruled, and they were directed to 
 
o2 ritoci^UDi.Ncs A>D rRi>'cirLEs op 
 
 reconsider the subject. This was niortifying beyond mea- 
 sure; but there was no alternative; and the subject was 
 again taken up. Another violent effort was made to with- 
 hold the certificate, but it failed, and the document was 
 prepared, recognizing my Gospel labours and certifying 
 that they were acceptable to many. 
 
 Previous to the passing of this paper, every objection 
 thatcould bethought of was advanced, investigated, and 
 removed. 
 
 It is a fact, however, that the certificate, as to me, is 
 full — the abatement falls on those to whom my gospel labours 
 were not acceptable. 
 
 These facts exhibit a tissue of disgraceful intrigue and 
 management, that never could exist in a sound state of 
 Society. The private making up of decisions beforehand, 
 for an important meeting, professing immediate divine 
 guidance, must be regarded as placing the claims of such 
 meetings in a very unfavorable point of view. It turns 
 out, also, that those who earnestly endeavoured to carry 
 out this previously-formed judgment, were ministers of 
 the very first standing in the Conservative party. Among 
 these, according to Thomeis Evans's letter, was William 
 Allen, the clerk of the meeting. George and Ann Jones, 
 Sarah Grubb and Elizabeth Robson, were also among 
 the number. But this was not all. The anticipated de- 
 cision 'was sent over to America, long before the meeting 
 that was to form it under divine guidance was held — and 
 was actually used in this country, more than a month be- 
 forehand, to have an unfavourable effect upon my religious 
 character. And after all, it was set aside by the highest 
 meeting in the Society. And the Ministers and Elders 
 themselves, finally issued a document, directl}^ contrary 
 to their conclusion, but a few days before. 
 
 On my way home from New England, I stopped a few 
 dayg in Philadelphia. But I did not see Thomas Evans, 
 he having gone to the sea side, on a summer excursion. I 
 
Tllli SOLIETV OF FUIENDS. 
 
 33 
 
 meniion this, because it is one of the* features of his letter. 
 • The approaching storm was now gathering abound me. 
 I think the summer and autumn of 1835 was, as relates to 
 tlie Society, the most painful period of my life. I saw 
 that the friends could not bear sound doctrine*, and the 
 grief arising from this painful conviction, impressed upon 
 me by otiservations, through the whole length of the So- 
 ciety, from London to Indiana — 'the long and sore perse- 
 cution I had received from my former friends, bore with 
 such weight upon me, that I could most literally say with 
 the Apostle, I was pressed above measure, so that I des- 
 paired even of life. It did indeed seem, at times, that 
 my constitution, shattered as it was, must sink under the 
 burdens which I had t6 bear. 
 
 Thomas Evans"'s Letter to me, under date of Tth month 
 25th, (see Appendix), shows that the dissatisfaction with 
 me was for doctrincs^netu views, as he is pleased t<^ call 
 them. But he is careful not to specify what they were. 
 It shows also, an extensive correspondence and under- 
 standing among the Conservatives, in my case. It dis- 
 closes the fact, that no reformation or correction, in the 
 views of early Friends, would be allowed; and that my 
 disownment was determined on, without an entire -sub- 
 mission on my part. 
 
 That a few individuals, such as Ann Jones, Thomas 
 Evans, and B. W. Ladd, should exercise such despotic 
 powers in the Society, at this day, as to proscribe whoev- 
 er they please — and that, too, for holding the simple and 
 plain doctrines of the New Testament, is certainly aston- 
 ishing. 
 
 In the mean time the manuscript Letter, (reviewed in 
 the 25th and 26th numbers of the Repository), had been 
 widely circulated in the western country. It was written 
 by Thomas Evans of Philadelphia, to Benjamin W, Ladd 
 of Smithfield, under date of 4th month 25th, 1835.. 
 
 The intention was to produce an excitement, by pri- 
 E 
 
PROCEEDINGS AND ?RI^'CIPL^iS OF 
 
 Vate and underhand means, against certain individuals^ 
 on aecount of the doctrines which they held. Of these 
 individuals, Isaac Crewdson v/as one, and E. Bates was 
 another. Of the offensive doctrines, that of the conclu- 
 sive authority of the Holy Scripturesj stood prominent— 
 and "the observance of the first day of the week as a 
 moral obligation"' was another. In tra<:ing out that Let- 
 ter, we find the doctrine . of the Resurrection mentioned 
 in an ambiguous way. But from the close connection 
 which has been maintained between the writer of that 
 letter and thosfe v,^ho violently opposed that doctrine — 
 from the fact that it was written to one of those opposers 
 of the doctrine, and by him put into circulation, for the 
 promotion of his own views, all -uncertainty as to the 
 meaning of the passage is removed. He objects, m 
 strong terms, to the idea that "many of the views of our 
 worthy predescessors [are] unscriptural aiid unsound.'^ 
 By this, he plainly declares, his opinion, that all the wri- 
 tings of the Early Friends, are sound and' scriptural. 
 
 The doctrine held by those called Evangelical Friends, 
 relating to Justification by Faith^ is mentioned with disap- 
 jprobation. And he proceeds to say: "Accompanying the 
 promulgation of these erroneou& views I have mentioned, 
 is an active promotion of wliat is styled family, duty ; 
 reading and expounding the Scriptures; praying vocally 
 by heads of families with their assembled household ; and 
 also what they style teaching the Gospel, which they say 
 is a distinct thing from the ministry, and may pi'operly be 
 exercised by every concerned parent. Hence their per- 
 formances have become very common; and in the families 
 of some friends are accompanied with the vocal singing 
 of hymns, or the repetition." 
 
 From these facts, it is evident, that the folding of the 
 conclusive authority of the Holy Scriptures — Justification 
 by Faith, the Ressurrectlon of the dead, the practical 
 duty of prayer, with other domestic devotions, and the 
 
THE SOCIilTY OF FRiEN'DS. 
 
 35 
 
 teaching of the Gospel by "concerned parents,"' had all 
 given offepce, as "going from the original ground of our 
 profession," and mdasares were taken to put them down. 
 
 Tiie pious christian of any other denomination, can 
 scarcely read these devclopements of sentimeot without 
 astonishment, that now, ia the I9th century, such. a war- 
 fare should have been commenced against Christianity, in 
 Faith and- Practice, and carried on to ihe disownment of 
 individuals. 
 
 It is important to take notice of this letter, as all . the 
 points of doctrihe are distinctly embraced in it, which 1 
 have charged the Society for opposing. 
 
 The vrhola letter is given in the Appendix, together 
 with another letter from the same writer, addressed to 
 me. 
 
 This last-mentioned letter shows thai doctrines was the 
 ground of dissatisfaction with me, both in England and 
 ia Philadelphia. And by the allusion to the *'new no» 
 tions of Crewdson and his friends," we are warranted ia 
 concluding, that they are the same which were men- 
 tioned in the Letter to Benjamin V/. Ladd. In this let- 
 ter I was given to understand, that, an extensive inter- 
 change of sentiment had taken place among the the Con' 
 servatives in England and America, in relation to me; 
 that they were dissatisfied wi cb those nezo. doctrines, which 
 were plainly the absoluLe authority of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures m matters of Faith and Practice, Justification by 
 Faith, the Resurrection of the dead — the practical dutj* 
 of Prayer, and the obligation on heads of families to lead 
 their families into devotional exercises, and to bring up 
 their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 I v^as given to understand, also, that no reformation ia 
 the views of early Friends would be tolerated,— was in- 
 vited to leave the Society, and virtually informed, that if 
 I did not, or settle-down into quiet^ and an entire abandon- 
 ment of the new notions of Crewdson and hia friends— 
 
36 
 
 pnocr.Emjics and rnixciri.r.s of 
 
 diiownmenl would be the inevitable consequence. This, 
 it should be remembered, was more than nine months 
 before the 23rd number of the Repository was writ- 
 ten- — thirteen months and. a half before I was bap» 
 tizcd, and about fifteen months before the Appeal was 
 published. Here my intended disownment was distinctly 
 announced, long before one single' thing mentioned in the 
 charges on which I have been disowned, had occurred. 
 
 I do not intend to say that the Society would not have 
 disowned me, for calling the papers of George Fox in 
 question, or .for being Baptized, if the original causes of 
 dissatisfaction had not previously existed. I believe they 
 would. But the papers already referred to, and those 
 which I shall hereafter bring into notice, show beyond 
 all contradiction, that my disownment was long intended 
 and threatened, on account of my holding and preaching 
 the great doctrines and duties of religion. 
 
 The letters of Sarah Grubb, Ann Jones, and Thomas 
 Evans, are expressed- in terms that indicate an imperious 
 and overbearing temper.' That such a temper is perjnit- 
 ted to rule in the Society, is one of its present calamitlesi 
 and as is evident from the facts of the present case, is 
 intinaately connected with unsoundness in principle. 
 
 The Document of the Meeting for Sufferings of Ohio, 
 issued in the. 9th month 1835, is a further evidence, of the 
 combination which had been formed, and of the doctrin- 
 al character of the excitement which had run throughoXit 
 the Society, from London to Indiana. 
 
 Isaac Crewdson had Avritten an exposure of the doc- 
 trines of Ellas Hicks, which he called a Beacon to the 
 Society of Friends. As a i-efutation of those doctrines, 
 by which the Society had so deeply suffered, and from 
 which it was far from being clear, the Beacon is not infe- 
 rior, to say the least of it, to any of the Philadelphia pub< 
 licationo, from the anonymous pamphlets, to the Declara 
 tion of the Yearly Meeting. The Friends of that city, how- 
 
TIIK SOCIETY OF FniE.NDS. 
 
 3T 
 
 ever, deiei riiined to put it down, cfnd tlicy made a formal 
 parhde against it, a.t the Yearly Meeting in the 4th month. 
 
 An attempt Avas made in the meeting for Sufferings for 
 Nev/ England .in the Cth month, to issue a document 
 against it. I was there, as were Thomas Kite of Philadel- 
 phia, Joshua Lynch of Salcm Q. M. Ohio, Robert Comfort 
 and Mead Atwater of N. Y. Yearly Meeting, &c. When 
 the subject was introduced, I made some objections to the 
 course proposed, and there was good sense enough in the 
 meeting, to decline to follow in the path which had been 
 struck out in Philadelphia. A feeling of indignation 
 Irowevcr was manifested against me, by some present, of 
 which I had not met with many examples before. 
 
 Joshua I/jnch abruptly -broke off his visit in New Eng- 
 land, immediately after the Yearly Meeting, left his car- 
 riage and horses, - and hastily retuVned home, by public 
 conveyance. 
 
 About a week before the Yearly Meeting here, he came 
 into the neighbourhood, to make, some private visits, to 
 promote certain object's he had in view; one of which was, 
 to prepare the minds of some of the members of the meet- 
 ing for Sufferings, for the issuing of 'a document against 
 the Beacon. 
 
 Thomas Evans also came "to the Yearly Mee ting, with 
 a cer-tificate, though not in the station either of a minister 
 or elder. At the opening of the first sitting of the meet- 
 ing for sufferings, a request was made for his admission, he 
 being waiting in the yard. He was not a member of the 
 meeting for Sufferings in Philadelphia — and by Ithe Dis- 
 cipline was not elegible to attend. But contrary to the 
 uniform practice of the Society, he was admitted. 
 
 I -mention tliis circumstance for two reasons, one, to 
 show how little the order of the Society is regarded by 
 the conservatives themselves— the other, to mark the con- 
 nection of his visit with the issuing of. the Document of 
 the Meeting for Sufferings. 
 
38 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 Although I have reviewed this document in the 2Cth 
 no. of the' Repository, I shall insert it here with a few' re- 
 marks upon some of its prominent parts. 
 
 "This meeting has been broughtundcr exercise and con- 
 cern on account of the dissemination of sentiments, cal- 
 culated to weaken the faith' of our members, in the funda- 
 mental doctrines of the universality of Divine grace, and 
 the influence of the Holy Spirit on the mind of man, as the 
 primary rule of ftiith and practice; and to undervalue 
 some of those Christian testimonies which, under its gui- 
 dance, our worthy predecessors in the truth were led to 
 promulgate to the world, and which are clearly set forth 
 by our blessed Lord and his Apostles in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 "Among the means ofspreading these unsound vicwswe 
 may particularly notice a late work entitled "A Beacon 
 to the society of friends," containing sentiments repug- 
 nant to the Christian principles which our religious society 
 has always held and maintained, since it pleased the Lord 
 first to gather us, as a distinct people. We feel an car^ 
 nest and tender solicitude that all our dear friends may be 
 preserved from being-entangled in-any views which would 
 lead them lightly to esteem these precious doctrines and 
 testimonies; that they may avoid all doubtful disputations 
 and speculative opinions, which gender strife and conten- 
 tion, and seek to know an . establishment on the alone 
 sure foundation, Christ Jesus the Rock of ages, abundantr 
 ly testified of in the Scriptures of truth, and inwardly re- 
 vealed by the Holy Spirit to the humble beUeving soul. — 
 As they come in living faith to him who died for our sins, 
 that we might be justified through his blood, and yield 
 tliemselves in reverent obedience to his spiritual govern- 
 ment, they will experience a growth, in grace- and in that 
 divine knowledge %vhich 'accompanies salvation ; and thus 
 be qnaUfied to fill up their respective stations and duties 
 in the world and in ihe Church, to their own peace and 
 the edification of (he body. 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FKIE.NDS. 
 
 39 
 
 "Oar religious society has always lirmly a.nd sincerely 
 believed in thatholy scripture doctrine that 'the grace .of 
 God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men; 
 teaching, us, that denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, 
 we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this pre- 
 sent world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious 
 appearing of the. great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 
 who gave himself for us, that he might' redeem us from all 
 iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar . people, zeal- 
 ous of good works.' This grace ofGod we believe is 'the 
 spirit of truth,' which our blessed Lord promised to send to 
 guide his disciples into all truth, 'it is the true light which 
 Ughteth every man that cometh into the world;' and 'he 
 that foUoweth him shall not walk in darkness^ but shall 
 have the light of life.' To tliis divine light, inwardly re- 
 vealed, our worthy forefathers were engaged to call the at- 
 tention of the different classes of professors .in their day, 
 as the foundatioxi of all living experimental religion; that 
 by obedience to its teachings they might be led from a 
 dependence an a mere outside profession, however sound 
 in its doctrines, to an inward, practical acquaintance with 
 the cleansing and sanctifying operations of the Holy- 
 Ghost. Nor v/.as it by precept only that they enforced 
 the great truths of the Christian .religion, by submission 
 to the dictates of this blessed spirit, they were enabled to 
 sliew forth its power and efficacy in holiness of life and 
 circumspection of demeanor, bringing forth the fruits of 
 meekness, long suffering, gentleness and pufity, adorning 
 the doctrine of God our Saviour in conduct -and conversar^ 
 tion. 
 
 "They believed, as the society Iras done down to the 
 present-day, that whatsoever Christ did in his. outward 
 manifestation, both living and dying, was of great benefit? 
 to the salvation of all that have believed, and now do, and 
 that hereafter shall believe in him, unto justification and 
 itcceptance with God. But. the way to come to that 
 
40 PROCEEDINGS -AND PKINCIPLES OF 
 
 faith, is to receive and obey the manifestation of his divine 
 light and grace in the conscience, which leads men to be- 
 lieve and value and not to disown or' undervalue Christ, 
 as the common Sacrifice and Mediator. For we do affirm 
 that to follow this holy light in the conscience, and to turn 
 our minds and bring all our deeds and thoughts to it, is 
 the readiest, nay, the only right way, to have true, living, 
 and sanctifying faith in Christ, as he appeared in the flesh; 
 and to discero the Lord's body, coming and suffering 
 aright; and to receive any benefit by him, as our only 
 Sacrifice and Sicdiator; according to the beloved disci- 
 ple's emphatical testimony, 'If we walk in the light, as he 
 is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and 
 the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleansGth us from all 
 sin.' 
 
 "May it then, dear friends .be our individual co.ncern to 
 be established on this safe and sure foundation, being 
 rooted and built up in Christ ;-that 'We may all come in 
 the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of 
 God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
 of the fullness ofChrist. That henceforth we be no more 
 children^ tossed to and fro, and carried about with every 
 wind of doctrine, by the slight of men and - cunning craft- 
 iness whereby they lie in wait to deceive, but speaking 
 the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things^, 
 which is the head even Christ.' 
 
 "We feel an affectionate solicitude for our members of 
 every class, but especially for tiie beloved youth, that they 
 may seek after retirement and quietude of mind, and cul- 
 tivate an acquaintance with their Lord and Saviour as he 
 is pleased to reveal himself by his Spirit in their hearts. 
 This state of silent introversion, and waiting on the Lord, 
 will be a suitable qualification for the profitable perusal of 
 the precious pages of Holy Scripture, a practice which we 
 recommend to the daily observance of all; believing that 
 they are 'profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 41 
 
 tion, for insLruction in righteousness,' and 'able to make 
 Avisc unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Je- 
 sus.' As we come to know and follow him in humility 
 and holy fear, we s'lall be eiuii)led to distinguish his voice 
 from that of the stranger, however specious the resem- 
 blance, be preserved from every stratagem of the unweari- 
 ed adversary and in the progress of our religious growt!i, 
 be.prepared under the fresh anointing from on high to la- 
 boar availingly for the advancement of the glorious cause 
 of truih and righteousness in the earth." 
 
 The first thing I shall notice in this paper, is the pro- 
 fession o[ concern, into which the meeting was introduced 
 — a thing however mads up beforehand, as was well un- 
 derstood by a number of the members of that meeting. 
 
 In the Review of this document, which I published in 
 the Repository, I stated that I believed in the original 
 draft, as it passed tlie meeting, the exhortation to the mem- 
 bers of the Society that "ail our dear friends may avoid 
 all doubtful disputations and speculative opinions, which 
 gender strife and contention, and seek to know an estab- 
 lishment on the alone sure foundation, Christ Jesus the 
 Rock of ages, abundantly testified of in the Scriptures of 
 truth, and inwardly revealed by the Holy Spirit to the 
 humble believing soul;" the clause relating to inward 
 revelation, stood before that which relates to the testimo- 
 ny of Scripture. lam able to say now, without the fear 
 of contradiction, that such was the fact. The passage 
 originally read as follows: "Wc feci an earnest and ten- 
 der solicitude that all our dear fiicnds may be preserved 
 from being entangled in any views which would lead 
 them lightly to esteem those precious doctrines and testi- 
 monies; that they may avoid ail doubtful disputations and 
 speculative opinions, which gender strife and contention, 
 and seek to know an establishment on the alone sure foun- 
 dation, Christ Jesus the Rock of ages, inwardly revealed 
 F 
 
42 
 
 PROCEEMAGS A»;t> FSir.CIFLES Of 
 
 by tlie Holj Spirit to the humble believing soul, and 
 abundantly testified of in the Scriptures of truth." 
 
 The questioti will very- naturally occur, why was the 
 transposition of the two latter clauses of this sentence, 
 after it had deliberately passed the meeting, and with ob- 
 jection made to it, and over-ruled, thought to be a matter 
 of so much importance, as to demand a call of the meet- 
 ing, for the simple purpose of making the change? The 
 reason was this, the passage as it stood, had alarmed some 
 friends, as well it migh':, with the idea that it was direct 
 Hickiite doctrine. And the transposition was made, to 
 quiet that alarm — but without changing the doctrine in- 
 tended to be conveyed by the Document, as it originally 
 stood. That doctrine was, to maintain the views of early 
 Friends, as arising from inward revelation to them, and 
 not from the Script-are?, but merely corroborated by the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The alteration may justly be charged with a lack of can* 
 dour; for the document, as it stood at first, evidently con- 
 veyed the sentiments of its framers-. and it contains the 
 very, same sentiments still — though arranged for the 
 special purpose of not giving alarm. Let the reader recur 
 to the very first sentence in the document, and there he 
 will find the "exercise and concern" of the meeting to be, 
 on account of the dissemination of sentiments, calculated 
 to weaken the faith of our members in the fundamental 
 doctrines of the universality of Divine Grace, and the In- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit on the mind of man, as the pri- 
 mary i-ule of faith and practice." I take this part of the 
 sentence to avoid breaking the connection; and to make 
 two passing observations as we go along: One is, tha-t in- 
 justice is done to Isaac Crewdson, in representing him as 
 denying the universality of divine grace: the other is, 
 that the whole weight of their "exercise and. concern" fell 
 upon the maintenance of the doctrine of the divine and 
 conclusive authority of the Holy Scriptures, in matters of 
 
1. 
 
 TTiE sociETv or rUIKNDS. . 43 
 
 Faith and Practice. But the part of the sentence which 
 immediately follows the foregoing quotation, is that to 
 which I wish to call particular attention, as containing 
 the sentiment, which the transposition was made, in some 
 degree to conceal, — "and to undervalue some of those 
 Christian testimonies which, under its guidance, our wor- 
 thy predecessors in the truth were led to promulgate to 
 the world, and which a.re clearly set forth by our blessed 
 Lord and his Apostles in the Holy Scriptures." 
 
 This agrees precisely with the passage which was transf 
 posed, and the transposition of which was thought of suf- 
 ficient importance, to demand a special meeting of the 
 meeting for Sufferings. It is a prominent object of the 
 who-le document, to inculcate the idea, that the Early 
 Friends derived their doctrines from inward revelation, 
 and not from the Scriptures. And then, by a strange in- 
 ^.onsistency, to contend for the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, as tJje Primary R.ule of Faith and Practice, and 
 make that Rule identical with the views of Early Friends, 
 
 To discredit the Scriptures, by not allowing ihcm to be 
 f/icmcGNi', of bringing us, in the first -place, to a knowledge 
 of the doctrines of Christianity, is plainly to discredit the 
 Record which God has given of his Sou. Tu claim for the 
 views of the Early Friends this high character of revela- 
 tion, is to set them above the Scriptures, in several re- 
 spects. It places those friends not only upon apostolic 
 ground, but as having peculiar claims on us, as "owr worthy 
 predecessors," "cur dear forefathers," &c. It sets those 
 writings above the Scriptures, or in other words,it not only 
 places them beyond correction by the Scriptures, in ascrib- 
 ing to them the character of a more recent revelation than 
 the New Testament, but it claims a controul over the 
 Scriptures, as containing the true doctrine of Scripture, 
 given to Early Friends by revelation. And every effort is 
 used, t6 fix this notion in the minds of the ntembeis of this 
 i^ociely — that they may- avoid all investigation — keep cut 
 
44 
 
 PHOCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 
 
 of the way of all arguments, conducted on purely Scrip- 
 tural grounds — and shut up all controversies, -with the 
 opinions of Early Friends: — as these arc to be given out, 
 in the course of a few years, in the Friends' Library. 
 
 But take the doctrine of the Inilucnce oi'tae Hoiy Spirit 
 as the Primary Rule as ostensibly stated in the Document, 
 and it cannot be sustained. 
 
 The Early Friends insisted that the Holy Spirit 
 was the Primary Rule. But if the dcclaralion of the 
 meeting for Sufferings means neither more nor less 
 than this, why should the sentence bs incumbered with 
 the additional terms. But every man acquainted with 
 the meaning of words, must see at once, that the terms 
 are not identical. Why then did the meeting enter upon 
 this new version of the old doctrine of the Friends? I>o 
 they think it is proper for ihzm to modify or change doc- 
 trines, which they denominate Fundamental^ and that, not 
 to render them conformable to tlic Scriptures, at the very 
 moment when they were passing censure upon a Friend 
 in a Foreign country, (and over whom they had no juris- 
 diction, whatever — ) for bringing the Scriptures to bear 
 upon the same point of doctrine? 
 
 But take either the old or new version of the doctrine 
 of the Primary Rule, and it cannot bear the test of Holy 
 Scripture. The question is not whether the dictation of 
 the Holy Spirit is infallibly true or not: for no one in 
 his' sober senses will deny this. But whether, to us, who 
 have the Scriptures, they are not of absolute and conclu- 
 sive authority, in all points of doctrine, whether of prin- 
 ciples or practice? 
 
 I think it necessary to narrow up the question, so as to 
 include only those who have the Scrip'.iires — :because, by 
 arguing from the condition of the Uea jhcn, Friends have 
 argued themselves upon Heathen ground. For taking 
 the Light which men, in a state of nature have, (entirely 
 independent of the Bible.) as the Primary Rule, and every 
 
THE SOCIETV Or rUili.VUS. 
 
 45 
 
 one acquainted with this part of the human family must 
 know, that ihis Rule giv es no knowledge of those doc- 
 trines of ChrisLianity, whicii every true believer acknowl- 
 edges to be of Fundamental importance. And if that 
 Rule does not give, to those w lio Have no other, the cs^e/i- 
 /m/doctrines of Christianity, then Christianity itself is not 
 included in this Primary Rule: which would be to banish 
 Christianity from the system of religion to be inculcated 
 and maintained by it. 
 
 To say that Christianity would be taught, by this- uni- 
 versal Light which the Heathen possess, if they were 
 obedient to its dictates, is assertion without proof. The 
 doctrines committed to the Apostles, and the Scriptures 
 of the Prophets, are^ by the commandment of the ever- 
 lasting God, to be "made known unto all nations for the 
 obedience of Faith."' The Scriptures show clearly that 
 the doctrines of religion are to be communicated to man- 
 kind through thein, and all hisLory establishes the fact, 
 that where they have not been directly or indirectly 
 known, the religion of Jesus Christ, which is the only 
 true religion, has not been enjoyed. 
 
 Leaving then the condition of the Heathen, to be dis- 
 posed of by the Judge of all tlie earth, who will do right — 
 and whose tender mercies arc overall his works, we come 
 to the question, immediately relating to ourselves — what 
 is the Rule of Faith and Practice, by which wc arc to be 
 •governed? God has spoken by the Prophets, Apostles, 
 and by his own dear Son. Shall we take his Word thus 
 given to us in the Scriptures, as the Rule, or shall w e con- 
 sider the impressions. on our ozon minds as the Rule? I 
 say the zmjoms/o«5 on our own minds,- because the divine 
 origin of those impressions is not to be taken as a thing 
 of course. We all know that whatever God may immedi- 
 ately communicate to man will necessarily be true. But 
 we have to prove that the impression is such a communca- 
 tion from him, before the advantage of this concession can 
 be riglitly claimed. 
 
46 
 
 PROCKEDINCS AND PUINOH'iES OF 
 
 Take for example, the impressions of Jacob Bclmicn, 
 and of George Fox, that tlicy knew bj revelation the na- 
 ture and vii'lues of all things — and can any sober jninded 
 man bolieve that they were not mistaken? Take George 
 Fox's discernment of the witches by revelation, as men- 
 tioned in the two first editions of his Journal, bat excluded, 
 from these afterwards printed, and do we believe that he 
 really had such a revelation? Very few A>'ill answer in 
 the affirmative. Take his letter to Oliver Cromwell, in 
 which he calls himself "the Son of God," and says "my 
 kingdom is not of this world;"' and again and again he says 
 he was moved of the Lord to write it — but can we believfe 
 that he really wa.s so moved to write — what was either 
 gross ignorance or gross blasphemy ? I might mliltiply ex- 
 amples, but these will suffice to show, what every mats 
 ought to admit, with all readiness, that men arc very apt to 
 be mistaken in their own impressions. If the very Foun- 
 der of the Society was so greatly mistaken in what he tool* 
 to be immediate revelations, how can the ordinary mem- 
 bers of the Society, insist upon the impressions of their own 
 minds, as the Primary Rule of Faith and Practice? Butit 
 fnay be said, that we do not profess our impressions to 'be 
 the Rule — but thelnfiuencc of "the Holy Spir'i, arid this 
 Only. 
 
 But there is an utter fallacy in this. Forifwc have im- 
 pressions, on a. matter in hand, the question, on this theory 
 will immediately arise, is this impression from the Holy 
 Spirit? Or is it the working of my own imagination ? And 
 how, I ask is this point to be decided? If by the impres- 
 sion itself, then the impression is taken, as divine, whethip.r 
 right or wrong, and then, after this, it is to be tried — bi/ 
 itself. Bat the absurdity of this must be obvious. If- on 
 the other hand, the impression is to be tried b}- some Rule 
 to which it must be subjected, as of acknowledged divine 
 authority — Ihe'n that rule must be of higher authority than 
 ihe impi-essibn. ' And it would be preposteraus to suppose. 
 
THE bOciLi'V or iuj;i;.M)?. 
 
 •17 
 
 that tlij impression was first to bo rnadu s-aboiilin^.tc io 
 that acknowledged Rule, and then the Rule made suboi- 
 dinai-c to the impression. 
 
 . Bui if the Primary Rule is in every man, then every man 
 must consult it for himocU', and thus subordination in So- 
 ciety would be at an end. And there is a manifest con- 
 tradiction in insisting that the Primary Rule is in every 
 man, to be known by everj' man, in himself and for him- 
 self, and at the same time to hold over him, as of absolute 
 authority, either the opinions of his predecessors or of his 
 cotemporariesi And as an illustration of my meaning, 
 take the case of an individual, who sincerely believes that 
 both the testimony of Scripture and tlic direct witness of 
 the Holy Spirit, clearly determine a point of Christian 
 doctrine, if that decision is not according to the views of 
 George Fox, or tlx; opinions of the ruling Conservatives, as 
 to what were the opinions of George Fox, all that such a 
 man may sny of the concurrent testimony of the word, and 
 of the Spirit, will avail nothing. lie must succumb, or be 
 disowned. How rediculous then is the pretension to such 
 a fundamental principle, as to what is the Primary Rule, 
 when it resolves itself, not into the immediate teaching of 
 the Spirit, as really recognized by the Society, but the 
 opinions of George Fox and his cotcmporaries, as handed 
 out by present conservatives — who serve them up a,t dis- 
 cretion, "ztvi/t their inirinsic value enhanced.'^''* 
 
 Bat while the Society tlius practically gives a contra- 
 diction to its own Fundamental principles, in its dealing 
 witti its members — ^individuals in thQiTprival" musings,mu5t 
 necessarily have some Rule to which questions of-doetrine 
 are to be brought. And here a mistake may be of incal- 
 culable mischief. If we claim to ourselves, revelations of 
 doctrine, independent of the Scriptures, and make the 
 Scriptures "Secondary, and Subordinate" to their sup- 
 
 *.See Prospectus for the PrierKlb' Library. 
 
48 
 
 PROCEEDINQS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 posed revelations — if emboldened by the cases so solemnly 
 brought forward by Robert Barclay, of persons who could 
 not read their own nalivc language, who, when pressed 
 with texts of Scripture, boldly declared that the text was 
 certainly wrong and that the Spirit of God never said so: 
 we undertake to adopt., reject,, or construe the Scriptures to 
 suit our own supposed revelations — what barriers can be 
 set against the wildest imaginations? Of such mistakes 
 the Society of Friends alFords a variety of examples. — 
 Those who went naked in the streets and other public 
 places — and those who approved such proceedings (and 
 they were approved b)' George Fox, Samuel Fisher, «Scc. 
 &c.) — the worship paid to James Naylor, and to George 
 Fox — with many other things in early times, and the wild 
 extravagances in New England about twenty years ago, 
 &c. may be pointed to as examples. 
 
 But it is not in such flagrant cases alone, that we may 
 see the mischief developed. Whenever the conclusive 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures is made to yield to the 
 impressions on the minds of individuals, either as to the 
 doctrines to be believed, or as to the practical obligation 
 of those doctrines, there the pernicious influence of an 
 erroneous principle may be discovered — though the mis- 
 chief may be held in check b^ other causes. 
 
 As already, noticed, it is a fact, esLablished by the exper- 
 ience of all nations, and of the last 1800 years, that the 
 doctrines of Christianity are not known in those portions 
 of the globe, where the Scriptures have not directly or in- 
 directly been communicated. This settles the question 
 whetherthe doctrines o^ Christianity are communicated to 
 mankind by the Scriptures — or by immediate revelation 
 independent of the Scriptures. The proof is positive, 'as 
 respects the Heathen part of the world. And the in- 
 ference., is not less strong as respects Christian countries. 
 For in addition to the facts of the case, the reasoning is 
 irresistable — that if God does not furnish, by immediate 
 
THE SOCfETY or rniENDS. 
 
 4? 
 
 t'evelation, akiiowlcdgc even of the fundarrienlal doctrines 
 of Christianity .where those doctrines have not been car- 
 ried by the Scriptures— we cannot suppose he "n ould grant 
 such an extraordinary mode of conveying that knowledge, 
 where the Scriptures are poxaesscd. The reason is ob- 
 vious, "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear 
 them. If the}^ will not hear Moses and the Prophets, nei- 
 ther would they be persuaded though one arose from the 
 dead." This is the language of the Lord Jesus, in the 
 parable of the rich man and Lazarus. What shall we 
 say now, where in addition to those records of the will of 
 God, w e have the Evangelists and Apostles? 
 
 But wc have cases among us, as fully to the point as 
 the Heathen nations. They are the deaf and dumb per- 
 sons, who occasionally attain to the years of understand- 
 ing, before they receive the benefits of education. These 
 persons, when made capable of receiving and communi- 
 cating ideas, have fully established the fact, that previous 
 to instruction, they were totally ignorant of the doctrines 
 of the Christian Religion. 
 
 These facts prove conclusively that the doctrines of 
 Christianity are conveyed to mankind by the Scriptnres. 
 And if we derive a knowledge of these doctrines from 
 the Scriptures, then the Scriptures Tnust be the Rule by 
 which doctrines are to be examined. I think this con- 
 clusion is as clear as a mathematical demonstration. 
 
 The Document proceeds to pronounce, that the grace 
 spoken of, Titus 2. 11, is the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But the simple meaning of the word Grace, is Favour, 
 and applies to that unmerited goodness of God, in which 
 the means of redemption were provided through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. But in addition to the literal meaning 
 of the original Greek word, [charts,'] it is clear that the 
 meaning which the Friends have imposed upon the pas- 
 sage cannot be correct; becrtuse if all men have the grace 
 in the senile contended for, then all men have the teaching 
 
50 
 
 FUOCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 described bj the Apostle. And this embraces the peculiar 
 doctrines of Christianity — "looking for that blessed 1 ope, 
 [the hope of the Gospel], and the glorious appearing of 
 the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ u ho gave him- 
 self for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and 
 purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good 
 works." Lut these peculiar doctrines of the Christian 
 religion, are not taught where the Scriptures have never 
 been carried. 
 
 The writers of the document fell directly into the error 
 of Hicksism, in confounding the distinction between Christ 
 and the Holy Spirit; and again in making these divine 
 characters identical -with a "universal Inward l ight.'" — 
 This was strictly the theory of Elias Hicks, and chis is 
 the doctrine plainly stated in the document before us. 
 After giving the definition to ^race, already noticed, they go 
 on to apply to it, the very language used in Scripture with 
 direct application to Jesus Christ — "he that foUoweth 
 him, shall not walk in darkness, but have the Light of 
 Life." I believe it is the first time that I ever haw the 
 masculine pronoun him applied to grace. 
 
 But the grammatical error is of little importance, com- 
 pared with the doctrinal heresy contained in it. It changes 
 the view of the character of Christ, and must, when car- 
 ried out, result in all the objectionable notions for which, 
 but a few years before, Elias Hicks and his friends were 
 broadly charged with Infidelity . 
 
 It is one of the peculiar features of that unsoundness, 
 which has been the besetting sin of Quakerism, to lead 
 the mind from that simple Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 which is so clearly set forth in ihe Scriptures, to a system 
 of mysticism, under the delusive idea of superior spiritu- 
 ality. And that feature is most distinctly brought out in 
 the document. 
 
 The occasional acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, is not 
 a sufficient safeguard against the effects of the mysticism 
 
THE SOCIETY 01- FRIENDS. 
 
 5^ 
 
 of which I have been speaking. We know that such ac- 
 knowledgments were frequently made by Elias Hicks. 
 But what did they, or what can they amount to, when the 
 character of Christ is merged into that of a mere '■^inward 
 principle,'''' and the belief in the efficacy of his blood, shed 
 upon the Cross, is lost in the notion of the presence of "a 
 pure, spiritual, invisible principle'' in man? 
 
 The Apostles preached, and the Primitive Believers 
 received the doctrine, that Jesus was the Christ the Son 
 of God, that believing they might have life through his 
 namo. It was upon this point that the important ques- 
 tion turned, on which depended the acceptance or rejec- 
 tion of the promised Mes iah. IL was not the recognition 
 of an "inward principle,"' in all men, that was agitated 
 before Pilate, when the cry of the Chief Priests and 
 Rulers of the Jews resounded through the Hall, "crucify 
 him", crucify him," No — it was the "man of sorrows"— 
 who was despised, rejected, buffeted and spit upon— = 
 crowned with thorns, and crucitied between two thieves- — 
 who bore our sins in his own body upon the Tree — and 
 under the weight of that load, which none other could 
 have borne, exclaimed, "My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me?" He died for our sins, and his precious 
 blood was shed upon the Cross, in that one offering which 
 he made when he offered up himself. On that ev^r m e- 
 morable occasion, which will swell the anthems of the 
 redeemed in heaven, — when the Son of God, was wound- 
 ed for our transgressions, was bruised for our iniquities — 
 when it pleased the Loi-d to bruise him, — to make his 
 soul an offering for sin — and to lay upon him the iniquity 
 of us all — the sun was darkened — the earth quaked, the 
 rocks were rent, and the vail of the temple was rent from 
 the top to the bottom. 
 
 The impressive language of an inspired Apostle point- 
 ed, in unequivocal terms, to this same suffering Jesus, 
 "whom," saith he, "God hath raised up, having loosed the 
 
PUOCEEDlXtiS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 pains oi" (lc<i' i», because it was not possible that he should 
 be holden of it."' "Therefore, let ail the house of Israel 
 know assuredly, thai God hath made that sam?. Jesus whom 
 ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." 
 
 Such was the simple, plain, and powerful preaching of 
 the Apostles — so they preached, and so the saints believed. 
 They preached Jesus Christ as a person^ and not as an 
 inward principle. The termprinciple is not applied to him 
 in the whole New Testament. But what have v. e gained, 
 by our '•refined spirituality."' Only a few years ago, one 
 third at least of the whole Society in the United States, 
 was separated from' those called the Orthodox, on the very 
 ground of this mystical representation of the character of 
 Christ, of his body and blood. And now the remainder 
 of that Society, is following with rapid strides, in the foot- 
 steps of tliose they so reccaliy disowned; and by oiHcial 
 documents, Tracts^ preaching, and the revival and earnest 
 recommendaiion of unsound parts of the writings of Ear- 
 Ij," Friends, is spretiding the very same doctrines, like an 
 overwhehning torrent — bearing down everything that 
 opposes it. 
 
 The reader should bear in remembrance that the Bea- 
 con, against which such an excitement was raised through 
 the length and breadth of the Society, was a refutation 
 of the doctrines of Elias Hicks; among which the perver. 
 sionof the character of Christ, and of his body and blood, 
 stood pre-eminent. The alarm was spread in every direc- 
 tion, that Quakerisra zvas endangered — and with this book 
 before their eyes — and for the purpose of rendering it 
 altogether odious, the document was issued: plunging the 
 Society into the very vortex of that heresy, from which it 
 was just rising. 
 
 The Document goes on to declare what the Society 
 believes of our Lord Jesus Christ. And as they were con- 
 demning an able refuia.t;on of the doctrines of Elias Hicks, 
 if they did not themselves hold those doctrines, they 
 
THE .so(;rETV OF Fuii:r»T>.s. 
 
 slioiild, in Ihe clearest manner, have shown tlic difference 
 between those they intended to maintain, and those held 
 by Klias Hicks and his friends.. And this was the more 
 necessary, as the first principles of the doctrine of Christ 
 were immediately involved. 
 
 The character of Jesus Christ, the efficacy of his death, 
 the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and the duty 
 of Pi-ayer, being prominent parts of the Beacon, in oppo- 
 sition to Elias Hicks, if the Society was sound on these 
 doctrines, the Meeting for Sufferings should have placed 
 that soundness beyond all question. But we have seen^ 
 that in the definition given to grace, they have directly 
 fallen into the primary error of Elias Hicks. We come 
 now to what they say of Christ. Speaking of Early 
 Friend:!, they say: "They believed, as the Society has 
 done down to the present da}', that whatsoever Christ did, 
 in his outward manifestation, both living and dying, was 
 of great benefit to the salvation of all that have believed; 
 and that now do and hereafter shall believe in him unto 
 justification and acceptance witii God." 
 
 And is this ail? Did not the Meeting for Sufferings 
 think the company of their Philadelphia friends at that 
 time, a great bcn"Jit? And yet these common place terms, 
 are to cover the whole ground, of all that Christ did, 
 hoih living and dying. I ask if this is not the yevy ground 
 of the sinner's hope? Did not Christ bear the load which 
 otherwise would have crushed us down to everlasting 
 ruin? Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our 
 sorrows. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he 
 was bruised for our iniquiti-cs, the chastisement of our 
 peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. 
 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every 
 one to his own way, and the Lord has laid upon him the 
 iniquity of us all. He bore our sins in his own body on 
 the tree, and died for our sins, the just for the unjust, that 
 he might bring us to God — we were reconciled to God by 
 
91 
 
 PROCEEDINQS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 the death of his Son. And being justified by his blood, 
 we shall be saved from wratli through him. And there is 
 none other name under heaven, given amongst men, 
 whereby we must be saved. Does all this, and more than 
 men or angels can describe besides, call for no more than 
 this familiar, common place form of expression, a great 
 benefit? Saints on earth, and the redeemed in Heaven, 
 will make, in very ditferent language, their acknowledg- 
 ments of whatsoever the Lord Jesus Christ did, both Hving 
 and dying. "In v. horn we have redemption through his 
 blood, even the forgiveness of sins." "Having therefore 
 boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Jesus, 
 by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for 
 us through the vail, that is to say, his flesh, and having an 
 high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a 
 true heart, in full assurance of faith." "Thou wast slain, 
 and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood 1" But it may 
 be said that the passage under review was a quotation 
 from William Penn. Those who are acquainted with the 
 writings of that great man, know very well, that with all 
 liis abilities, and all his excellent qualities, he was a most 
 unstable writer. Passages, the most incongruous, and 
 contradictory to each other, may be selected from his 
 writings. At one time he declares that "nothing we can 
 do, though by the help of the Holy Spirit being able to 
 cancel old debts and wipe out old scores: It is the power 
 and efficacy of that propitiatory offering [the sufferings 
 and death of the Lord Jesus Christ] that Justifies us from 
 the sins that are past" — and at another, as in the Sandy 
 Foundation Shaken, he treats the whole doctrine of "sa- 
 tisfaction"' and aloncmoit, with the most revolting levity 
 a nd ridicule. I will not transcribe in this place the argUr 
 ments which he uses, to explode the doctrine of the suffering 
 of Christ as a satisfaction — or means of procuring the re- 
 mission of our sins. He takes precisely the same grounds 
 which are taken I)y professed Infidels, and ridicules the 
 
THE SOCIETY Ol' FlUENOS. 
 
 55 
 
 notion of the innocent suffering for the guilty, &lc. &c. 
 At one time he declares that we distinguish, but wc do 
 nat divide between Jesus of Nazareth and Christ; and at 
 another, -vvithou': the least retraction or acknowledgment 
 of error, asserts that we do not distinguish or divide, be- 
 tween Jesus of Nazareth and Christ. 
 
 Of tlie apparent acknowledgment of the character of 
 Jesus Christ, in this passage, and the efficacy of his Blood, 
 1 shall say something more, when I come to speak of the 
 manner in which William Penn and others explained their 
 views of Christ, and of his Blood. For the present I shall 
 briefly remark, that there is a most palpable defect in this 
 passage, in regard to the way of coming to true faith in 
 Christ. They do not so much as name the Scriptures, as 
 being concerned in bringing us to true faith. It is the 
 light of Christ in the conscience, and to turn our minds, 
 and bring all our deeds and thoughts to it, that is the readi- 
 est, nay, the only right Avay to have true, living and sanc- 
 tifying faith in Christ. 
 
 But as the light in the conscience does not reveal to 
 any (independent of the Scriptures) that there ever v/as 
 such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, not to say, that he 
 was the Son of God, and that he died upon the cross, a 
 sacritic3 for our sins — and rose again from the dead, and 
 is passed into heaven — there to appear in the presence of 
 God for us — if we do not accept the Record wdiich God 
 has given of his Son, the Son himself can not be an object 
 of our faith; as said the apostle: "How shall they call on 
 him, in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they 
 believe in him of whom they have not heard?" To make 
 Faith entirely dependent on the light of conscience, alto- 
 gether independent of the Scriptures, or without them, 
 is plainly to have only such a Faith, if Faith it can be 
 called, as is held by heathen nations that never heard of 
 the doctrines of revelation. And to inculcate such a no- 
 tion here, is directly to let down the importance of the 
 
S6 
 
 I'liOUKlIDl.M.S AM) PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 Fundamental doctrines of Cliristianit) , and bviild up a sys- 
 tem, destitute of Christ; a cold, a heartless system of mo- 
 rality, depending only on that light which men in a state 
 of nature have. 
 
 We now come to what the Meeting thought proper to 
 be said specially of the Holy Scriptures. The Beacon 
 had claimed them as the Rule of Faith and Practice. This 
 the Meeting had zealously denied. The first public at- 
 tack on the Beacon in England, was in a printed Letter, 
 written by Thomas Thompson of Liverpool. In that Let- 
 ter he confined himself to two points; one was, to 
 deny the conclusive authority of Scripture, the othet 
 was, to object to the Beacon, as bringing into view the 
 doctrines of Elias lOcks. On the former point he dis- 
 tinctly denied the correctness of the authorized version 
 of 1 Tim. 3. IG. ''AH scripture is given by inspiration of 
 God." Thomas Evans, in his letter to B. W. Ladd, of 
 4th month 25th, 1835, which was extensively circulated 
 in IMS. in this country, notices this Letter with evident . 
 approbation, calling the writer "a worthy Elder of Liver- 
 pool." 
 
 Thomas Evans and B. W. I^add were both actively 
 concerned in getting up the docum.ent, and with a know- 
 ledge, and apparent approval of Thomas Thompson's 
 denial, that all scripture is given by inspiration of God — 
 they quote into the document, a part of the very text in 
 question, with the portion of it to which T. T. objected, 
 entirely omitted. They say : "This state of silent introver- 
 sion and waiting on the Lord, will be a suitable qualifica- 
 tion for the profitable perusal of the precious passages of 
 Holy Scripture, a practice which we recommend to the 
 daily observance of all; believing that they are — "profita- 
 ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
 in righteousness." 
 
 Why did they leave out the part declaring that '■Kill 
 Scripture is given by Inspiration of God^'' and begin at 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FUIE.NDS. 
 
 57 
 
 profitable?'''' The sentence which they had rraincd, as 
 well as the jaature of the subject, demanded that the 
 text should not be mutilated, and the very part which de- 
 clared the divine authority of the Scriptures, struck off. 
 The omission, with the circumstances of the case, carries 
 on the face of it, a virtual denial of the doctrine con- 
 tained in the omitted part of the text. 
 
 As the Document stands, it recognizes neither the 
 whole of the Scriptures, nor ewn apart of them, as giv- 
 en by inspiration of God, nor as binding in the doctrines 
 they contain. They had pi-evioasly passed them entirely 
 over, as having any place in the means of bringing us to the 
 doctrines they contain. AndwhiL another Rule is claimed, 
 and the Scriptures professedly held secondare/ and subordi- 
 nate to tlud., a scriptural reformation in the Society will be 
 defeated. Individuals, and especially the junior mem- 
 bers, may bretik the fetters in which they are bound, and 
 lay hold of the Faith once delivered to the Saints, but the 
 Society, in its official character, must cease to be w-hat it 
 is, before it can be established in the doctrines and prac- 
 tices of the Apostles. 
 
 I was present in tiie Meeting for Sufferings, when the 
 subject of the Document was introduced, and objected 
 to it. But this was regarded as a high offence, and they 
 went on. I did not attend that meeting afterwards, nor 
 did I interfere with their proceedings when they were 
 introduced into the Yearly Meeting. They made the 
 Document just what they would have it to be, and the 
 foregoing are some of its capital errors. 
 
 Soon after the Yearly Meeting, I obtained from Short 
 Creek Monthly Meeting a certificate to attend the Year- 
 ly Meeting of Indiana. B. W. Ladd hearing of my in- 
 tentions, wrote the following Letter, and sent it by a 
 young man who, with some others, intended to go in com- 
 pany with me. 
 
 H 
 
58 
 
 FROCEEDINGS xyv PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 "Smithfield, O., 9 month 25th, 1835. 
 
 "Dear Friends — 
 
 "We have had a large and favoured Yearly Meeting, 
 attended by several valuable friends from other yearly 
 meetings. Many subjects of importance were resulted, 
 I trust, to the honour of Truth, and in accordance with 
 the ancient principles and doctrines of friends. Two of 
 these I will name, the first in magnitude relates to an at- 
 tack made upon some of our fundamental doctrines, in 
 the late publication of a Book, written by a minister of 
 our society in England, Isaac Crewdson — The work is 
 entitled, "A Beacon to the Society of Friends." If yon 
 have seen the Book, you no doubt have been struck and 
 pained too, to observe that the author says, in opposition 
 to Barclay, and all our worthy forefathers in the truth, 
 page 8. "Now the Holy Spirit cannot, in any proper 
 sense, be denominated a Rule." Page 9. "therefore 
 there can be no higher rule than the Holy Scriptures." 
 In pursuing the work, other parts are quite as objectiona- 
 ble, such as limiting the grace of God to the circulation 
 of the Holy Scriptures; disparaging silent worship, &c. 
 
 "Hence the late Yearly Meeting of London issued a 
 most excellent Epistle, addressed to their Quarterly and 
 Monthly Meetings, particularly pressing upon the notice 
 of their members, a close attention to those peculiar doc- 
 trines which have ever distinguished our religious society. 
 This valuable Epistle our Yearly Meeting thought it 
 right t6 print in connection with the General Epistle. — 
 Our Meeting for Sulferings, from deep concern, appre- 
 hended it right to take potice of the Beacon, and the 
 dissemination of the dangerous principles advocated in it; 
 and issued a minute expressive of our concern, «&c. This 
 minute was brought before the Yearly INIeeting, and be- 
 ing fully united with, was directed to be printed in our 
 minutes, as you will see, should they reach you in time. 
 I am sorry to say that our dear friend Elisha Bates did 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 59 
 
 strongly oppose the meeting for sufferings, taking up this 
 subject. And I am equally pained at heart to know that 
 the Beacon party in. England claim him to be of thoir 
 number. One thing is certain, that since his return from 
 England he has advocated sentiments somewhat in char- 
 acter with those of the Beacon — one I would mention, 
 that he does not feel himself bound to respect the writings 
 of our early standard Authors, any further than they ac- 
 cord with his understanding of the doctrines of Christ and 
 his Apostles. (This sentiment, if adhered to, will lead 
 to a separation. All Christian sects claim to be founded 
 upon the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, and yet we 
 know they are divided). This confession he will readily 
 make to you, if candid. I write thus freely, and without 
 reserve, and you are perfectly at liberty to show him my 
 lett(M". My object in being thus plain is, to give you an 
 understanding of the state of things, painful as they are. 
 If you take up the subject of the Beacon in your Meeting 
 for Sufferings, which Iheartily wishyou may have strength 
 to do, that these new notions, or Episcopalian doctrines, 
 may find no more entertainment in our Religious Society 
 now, thaa they did in its rise, and during the time of our 
 faithful worthies, who by deep suffering purchased for us 
 our high profession. I say, if you approach this subject, 
 I have little doubt but he will use his influence to draw 
 you off from the subject. It is one, from the accounts 
 received from England, which has involved the sincere 
 hearted there in deep suffering, and if persisted in here, 
 will inevitably lead to another separation, and to the dis- 
 ownment of some of our brightest and most gifted instru- 
 ments." 
 
 The next paragraph relates to Indian affairs, which is 
 the other subject, to which the writer refers in the begin- 
 ning of the letter. He then proceeds: 
 
 "James Smith can inform you of the state of things in 
 
60 
 
 PnOCEEDINQS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 oiir Yearly Meeting, «&c. I think lie took a copy of the 
 Beacon to dear Charles Osborn. 
 
 "In ths love of t'le Truth, I remain yonr friend 
 
 BEN J. Vv^ LADD." 
 
 The reader will observe the strain in which the writer 
 .sets out, to give an imposing character io the transactions 
 of the Meeting for Sufferings, and of the Yearly Meeting. 
 For a meeting to be "Favoured," in the estimation of a 
 friend, is equivalent to proof, that its decisions, at least in 
 the general, were divinely directed and sanctioned. Es- 
 tablish this point, and all reasoning on the propriety or 
 impropriety of those things which were done, under .di- 
 vine Favour, must be at an end. But what are the evi- 
 dences of this favour? Why, plainly for matters to be 
 carried as the party wished. 
 
 In speaking of the Yearly Meeting, the writer's mind 
 was particularly impressed with the company of his Phila- 
 delphia Friends, as materially conducive to the results, 
 which he regarded so much to the honour of Truth, &c. 
 I say, Philadelphia Friends, because I know that three 
 ministers who were here from other places, were regarded 
 with very great coldness: and that on account of their 
 preaching mainly, the same doctrines which I did, in re- 
 gard to the authority of the Holy Scriptures — the obliga- 
 tion which rests upon us, to study them, — Justification 
 by Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, — and the practical duty 
 of prayer, I knozo that a prominent minister of this 
 Yearly Meeting, manifested an open, and unrelenting 
 disunity towards one of those ministers, and indignantly 
 refused to grant an interview which was requested for the 
 purpose of reconcihation — that another of them was 
 treated with rudeness^ and the third received both here 
 and in Indiana, a coldness and incivility, to say the least 
 of it, that was extremely disgraceful. 
 
 The ancient principles and doctrines of Friends, - form the 
 
THE SOGIKTY OF FltlK.NDS. 
 
 61 
 
 s;(7«f/a.?-(/ wliich the writer of this leUcr liud in his mind. 
 
 The subject first in magniiude, which had been result- 
 ed at this lar^c and favoured Yearly Meeting, was the 
 document of which 1 have just been speaking. 
 
 In adverting to the Beacon, the object which he had 
 diiefl)' in view was, to counteract the arguments which 1. 
 Crewdson had used, to bring the Society to a practical 
 acknowledgment of the authority of the Scriptures, as 
 the Rale of Faith and Practice. For this purpose he 
 garbled two passages, and dragged into his service, 
 "Barclay and all our worthy forefathers in the truth." — 
 The first passage in the Beacon referred to, is as follows: 
 
 '•Now the Holy Spirit cannot, in any proper sense, be 
 denominated a rule. [Thus to have designated Iiim, 
 has evidently arisen from misapprehension of terms, and 
 has led to confusion of ideas; for whilst we reverently and 
 thankfully acknowledge the Holy Spirit to be the great 
 agent m the believer, through w^hom his sanctification is 
 eCTected, it is plain that the Rule must be that which pro- 
 ceeds from the Spirit, and not the Holy Spirit himself. — 
 To speak of the Holy Spirit as a rule, involves the same 
 incongruity as to speak of God as a rule.]" Beacon, 2nd 
 ed. Address, p. 7. 8. 
 
 All that part of the paragraph enclosed in brackets, 
 was omitted by B. W. L., and for very obvious reasons. 
 The argument contained in it, is so clear and convincing,' 
 as to set refutation a,t defiance. • Neither B. W. L., nor 
 any of his valuable friends, have ventured, in manly in- 
 vestigation, to set aside the position here laid down. In- 
 stead of this, he took a fragment of the paragraph, shrunk 
 behind "Barclay and all our worthy forefathers in the 
 Truth," and thought himself secure by such a fortifica- 
 tion. 
 
 It is true that Barclay and others advanced the notion, 
 and tried to defend it, that the Holy Spirit is the Primary 
 Rule of Faith and Practice. But when the pen of Brown 
 
G2 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 was applied to liim, he started from the ground he had 
 taken:, and made the following remarkable declaration; 
 '"For I was never so absurd as to call God, simply consid- 
 ered, or the Spirit of God in abstracto (not as imprinting 
 truths to be bcueved and obeyed in men's hearts, not 
 contrary, but according to Scripture, for he cannot contra- 
 dict himself), the rule of Christians." Works, fol. 752. 
 
 Here, though he endeavours still to hold to the opinion, 
 that the immediate dictation of the Spirit is the Rule, he 
 totally abandons, as absurd, the notion that God, simply 
 considered, or the Spirt of God, abstractly, could be "called 
 the Rule of Christians." Every man of sense, and of 
 impartiality, must see at once, that if Barclay did not ac- 
 kno'-yledge the Scriptures to be the Rule, nor give up the 
 notion of an inward Rule, he certainly did fully concede 
 that the Holt/ Spirit could not in any proper sense be de- 
 nominated a Rule — and that it would be absurd so to 
 denominate cither God, or the Spirit of God, strictly 
 speaking. 
 
 On the evening after the Meeting for Sufferings, in 
 which the Beacon was taken up, I cited to B. W. Ladd 
 the foregoing passage from Robert Barclay. To make 
 such a reference to Barclay as he did in his Letter, with, 
 a knowledge of the declaration which Barclay made oa 
 the very point in question, was not candid, to say the least 
 of it. And to garble the quotation from the Beacon, 
 shows an obliquity of intention, altogether incompatible 
 v.-ith the love of Truth. 
 
 His next quotation from the Beacon is equally garbled 
 and unfair. As given by Isaac Crewdson, it is the last 
 member of a syllogism. 
 
 The whole passage stands thus: 
 
 "There can be no higher rule, than that which is given 
 by inspiration of God. 
 
 Ail scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim« 
 3. 16. 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FUIUNDS. 
 
 63 
 
 Therefore there can be no higher rule than the Holy 
 Scriptures." 
 
 Now I ask if B. W. L. can be defended as having acted 
 fairly, and with even the appearance of a desire for the 
 Truth to be elicited and held, in making the garbled quo- 
 tation which he did? AVhy not present the argument 
 from which the conclusion was drawn? Plainly because 
 it was calculated to carry conviction, and he was notable 
 to refute it. 
 
 To show the retrograde movement which has taken 
 place in the Society, in reference to the authority of 
 Scripture, I will quote a few passages, from a Pamphlet, 
 which was published by Orthodox Friends of Philadel- 
 phia, in 1824. The title page is as follows: "Letters and 
 Observations relating to the Controversy respecting the 
 Doctrines of Elias Hicks; Containing a Review of his 
 Letter to Dr. N. Shoemaker. Third Edition Revised. 
 Philadelphia: Printed for the Reader. 1834." It con- 
 tains several Letters, with the names of the writers; but 
 both the author and printer of the Pamphlet, have thought 
 proper to conceal their names. Why was this caution 
 in defending the cause of Christ? Plainly because it 
 was published some years before the division of the Socie- 
 ty, and our Philadelphia Friends, in coming forward 
 boldly against errors, which they believed were calculated 
 to sap the very Foundation of Christianity — could not 
 obtain the sanction of the Meeting for Sufferings; and 
 were afraid to be known as the . authors of the pieces 
 they published, lest the Hicksites should put in force 
 against them^ the same rule of Discipline which their inti- 
 mate friends in this country have turned against rre^ — viz. 
 for publishing without the revision of the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings. 
 
 Thus sheltered in concealment, with nothing to fear; 
 and with minds stirred up to the importance of those doc- 
 trines which were then called in question, let us hear 
 
Gl PROCKEDINGS A.\U PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 what the} said on the conclusive authority of Scripture. 
 Whether the writer of the Pamphlet above mentioned 
 was Thomas Evans or not, I shall leave for himself to de- 
 termine. In the Review of E. Hicks' Letter to Dr. Na- 
 than Shoemaker, the author saj's: "As Elias Ilicks ap- 
 peals to the Holy Scriptures as the authority for his opin- 
 ions, and professes to predicate his arguments upon them 
 we shall assume it ii^gra7ited that their authority is Jinally 
 conclusive.'''' "We view them a.s.the only legitimate test of 
 our respective sentiments, and to be consistent with his 
 01071 practice, he must concur with us in such judgment. — 
 In the following pages, therefore, Scripture language 
 must be the umpire between us." p. 43. 
 
 Here the authority of Scripture is declared to be final- 
 ly conclusive — the only legetimate test of conflicting opin- 
 ions — and Scripture language was to be the umpire be- 
 tween them. There was no idea held out that E. H. was 
 at liberty to appeal to the rule in his own mind, nor to 
 those writings of early Friends, which have since been 
 held up as the depositories of the true meaning of Scrip- 
 ture. No, it was the authority of Scripture, and the Lan,- 
 ^MC^e of Scripture, that was to be finally conclusive. 
 
 But the writer of the Pamphlet says: "Our blessed Re- 
 deemer tells us himself, and there can be no higher au- 
 thority,'''' p. 44. Where does he tell us so? Plainly in 
 the Scriptures. Wherein then does this passage fall short 
 of the line, quoted with so much disapprobation from the 
 Beacon ? The sentiment was sound and satisfactory to 
 the Orthodox in 1834. In the short space of eleven 
 years it is regarded with indignation — an excitement is 
 spread from London to Indiana, and private Letters and 
 public documents are put in requisition, lest the ancient 
 principles and doctrines of the Society, should sink into 
 insignificance, by the full and free admission of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 B. W. Ladd goes on to say: "Other parts of the work 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENUS. 65 
 
 are quite as objectionable, such as limiting the grace of 
 God to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, disparaging 
 silent worship, &.C." But he makes no quotations from 
 the Beacon,, in support of the statement. Those who 
 would examine the subject for themselves, are referred to 
 the "Beacon," the "Defence of the Beacon," &c. 
 • "Hence" says he, "the late Yearly Meeting of London 
 issued a most excellent Epistle," &c. 
 
 In that Epistle it is said: "Whilst thus alluding to our 
 predecessors in religious profession, we would earnestly 
 but affcctionally recommend to our dear friends generally 
 but especially to those in early life, the frequent and se- 
 rious perusal of their writings; replete as they are with 
 instructive evidence of the sufficiency of that foundation 
 upon which it was their concern to build, and eminently 
 calculated, as we believe they are, to impress the mind 
 with a deep sense of the importance of the experimental 
 work of religion on the heart." 
 
 Here we have an earned recommendation of the wri- 
 tings of early Friends, without any limitation or excep- 
 tion. In a subsequent part of this work, I shall show some 
 sentiments that were thus recommended to friends gener- 
 ally, but especially to those in early life. At present I 
 need only to say that this Epistle, though addressed ex- 
 clusively to the members of London Yearly Meeting, was 
 taken up by Ohio Yearly Meeting, out of the usual order 
 of proceeding, and not only thus adopted, but sent down 
 to its individual members. But the General Epistle of 
 183G which contains the best declaration of the authority 
 of the Holy Scriptures, that the Society ever made — 
 though according to the long established usage of the So- 
 ciety, addressed to the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings 
 of Friends in Great Britain, Ireland and Elsewhere, was 
 not permitted by Ohio Yearly Meeting, to go to its sub- 
 ordinate Meetings, to which it was directed. But the 
 former contained a strong and general recommendation 
 I 
 
66 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AM) PltlNCirLES OF 
 
 of the writings of carlj Friends, tlie latter, a dcclaratiort 
 of the authority of Holy Scrijiture. 
 
 The allusion in the letter, to the concern of the Meeting 
 for Sufferings, must appear in rather a ridiculous point of 
 view, to impartial persons, who are acquainted with the 
 facts of the case. A paper got up as this was — contain- 
 ing an exposition of terms so incompatible with every 
 principle of sound criticism — setting forth sentiments so 
 subversive of the doctrines of the Gospel, to be represent- 
 ed, in the peculiar phraseology of the Society, as arising 
 from deep concern, cannot be a very prepossessing exhibi- 
 tion, to any but Conservative Friends. 
 
 But the Meeting for Sufferings thought it right'to take 
 notice of the Beacon, "and the dissemination of the dan- 
 gerous principles advocated in it."' Joseph John Gurney 
 acknowledged the Beacon to be an able defence of the 
 fundamental doctrines of Christianity; and the Yearly 
 Meeting's committee, after months of investigation, aban- 
 doned the doctrinal objections to the work. Here then . 
 we have B. W. L. and the Meeting for Sufferings, aided 
 by T. Evans, &c., considering the principles advocated in 
 the Beacon as dangerous.^ but J. J. G. regarding the 
 work as an able defence of fundamental doctrines, and 
 the whole committee giving up doctrinal objections. 
 
 And now a very grave question must arise. Did J. J. G- 
 and the others of the committee of London Yearly Meet- 
 ing, make these consessions to a work that advocated dan- 
 gerous principles? Or did the Meeting for Sufferings, 
 and the friends of Ohio and Philadelphia, characterize an 
 able defence of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, 
 as advocating dangerous principles? These two great 
 divisions of Conservatives, are here directly at issue. 
 
 But this not all. In the Monthly Meeting in Manches- 
 ter, 9th mo. 15, 1836, Joseph John Gurney, on behalf of 
 the Yearly Meeting's Committeo, said : "It might be re- 
 membered that at the special Monthly Meeting held in 
 
tut: society of prienus. 
 
 67 
 
 12l.h Month last, tlic Yearly Meeting's Committee had 
 then stated that they did not feel called upon to recom- 
 mend to the Monthly Meeting to take any proceedings in 
 I. Crewdson's case with reference to" the doctrinal ques- 
 tion ; he said they were one wilh Isaac Crcwdson in doctrine" 
 «fec. 
 
 That there is much inconsistency in the proceedings of 
 the Yearly Meeting's Committee, in justifying the Doc- 
 trines contained in the Beacon, and condemning the au- 
 thor, by a course of proceedings unknown to the Disci- 
 pline, will readily be granted. But if the work contained 
 dangerous principles^ as B. W. Ladd says it did, then the 
 whole committee of London Yearly Meeting must fall un- 
 der the censure of holding those principles, for J. J. G. 
 their organ, publicly stated that they were "one M'ith 
 Isaac Crewdson in doctrines." If, on the other hand, the 
 doctrines contained in the Beacon are sound, then those 
 who have charged it with containing ^'■darigerous princi- 
 ples,''^ and have made war upon both the "work and its au- 
 thor, must be themselves unsound in doctrine, and un- 
 christian in their practice. 
 
 But these two classes of Concervative Friends, are un- 
 derstood to be united, in the present course of measures 
 going on in the Society. But what, it may be asked, can 
 be the common bond of union between them? How can 
 B. W. Ladd, T. Evans, &c. regarding the _Beacon as an 
 attack upon the fundamental doctrines of the Society — 
 and as disseminating, and advocating dangerous principle s, 
 unite with Joseph John Gurney, Willian Forster and oth 
 ers, who are one with Isaac Crewdson in doctrine? Or 
 how can the latter unite with the former, in carrying on 
 a system of proscription and disownment, which they 
 know is levelled at the doctrines which they hold them- 
 selves? However difficult it may be to answer these 
 questions, one thing must be obvious — that there is an wn- 
 <lfrs/o?if/i>(^ among the parties, that (hry on cither side, 
 
G8 
 
 rnocECiJiNGS and rRixcirLEs of 
 
 shall nol be made the subjects of proscription or disowrv- 
 ment. Another fact cannot escape attention — that both 
 sides have determined to sustain the writings of the early 
 Friends, without correction or expurgation. And on this 
 ground, there is no doctrine held by those called the Hicks- 
 ites, none maintained by the Orthodox, (so called,) and 
 conservative Friends, but may receive a ready defence. 
 This is, in reality, the sheet anchor of the Society, in main- 
 taining its peculiar views; the shelter for the individual 
 members, who cannot '■'■endure sound doctrine." Grant 
 that the Early Friends were in error on some points, and 
 that a Scriptural examination should be made — rejecting 
 whatever will not abide that test; and all the Conserva- 
 tive Friends know full well, that the Society cannotstand 
 on its present basis. And hence the effc^rts now making 
 to unite all parties, to contend — not for the doctrines of 
 Christ and his Apostles — but for the views of George Fox 
 and Early Friends. Even that best of tlie documents of 
 the Society — the- declaration contained in the Epistle of 
 London Yearly Meeting of 1836, relating to the authori- 
 ty of the Holy Scriptures, discovers a most intense solici- 
 tude on the part of the meeting, not to suffer the views of 
 Early Friends to be called in question. Hence also the 
 sentiment expressed in the letter before us, finds so ready 
 an admission, so wide a range, and so many open advo- 
 cates in the Society. 
 
 "One thing is certain, [says B. W. Ladd] that since 
 his return from England, he has advocated sentiments 
 somewhat in character with those of the Beacon — one I 
 will mention, that he does not feel himself bound to re- 
 spect the writings of our early Standard authors any fur- 
 ther than they accord with his understanding of the doc- 
 trines of Christ and his Apostles, (this sentiment if ad- 
 hered to will lead to a separation. All Christian sects 
 claim to be founded upon the doctrines of Christ and his 
 Apostles, and yet we know they are divided.) This con- 
 fession he will readily make to you if candid." 
 
THE SOCIETV or FUinNDS. C9 
 
 The agreement between this sentiment, whidi he charges 
 on mc, and those of the Beacon, is -plainly in practically 
 maintaining the authority of the Holy Scriptures. It is 
 one thing to admit their authority occasionally, in words; 
 and another to carry it out in practice. It was not the 
 question in the case before us, whether, The Rule of Faith, 
 or Standard of doctrines should be an oidzvard or an in- 
 ward one. It was plainly whether our Early Standard 
 Authors, or Christ and his Apostles, are to be regarded 
 by us, as of the highest authority. 
 
 I do not know from what particular conversation of 
 mine he drew the conclusion here stated. It might possi- 
 bly have been from that which occurred in the interview, 
 which he had with me in the 2nd month proceeding, in 
 which he said: "That if I went beyond Early Friends I 
 would be a Reformer and carry off a party." And on my 
 replying that I should endeavour to keep very close to the 
 Scriptures, he replied "No, the writings of our Early 
 Friends are something that has risen up between us and 
 the Scriptures, and we must not go beyond them." To 
 this I objected: and he might very naturally have drawn 
 the inference, that I did not hold myself bound, to respect 
 the writings of our early Standard authors any further 
 than they accorded with my understanding of the doc- 
 trines of Christ and his Apostles. In addition to this, he 
 was present during a part of a conversation, which I had 
 with Thomas Evans, at my own house, at the commence- 
 ment of the Yearly Meeting, that year; in which I object- 
 ed to some parts of the writings of the Early Friends; such 
 as Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken; and the same 'wri 
 ter's distinguishing between Jesus of Nazareth and Christ 
 • — and saying — Bui that the outuard person that suffered, 
 zL'as properly the Son of God, ri-e utterly deny." 
 
 I recollect no conversation touching the subject of the 
 authority of Friends' Writings, eitlier with B. W. Ladd, 
 or in his presence, after this with T.Evans. And lam 
 
 V 
 
70 
 
 rROCEr.DlNC.S AND PniNCirLES OF 
 
 strongly indincd to think it was //r/s, that was in his mind; 
 for it was one that was- attended with unusual excitement. 
 The conversation v/as begun at my table, by a friend pre- 
 sent, (D. U.) asking T. Evans; If Ave were bound by all 
 that the ea:rly friends had said? He replied that we were 
 bound by the principles which they held. And added 
 with considerable warmth, "If you do not like these prin- 
 ciples, leave the Society.''' I v/ished to know, what we 
 were to understand h\ the pi-inciples they held? And I 
 mentioned the Sandy Foundation, and other matters 
 above mentioned, to know if these things Avere included 
 among the prmnpZts by which we were bound? The of- 
 fence taken at this vras very strongly marked. 
 
 In the charge made in the letter, which is virtually for 
 my not prcfaring the authority of Early Friends to' that 
 of Christ and his Apostles — the doctrine of the Inward 
 Light, as the Primary Rule, is totally lost sight of, because 
 it would have been impossible to havemaintaintd'the con- 
 clusive authority of an in-ward Riile, jn a case in which 
 the understanding was decided on the doctrines of Christ 
 and his Apostles, and at the same time to have enforced 
 the superior claims of the writiiigs of Early Friends, 
 against the Letter' of the Scriptures, and the secret, and en- 
 tire conviction of the mind. 
 
 B. W. Ladd's objection in the Letter under notice, is 
 so stated, as to set the writings of "our Early Standard 
 Authors," above the plain and undeniable doctrines of 
 Christ and his A])Ostles, a.nd also, not the supposed, hut the 
 real testimony of the Spirit. Thp-t there are passages in 
 the writings of "the Standard Authors" alluded to, Avhich 
 are contrary to the Scriptures, must be admitted by every 
 candid person, Avho is acquainted with the subject. Every 
 sentiment for v/hich E. Hicks was broadly charged with 
 Infidelity, could be backed by quotation from Early 
 Friends. And some passages could be found in their wri- 
 tings, which go far beyond the language, if not the secret 
 
THE SOCIErV OF FRIENDS. 
 
 71 
 
 ihoiighLs of E. H. What will the Friends think of 
 George Fox's declaration in his Great Mystery, of Eqiml- 
 ity 7oilh God? Or of the soul being a part of God? Or 
 his declaration in the Preface to his Battledore. "All 
 language are to me no more than dust, who was before 
 languages were?" What will they say of W. Pcnn's ut- 
 ter denial that the outward person that suffered w-as prop- 
 erly the Son of God? How will they Reconcile J. Hum- 
 phrey's shocking reflections on a "Human bodied Christ"' 
 ^and his trying to make out that there is little difference 
 between the Scriptures and the Devil, and finally that they 
 ore the Devil — and. his grossly impious assertion, that "all 
 things visible and invisible arc God in a Lump?'''' Or 
 will they stand by Barclay's notion of the Vehiculvm Dei, or 
 a pure. Spiritual invisible principle in man, in which God 
 as Father Son and Spirit dwells? Will they contend for 
 Samuel Fisher's pretended Revelation, "from out of a hole 
 in the Gate house in Wcstmins'xr, through an earthen 
 Vessel there imprisoned," in which he makes out that 
 each good man is one third annihilated andiw^o thirds saved 
 — 'and each vsicked individual, to be one third anniliilaled, 
 one third saved, and one third sent to perdition? Of these 
 wild notions, I shall say something hereafter, to which I 
 shall now refer the reader. Now I ask, can v.x doubt that 
 the work of the Spirit, will deeply impress the minds of 
 pious Christians, with the utter variance of these things, 
 from the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles? If the di- 
 rect witness of the Spirit is to be expected in anyca.se what- 
 ever — If the understanding of man is "ever opened by a 
 divine illumination, to distinguish between Truth and Er- 
 ror, we have reason to expect it in such a case as this. — 
 Yet the authority of Early Friends is set up, in opposition 
 to common sense, to Christ and his Apostles, and to the 
 Holy Spirit! 
 
 This Letter, it should be remembered, was written by 
 the Clerk of the Yearly Meeting, and tlie Clerk of the 
 
72 PRO'JCEDI.NCiS AND rillNCIPLES OF 
 
 Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders — He has since 
 retained those appointments, and been put on committees 
 not only of those two meetings, but also on committees of 
 the Quarterly Meeting, and the Quarterly Meeting of 
 Ministers and Elders — He is the most influential member 
 of the Meeting for Sufferings: and of the committee by 
 which the Boarding School is governed. I make these 
 remarks, not as reproachful to B. W. Ladd, for they show 
 the high estimation in which he is held. But I do it as 
 proof, .that the Society is accountable for his known opin- 
 ions. I do it also to show, the sentiments, out of which 
 has arisen the strange excitement which has been raised 
 in the Society. 
 
 In such a state of things, I ask if we are not imperiously 
 called upon to show the errors in the writings of the 
 Friends? However mortifying the exhibition may be, 
 the members of the Society, and the Christian public 
 should know, that there are things contained in the writ- 
 ings which are thus set up, as paramount to all authority, 
 which conscience, common sense, and God himself forbid 
 to be received as Truth. It should be known also, that 
 by recent official proceedings, the maintenance of these 
 things is made essential to the very existence of Quaker- 
 ism. And further — that persons heretofore claiming to 
 hold Evangelical Doctrines, and who were supposed to 
 hold them, have lent themselves, or given their names, 
 their influence and their active exertions, to carry out the 
 sentiments of which I have been speaking; and to estab- 
 lish Quakerism on this false foundation. 
 
 I ask if the very spirit and influence of the Letters of 
 Margaret Fell and others, are not brought out into full 
 operation, in the sentiment advanced in this Letter? Is 
 it, in fact, any thing short of the character of Diety ascrib- 
 ed to our Early Standard Authors, (of whom G. F. was 
 chief) to set them above Christ and his Apostles, and all 
 the Light which can be shed upon the understanding, to 
 
THE 600IETV OV FRIENDS. 
 
 73 
 
 fi\ ill Llic heart the ol)lig:ition of their doctrines? If this 
 is.not /rfo/o/ry, what is? 
 
 Let me appeal to the Society of Frieoids, to look to the 
 position in which they arc placed by their Leaders. What 
 can-you expect as the result of the principles now held 
 and i)roadly advocated in the Society? 
 
 The allusion to the divisions which exist in Christendom, 
 is altogether fallacious: and if carried out, must result in 
 a total abandonment of the Scriptures and of the Truth 
 itself. It will virtually proceed upon the assumption, 
 that there is no truth In Christianity — that all is but a par- 
 cel of jarring and discordant systems, dependent on no 
 principles of truth, and subject to no correction by any 
 one common Standard. With what gratification will the 
 //j^eZ, lay hold of the sentiments advanced by B. W. L. 
 as congenial with his feelings, and exactly in accordance 
 with his most common strain of declamation against the 
 trflth of revealed religion 1 
 
 !Qifferent, far different from the views of B. W. L. *are 
 the sentiments of the pious, of a// Hcnominations with wliom 
 I have conversed. It is the almost universal sentiment 
 with these, that there are, in all the various system oftiie 
 different sects, some imperfections — some errors,- which 
 affect the unity, and mar the beauty of the Church of 
 Christ. 'And it is a subject of frequent conversation, and 
 of fervent prayer, that these discrepancies may be remov- 
 ed — that the Church liiay be sarictified and cleanfed by 
 the washing of water by the Word, and presented to Christ, 
 a glorious Church, not having Spot or Wrinkle or any 
 Such thing. Even those few, (and very few of this discrip- 
 tion I have found,) who do not appear to have discovered 
 any defects In their own systoms — take this ground: "We 
 believe that our views are according- to the testimony of 
 the Scriptures — but we freely admit that we should search 
 the Scrlptirres whether these thing are so. ■ And if it 
 K. . 
 
 • 
 
74 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OT 
 
 should be found, that in any thing we have deviated froni 
 the Word of God, it should by all mean«be corrected.". 
 
 I do not recollect to have met with one single individual, 
 out of the Society of Friends, for the last five years, that 
 took more rigid sectarian grounds than this. So far as 
 has fallen under my observation, it is in the Society of 
 Friends, and in that Society alone, that the. peculiar views, 
 of a sect, are set up as infallible, and not subject to cor- 
 rection by the Word of God. 
 
 The reasons B. W. L. gives for writing, plainly show 
 that his o])jcct was to prepossess the minds of my friends 
 against me, when I was travelling as a minister with the 
 usual credentials from my friends at home, and that with- 
 out once speaking to me on the subject. In this proceed- 
 ure he not only acted an unmanly part, which tlie rules af 
 common decorum should have forbidden, but he placed 
 himself in direct opposition to the official acts of the Soci- 
 ety, and trampled its order under foot. This transaction 
 has'Iohg been known to the active members of the Society 
 here, and so likewise have been the sentiments already no- 
 ticed; yet so far hsis he been, from being called to account, 
 either for the breach of discipline, or for the unsoundness 
 of his sentiments, that he has been put on almost every 
 committee on which he could be appointed, arid actually 
 directs the course of the proceedings of the Society. 
 
 He goes on to express his krurty wish that the Meeting 
 for Sufferings of Indiana, might take up the subject of 
 the Beaxon, which with all readiness they did; though 
 Charles Osborn, William Ilobbs, .James AVhite, and John 
 Poole, acknowledged to me> that they "knew of but the one 
 copy" of the work, which, from B. W. L.'s letter, had 
 been sent to "dear Charles Osborn," for this very purpose* 
 
 The writer seems, in his zeal on the present occasion, 
 to have lost a little of his usual keenne^ of perception. 
 He uses the terms "/lezu notions, or Ep'i?ropalian doctrines,'^ 
 in order to cast an odium upon the sentiments, wliicli he 
 
THE SOCIETY 01' FRIENDS. 
 
 75 
 
 had been so earnest to condenin. What was the most 
 prominent of these? The maintaining of the paramount 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures. But is this a new notion ? 
 O yes, for it is an Episcopahan doctrine. But is not Epis-. 
 copalianism older than Quakerism? If he would even 
 apply the epithet Episcopalian* exclusively to the Church 
 of England — did not that Church exist before George 
 Fox was born ? If the doctrines are Episcopalian, or iden- 
 tical. with those of the Church of England, (for I presume 
 that was the idea he intended tp convey), how can they be 
 new notions? Will he acknowledge that he intends any 
 thing in accordance with George Fox's Preface to his 
 Battledore, where he says: "All languages are to me no 
 more than dust, zcho was brfore languages were'''' ? Here is 
 an antiquity claimed,' that renders the Scriptures them- 
 selves, in comparison ncxo. And we are brought to this 
 very point, for it is the divine authority of the Scriptures, 
 which stands out in every page of the Bible, that is the 
 nev3 notion, against which this determined warfare is 
 waged. 
 
 But he heartily wishes, "that these new notions, or 
 Episcopalian doctrines, may find no more entertainment 
 in our religious society now, than they did in its rise, or 
 during the time of our faithful worthies, who by deep 
 sufferings, purchased for us an high profession." 
 
 But what sort of entertainment had they at the time, and 
 by the persons to whom this v ery solemn reference was 
 made? Perhaps a single quotation from one of those 
 ♦'faithful worthies," may throw some light upon the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 ^^When synods and councils, doling Doctors, infatuated 
 Ghostly Fathers, and such as admired their persons, as they 
 did the persons of the apostles and primitive disciples, 
 
 began to bundle together what they could get of the writings 
 
 ♦Episcopalian, strictly means a form of Church Government^ 
 recognizing Bishops, 
 
76 
 
 rnOCEEDIXG* AND PKINXIPI.ES OP 
 
 of such as rcrre calaneous u-'iih Christ and the Apostles, 
 and, -ivitliout any such ORler from cither Christ or the 
 Apostlcs, (o canonize cvhat- in their conceits might be useful 
 to others, as they had found them, tis Uke to themselves^ 
 into a Rule or Canon, and stated them into a common 
 standard for all to have their sole recourse to,in soul-cases, 
 and matters of christian faitla and holy life, and to run 
 a M'horing after some remnants of writings that dropt from 
 them in the whole world now called Christendom, instead 
 of an apostolical spouse of Christ, as Christians wci:e at 
 first, presented a chaste Virgin to himself by them, there 
 stands up an apostolical strumpet that had the Letter and 
 good words written there," &c. Samuel Fisher, p. 494. 
 
 For further examples, I refer the reader to a subsequent 
 part of this worlc, where 1 intend to give some quotations 
 from the writings of early Friends, on several points of 
 doctrine. But it is evident, if we recur to such examples 
 now, for the entertainment to be given t© the doctrine of 
 the authority of the Holy Scriptures, the Society must be 
 recognized as occupying a position, in which none who 
 have any regard for'the "Word of God, and the Testimony 
 of Jesus Christ, will be willing to be identified. 
 
 But these fa-ithful worthies, by deep sufferings, pur^ 
 chased for us our high profession ! No profession that 
 has not Christ for its auther, is worth holding, by whom- 
 soever, or at whatever expense of sufferings it may have 
 been purchased. 
 
 The thousands of self-devoted victims to the supersti- 
 tions of the heathen world, so far from giving any value 
 whatever to the error, increase the magnitude of the evil, 
 and afford a powerful additional inducement to eradicate 
 it a.ltogcther. And so, in regard to every shade of error, 
 on subjects of religion. The or error of a doctrine, 
 is that which demands our attention in the first place; 
 and in deciding this question, the Scriptures must be ad- 
 mitted to be Jinally conclusive — the only legitimate test — 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIEXDS. 
 
 77 
 
 the language of Scripture must be tlie umpire. It is of 
 importance, in such an examination, to be divested of pre- 
 possession. To call up the sympatliies of our nature, by 
 appeals to the deep sufferings of our "dear forefathers," 
 is to throw dust into our own eyes, at the ver}' moment 
 when the clearest vision is demanded. No man who re- 
 ally wishes to find the truth, and to be delivered from ev- 
 ery mistake into which our predecessors may, in human 
 weakness, have fallen, will pursue such a course. But if 
 he. wishes to be bolstered up in the opinions of his fathers, 
 "right or wrong*' — if he wishes to sfiflc conviction, and 
 keep his own understanding bound in chains — this is the 
 most effectual course he could possibly pursue. 
 
 The subject, he stiys, "isone, from the accounts received 
 from England, which has involved the sincere hearted 
 thccc, in deep suffering, and if persisted in here, will in- 
 evitably lead to another separation, and to the disown- 
 tneiit of some of our brightest, and most gifted instru- 
 ments." 
 
 We have seen that the prominent objects in view of 
 this, writer, were, to deny the absolute and .conclusive 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures, in m.ati,ers of Faith and 
 practice — to establish the writings of early Friends as 
 conclusive, even in cases in which they were believed not 
 to be in accordance with the doctrines of Christ and his 
 apostles; and in intimate connection with these premises, 
 (as will be more fully shown), to establish as the- doctrines 
 of Quakerism, the very opinions for which Elias Ilicks 
 •and his friends were condemned as Infidels. The letter 
 now before us shows, that there was an understanding 
 and concert, between the Conservatives in England, and 
 in this country; and that if I and some others adhered to 
 the offensive doctrines, disou nmeni, and even separcilion, 
 would be the consequence. He bestows on the advocates 
 .of the Bible, and of the doctrines contained io it, the 
 high character of being "the brightest and most gifted 
 
78 
 
 PROCEEDINOS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 instruments" in the Society. At the same time, he dls^ 
 closes the determination whicli had ahcady been formed, 
 to sacrifice tlicmon the altar of Quakerism. This is but 
 an echo of the sentence pronounced in Thomas Evans's 
 liCtter to me, of 7 mo. 25th, preceding. It has now been 
 a httlc less than two years since these letters were 
 written, and tho writers, and the Society, in conformity 
 Tvitli those decisions, first secretly formed, have steadily 
 pursued the course which had been marked out, as to the 
 final results, till now, / am made the Jirst t/d/m selected 
 for execution. And while I deplore the state of the So- 
 ciety which I have so long and so ardently loved, and feel' 
 with full sensibility, the wounds inflicted in the houses of 
 my friends, I thank God that he has counted me worthy 
 to suffer for the cause of our Holy Redeemer; and has 
 enabled mc to endure the utmost stretch of their power, 
 without compromise of principle, and without fliaching. 
 And tiow I call upon my persecutors to come forward, and 
 publicly defend the principles they have avowed, and the 
 measures they have pursued, or make a formal recanta- 
 tion. Their silence in such a case will show, that while 
 they are conscious of the badness of their cause, they 
 have not sufficient candour to acknowledge the Truth,, 
 nor sufficient uprightness to do an aCt of simple justice,, 
 when they know they have committed injuries on person-, 
 al character and personal feelings. 
 
 The reference to James Smith, allows how extensively 
 private. influence was exerted, to prepare the Society for 
 action, on subjects, arid on individuals, to carry out the 
 designs of ruling members.- James Smith is a member of 
 Indiana Yearly Meeting, who had come to Mountpleas- 
 ant, in company with a travelling minister. He had been 
 made acquainted with "the state of things," and was re- 
 lied on to carry out representations which could not easily 
 be made in wi lting. 
 
 If James Smith had consented to be used as a tool for 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FKIENHS. 
 
 79 
 
 such a pmpo>»e, whi» h is sLioii|r|y iinplicd in the letter, it 
 tvas very ditlerent from the estimate wiiich 1 had made of 
 his character; 
 
 The sending of the Beacon to "dear Charles Osborn," 
 and the flattery that went along with it, to enlist his ser\- 
 ices, in carrying out the preconcerted plan of IMiiladelphia 
 or English Conserviitives, is only a small part of that in- 
 geniously contrived machinery, which has so effectually 
 moved a whole Society, by the hands of a Jczo individuals. 
 
C ilAl'TER II. 
 
 I n.wii been iiiduccd to give the narrative of my own 
 case, with some minute details, not only because it is ne- 
 cessary as a hislor}' of events, but because, from the Se- 
 quent changes which have been made in the mode of 
 attack, and the charges brought against me, and the pains 
 which have been taken to mislead the public mind, there 
 is danger of losing sight of the true grounds of dissatisfac- 
 tion. And I wish the reader to bear this remark in re- 
 membrance, as he passes along. 
 
 Benjamin W. Ladd's Letter, was shown to me by 
 James Hunnicutt, immediately after he received it. He 
 also kindly gave me a copy it. 
 
 On reaching Richmond, in Indiana, I was informed that 
 other letters had been spread through the Society, in that 
 quarter, in order to make an unfavourable impression on 
 the minds of Friends against me; of which, both as to 
 the cause, and the effect, I very soon had additional evi- 
 dence. 
 
 This method of assassination of character, is disgraceful 
 in the ruorW,— but when- practiced and countenanced by 
 the ruling members of a religioxis body, is proof positive 
 of deep corruption. Wrong practices, and false princi- 
 ples, often have an intimate connection; and in all cases^ 
 I believe it will be found, that where evil practices prevail^ 
 sound principles are not duly regarded, if belieVed at all. 
 It is also a striking proof of the divine origin of Christianity, 
 that where its principles are sincerely held, there is a high 
 standard raised for moral conduct. There is no toleration 
 granted to any departure from uprightness, no countenance 
 given to falsehood and deceit. But where unsound prin- 
 
THE SOC'IKTV OF FUl'^XDS. 
 
 8i 
 
 c'lplcs arc entertained, there may indeed be a show of 
 morahty, but its pretcnsioTis are false, and its standing al- 
 together uncertain; and often, very often, the working 
 out of evil practices, shows the badness of the foundation 
 on which the building rests. Men do not gather grapes 
 of thorns or figs of thistles. 
 
 At the commencement of the Yearly Meeting in Indi- 
 ana, Charles Osborn, William Hobbs, James White and 
 John Pool, requested an interview with me. In that in- 
 terview, Charles Osborn confessed that he had received 
 letters from persons both in England and America, un- 
 favourable to my religious reputation, and which he ac- 
 knowledged had had an effect on his mind. But I could 
 not induce him to state what were the things laid to my 
 charge, nor who were the writers. 
 
 He had concieved a very strong dislike to Joseph John 
 Gurney, and some other friends in England, on account of 
 their views of certain doctrines, among which he men- 
 tioned Justijication and the Sabbath. The first of these 
 engaged his most particular attention. It so happened, 
 that I had neither conversed with J. J. G. on this subject, 
 nor recently read the chapter on it, in his Essays on Chris- 
 tianity. I was not therefore j)repared to discuss J. J. G's. 
 opinion on Justification, while C. O. expressed decided 
 disapprobation of it. But though I declined, for obvious 
 reasons, to take up the opinions of persons with which I 
 was not well acquainted, I declared my own sentiments 
 with all frankness and freedom. Justification was the 
 absorbing subject, and while C. O. was totally unable, or 
 entirely declined, to controvert the explanations which I 
 gave of my own views, it wa,s perfectly evident, that he 
 was no better pleased with mine, than he was with J. J. 
 Gurney 's. The interview lasted, I think as much as four 
 hours: and ended without satisfaction to either party. — 
 They evidently did not unite Avith my views of Justifica- 
 L 
 
82 
 
 PKOCEEDINGS AND I'UINCIPLES OF 
 
 tion: and I was grieved with their deficieucy in sound 
 doctrine, in Christian kindness, .and fair dealing. 
 
 Through the whole course of the Yearly Meeting, the 
 treatment I received was entirely different from any thing 
 I had ever met wnth there before. On the evening before 
 the last sitting of the Yearly Meeting, another conversa- 
 tion took place between myself, on the one part, and 
 Charles Osborn and several other friends on the other. I 
 again requested copies of the letters that he had received 
 relating to me, for the purpose of calling the writers to an 
 explanation. But he persisted in declining, either to 
 furnish me with copies, or with information of the names 
 of the writers, or the subjects on which they wrote. 
 
 The doctrine of Justification was again brought into 
 view, and his dissatisfaction with me was more distinctly 
 marked than before. After several other questions, he 
 asked me, if I believed that Ju5;;j^ca/('o>i was the consequence 
 of Sanctification ? I told him I did not. Then said he, 
 "We are at points." I replied "Be it so." He then ask- 
 ed again how I held Justification? I told him "By Faith." 
 "Therefore being Justified by Faith, we have peace with 
 God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." "To him give all 
 the Prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever 
 believethin him shall receive remission of sins." 
 
 He declined to support his own opinion "by arguments, 
 but manifested a deep and settled dissatisfaction with 
 mine. 
 
 At the close of the Yearly Meeting, w hen the usual cer- 
 tificates were brought in, for those who were in atten- 
 dance from other Yearly Meetings, expressive of satisfac- 
 tion with their company, «Slc., my name was passed over 
 in silence: which was the highest ccji^ure they could pass 
 upon me, short of some measure that would have claimed 
 the oflicial notice of my friends at home. But this would 
 have required investigation, which they did not intend. 
 
 Some pains were taken by individuals, to convey the 
 ^ ea that this negative censure was not passed upon me 
 
TUB SOCIETY OT FRIENDfi. 
 
 83 
 
 in consequence of any thing I had said or done there.,, but 
 on account of the Letters which had been written relating 
 to me. But while it siiowed the extent of this vile sys- 
 tem of defamation and detraction, and openly admitted 
 that the Yearly Meeting in its official conduct, was weak 
 enough to be influenced by such proceedings — the facts 
 which I have stated are sufficient to prove, that the dis- 
 satisfaction 7fos on account of the doctrines which 1 held, 
 on points of fundamental importance. 
 
 Some time after my return home, 1 paid B. W. L. a 
 visit, to expostulate with him on the unkind treatment I 
 had received from him. But he gave no satisfaction. On 
 returning home, I met with a letter from a friend in Cin- 
 cinnati, mentioning the circulation of letters, to the in- 
 jury of my reputation. I then wrote ashort note to B. W. 
 L. which I sent by B. Wright, an Elder of our Monthly 
 Meeting, mentioning what I had heard, and calling upon 
 him to retract what he had said to the injury of my repu- 
 tation; or if he had any thing against me, to bring it for- 
 ward, for investigation before the Elders or Overseers of 
 the meeting to which I belonged. But he treated this 
 reasonable request with contempt — spoke of it to B. 
 Wright, as a challenge, and called Am my Second. 
 
 In a day or two after, he called at my door, to propose 
 to leave the subject to the Meeting for SuflTerings, which 
 he well knew was completely under his influence and 
 direction. I toldhimthat I admired, that, with hisknowl- 
 edge of the discipline, he should make such a proposition. 
 He knew perfectly well, that the Meeting for Sufferings 
 had nothing to do with treating with offenders: that he 
 had violated the order of the discipline, and was liable to 
 be treated with accordingly. "O yes" was his answer, 
 "come and have us all taken under dealing." I told him 
 I did not wish to prosecute any one. But I wished, if 
 they had any thing against me, they would bring it for- 
 ward in the regular order of the Discipline, and give me 
 
84 
 
 PROCEEDINOS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 an opportunity of meeting It, in a langiblc foi'ni. lie re- 
 plied with great indignity, "Docs thee think I will come 
 over here, to be tried hj old John Loyd and James Kin- 
 sey ?"* I told him that I made no such proposition, I 
 knew very well, that a complaint against him must be tried 
 before the Overseers of his own meeting. But charges 
 against me, should be brought forward before the officers, 
 of the Society here. And I again pressed him to retfact 
 his charges, or sustain them by an open and orderly pro- 
 ceeding. "What I have done" said he "I have done from 
 concern, and I shall retract nothing." 
 
 This vi^as near the end of the 11th month 1835. And I 
 have noticed it here, that I might not break the connection 
 of the parts of the story, relating to the Letters. 
 
 Soon after my return from Indiana, John Ilall, an El- 
 der of Short Creek Monthly Meeting, called on me, to ex- 
 press the wish he felt, that if I could be eaty to keep si- 
 lence, as to the ministry, I would do so. He professed to 
 come on his own concern, though it was evident then, and 
 has been more so since, that he had been put up by others 
 to do it. 
 
 The Preparative, (or as it would be called in England, 
 Monthly) Meeting of Ministers and Elders, occurred soon 
 after. W. Planner, whose residence was at SLill Water, 
 but who had been on a long visit to his children in this 
 neighbourhood, attended. And after sitting in the meet- 
 ing a while, he proposed that we should proceed to busi- 
 ness, remarking that he expected to attend the Quarterly 
 Meeting of ministers and Elders next day; as if to give us 
 to understand, that he had nothing to say to us then, but 
 that we might hear from him the next day. The clerk, 
 of course, opened the meeting, and proceeded to read and 
 answer the Queries as usual. When he came to the 
 Query relating to the ministry, he formed an answer, low- 
 
 *These are two Elders of Short Creek Montbly Meeting. 
 
THE SOCIETV OF FRIENDS. 
 
 er tlian usual. One of the Elders objected to tliis, John 
 Hall supported the clerk, but afi;er a free expressions of 
 sentiment among the Elders, the answer was corrected, so 
 as to convey no complaint iu regard to the ministry. — 
 "When this was done, W. Flanncr rose, and discharged 
 upon the ministry of Short Creek Monthly Meeting, such 
 a volley, as I had seldom witnessed before. 
 
 .The evidence, I think is conclusive, that he expected 
 the answer to be let down in that meeting, and that he 
 intended to "hold up his fire'" till next day, when the sub- 
 ject would be opened in a superior, meeting. The plan 
 however was defeated, and he had to take us there, or not 
 at all. 
 
 When he had done, I rose, and adverted to the pre- 
 cepts of our blcssod Lord, and the order prescribed in the 
 discipline, for treating with those against whom offence- 
 may have been taken; and expressed an earnest wish, 
 that the friend would pursue this christian course, with 
 those with whom he was dissatisfied. 
 
 The next day he was silent^ — no measures were taken 
 in the meeting, and all the leading conservatives appear- 
 ed to be disconcerted. 
 
 I waited for W. F. to take the opportunity of a person- 
 aV interview, which I had invited, but in vain. And af- 
 ter the Quarterly Meeting the next day, when I was just 
 thinking of calling on him, I looked out of my window, and 
 saw him preparing immediately to set out home. From 
 that day to this, we have had no conversation on any reli- 
 gious subject. 
 
 A little previous to the next Quarterly Meeting, John 
 Hall went over to Concord, another branch of the Month- 
 ly Meeting, and stopped the Elders at the close of a 
 meeting, to inquire if they were not prepared to unite in 
 the judgment, that I had lost my gift, and was only a Min- 
 ister of the Ld/cr? They answered in the negative, aiid 
 advised him to go home and be quiet. 
 
86 
 
 PROOEEDrNGS AND PRINCIPLES OF' 
 
 In the Preparative meeting of Minister and Elders, in 
 the 2nd month he made another effort to let down the 
 answer relating to the ministry; hut the meeting over- 
 ruled the proposition, and the answer went up clear. — 
 The next day, when the answers from the subordinate 
 meeting were- received .in the Quarterly Meeting of 
 Ministers and Elders, John.IIall- rose, and objected to the 
 answer from Short Creek, relating to the ministry. Wil- 
 liam Wood had groat sympathy with the friend ; and B. W. 
 Ladd thought it was a suffering case, and that something 
 must be done. x\. committee was accordingly appointed, 
 and B. W. Ladd was one of that committee. 
 
 When a Minister becomes an offender, in ministry or 
 general conduct, or otherwise, the discipline directs that 
 he should first be treated with in private by the Elders. 
 If notrechiimed, the case is to be reported to the Pre- 
 parative Meeting of ^IMinisters and Eldere, which is to ex- 
 tend further labour. If the cause of uneasiness should 
 not be removed, the case is to be sent to the Quarterly 
 Meeting of the same cUiss, and then, if necessary, laid be- 
 fore the Monthly Meeting for Discipline. 
 
 Instead of pursuing this course, in which the individual 
 has an opportunity of meetingy^ at every stage of the busi- 
 ness, a distinct charge, the unfair expedient was adopted, 
 to get the Quarterly jNIceting to act directly upon an in- 
 dividual, who had never had the advantage of private in- 
 vestigation, or even of meeting the charge" in any tangi- 
 ble form. And not only so, but while the case is thrown 
 into a superior meeting, without any thing to limit its ac- 
 tion, the very persons who may he the secret prosecutors, 
 and workers of the whole machinery, to crush an indi- 
 vidual, may be m.ade his judges, and carry on their own 
 schemes of enmity, under the authority of superior meet- 
 ings. 
 
 It is now well known, that these measures were intend- 
 ed to bear directly upon me. And the unfairness of the 
 proceeding, must be obvious to every unbiased mind. 
 
THE bOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 87 
 
 Joshua T-ynch said, on his vrsil. to this neighbourhood, 
 a httic before the Yearly Mcctnig in 1835, that neither I, 
 norseveral otherniinistcrs of'Shoi-t Creek Monthly Meet 
 ing, could be allowed to travel. And alluding to the 
 prevailing opinion, that we were in unity with the Month- 
 ly Meeting, he said that he should not be surprized ifthe 
 Monthly Meeting, though the largest in the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, should be laid dowti. Benjamin W. I-add passed 
 severe cersure on the Monthly Meeting, for setting me at 
 liberty to travel, and said, that it had let down its dignity 
 in doing so. To lay down so large a meeting, was 
 thought to be a dangerous experiment. How then, was 
 it to be brought under cantrol ? The way was easy. 
 
 John Hall, proposed in the Quarterly Meeting, (the 
 day after the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders,) 
 the appointment of a committee, to assist the Monthly 
 Meetings. I wished to know the object of this appoint- 
 ment. The Monthly Meetings had nothing to do, that 
 required the assistance of the Quarter, and it seemed 
 strange to appoint a committee, without any object. He 
 was not allowed time to explain, if he had been prepared 
 to do §o, before W. Wood objected to any such explana- 
 tion. Jacob Branson and B. W. Ladd joined in the ob- 
 jection, and the committee was appointed : and B. W. 
 Ladd was one of them. This c oniniittce could attend the 
 Monthly Meetings, and if any of the ministers had pro- 
 posed a religious visit they had the power to prevent it. 
 
 An acknowledged minister of Short Creek Monthly 
 Meeting had obtained a certificate to traveJ, a few months 
 before, and being at a neighbouring Quarterly Meeting, 
 she wished to have a meeting in a town just hy. But 
 B. W. Ladd and B. Hoyle, who were there, interfered, 
 and put a negative upon it, and thus the meeting was 
 prevented. 
 
 By the appointment of tlic two committees, the one by 
 the Quarterly Meeting, the other bv the Qtiarteriy Mee|- 
 
88 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND I'UlNCli'LES OF 
 
 ing of Ministers and Elders, an arrangement was mcide to 
 cover the whole ground. B. W. Ladd and his associates, 
 in the one committee, had complete control over the 
 Monthly Meeting, in all its proceedings. No minister 
 could be set at liberty to travel, nor any thing else be 
 done by the meeting, without their consent. The other 
 committee, having B. W. Ladd also in it, could, at its lei 
 sure, take hold of the ministers, on any vague, indefinite 
 charges they pleased, and at their own discretion, hand 
 them over to the care of the Monthly Meeting — in which 
 case, whatever might be the judgment of the Monthly 
 Meeting, they would cease to hold the station of ministers, 
 till re-acknowledged as at first; which requires the concur- 
 rence of both the Preparative and Quarterly Meeting of 
 Ministers and Elders. 
 
 The Conservatives were now quite at ease. The bu- 
 siness was all arranged, and could be finished at their 
 leisure. 
 
 In "The Friend," No. 22. vol. 9. there appeared an 
 article, headed, "Standards of Doctrines," in which the 
 writer endeavoured to prove that the Scriptures could not 
 be the Standard of Doctrines — but that our own writings 
 were to be regarded in that" character. This was the 
 open, avowed object of the article; and to this day, so 
 far as I am informed, the sentiment stands uncorrected, 
 as the sentiment of the conductors and supporters of that 
 paper. "The Friend" is under the control of the leading 
 members of the Society in Philadelphia. And we are 
 very sure if the article was not in accordance with their 
 views, it never would have been admitted into its pages. 
 It is patronized by the most prominent members of the 
 Society the world over. But have any of these, through 
 its pages, ever corrected a sentiment thus openly advanced, 
 and strenuously maintained in it? No, never. And I do 
 say, that considering the manner In which that Periodical 
 is conducted, its circulation, and high estimation in the 
 
THE SOCIETY OP PKIEXDS. 
 
 89 
 
 Society, the Society Itself is answerable for articles which 
 are inserted in ii:, and pass uncorrected there. If the 
 Orthodox Friends made the ftHicr division of the Society 
 answerable for t)ic "Bcrcan," published, as it was, without 
 the name of the editor, how much more must ih"y be an- 
 swerable for the "Friend," conducted as it is, by the 
 leading members of the Society in Philadelphia, and 
 patronized by the ruling members of every Yearly Meet- 
 ing in the world! 
 
 The project had been ingeniously contrived for William 
 Evajis and Thomas Evans, to take into their hands the 
 Vi'^hole mass of the writings of Early Friends, enormously 
 voluminous as they are, and now insisted on in the Friend, 
 and in various other ways, as the Standard of Doctrines 
 for us, and by a monthly Periodical of 40 octavo pages 
 each, under the title of the Friends' Library, to give, in a 
 few years, all that is desirable of those writings, for general 
 reading, and with their intrinsic value enhanced. That 
 is, to take into their hands the Faith of the Society, and 
 its Standard of Doctrines, and abridge or modify, and 
 remould the whole,- to suit their views, or the views of the 
 revising committee that the Meeting for Sufferings there, 
 appointed to assist them. And such has been the easy 
 pliability of the Society'', that some^ if not all the Yearly 
 Meetings, sanctioned the w^ork before the first number 
 was published; and the Monthly Meetings are converted 
 into agents for it, to- promote subscriptions and receive 
 collections. "The Friend," No. 25. contains an ar- 
 ticle from a distant correspondent, representing that 
 paper, and the proposed "Friends' Library," as "spiritual 
 food^" and proposing that poor farmers should "look over 
 their farms, (no matter how small), and see if there is not 
 some spot which they have not designed to cultivate, or 
 from which they expect little benefit, and if they find 
 such, consider whether they cannot employ some of their 
 leisure time in cultivating some crop, from which they 
 
90 
 
 PnOCEEDINGS AKI) PRINCirLfiS Of 
 
 may realize a sufficient sum to be set apart for this desir?!,- 
 ble purpose." 
 
 Whoever examines the course pursued by the Friend, 
 and the measures and sentiments which have been brought 
 out by the Conservative members in the several Yearly 
 Meetings, will perceive a concert of purpose and of ac- 
 tion, altogether remarkable. 
 
 While these public and private measures were going 
 on, perceiving that my friends in many places were alien- 
 ated from me, and that measures of an official character 
 were determined on, to crush, or expel me from the Soci- 
 ety, while every means was taken to deprive me of an 
 opportunity of a fair investigation of the grounds of these 
 proceedings, I made use of the opportunity that was in 
 my hands, in the closing numbers of the 5th volume of the 
 Repository, to publish my own Vindication. This, I 
 thought, was imperiously demanded from me, in justice to 
 myself, to my friends, and to the cause of Truth. 
 
 I thought it right to complain of the unfairness which 
 had been practiced towards me; and to declare my belief 
 on those points of Doctrine, on which I had reason to 
 believe there had been dissatisfaction, or misyepresenta- 
 tion. This article gave a,dditional dissatisfaction to the 
 leading members of the Yearly Meeting. They were dis- 
 pleased Avith my vieAvs of the authority of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures — with the doctrine of (.he Resurrection, and final 
 Judgment, — of Faith in Christ, and Justification by 
 Faith — and of Prayer. And the mild intimation which 
 I gave of some imperfections, which are to be found in the 
 writings of Early Friends, and the need of a discrimina- 
 tion between these imperfections and wl-.at they said well, 
 gave great offence. 
 
 The attempts which have recently been made, officially 
 to deny the opposition which was manifested to the above 
 mentioned doctrines of Christianity, are very unworthy 
 the character of upright men. And this departure from 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 91 
 
 uprightness and candour, is tlie more remarkable, as the 
 facts to which it relates, were, many of them, of public 
 notoriety: and all of them were extensively known. 
 
 In the mean time I concluded to return to England, not 
 on a visit of ministry, but in the exercise of my own indi- 
 vidual discretion ; and with no other privileges than those 
 which I could rightfully claim without any special Creden- 
 tials. It is quite common for members of the Society of 
 Friends, like other people, to go about their own business, 
 in their own way, depending on the common courtesy of 
 mankind, for reasonable civilities wherever they go, with- 
 out carrying in their pockets, formal certificates from their 
 friends at home. They travel on business or for pleasure, 
 where they please, and expect, like other people, to be 
 treated with con)mon civility where they go. Perfectly 
 aware of these facts, I thought my common privileges 
 were similar to those of others, and that I might enjoy 
 them at my own discretion. 
 
 Up to that time, my name had never been on the records 
 of any meeting as an offender. The committees had 
 never informed me that / was an object of their concern. 
 And six weeks, or thereabouts, elapsed, after their appoint- 
 ment, before 1 left home, on this second visit to England. 
 I visited a number of rny friends, to take leave of them, 
 and many came to take leave of me. And liot a single 
 intimation was given by these committees, that I was, in 
 any sense of the word, under dealing, or under their care 
 or controul. 
 
 Scarcely had I left the American shores, when another 
 clamour was raised, because I dared to leave honae with- 
 out a certificate. 
 
 Such an insult offered to the rights of men, deserves a 
 severe rebuke; and will not fail to be regarded in a proper 
 point of view, by those who are not under the influence 
 of an overbearing party. 
 
92 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND rUINCiri.E;i OF 
 
 On reacliiug Englaml, I <til\ carried on my Repoiitory^ 
 which had been resumed a few months before. Four 
 numbers had been publishe.1 in America, containing my 
 Vindication, and several other articles. 
 
 In the Vindication, published in tiic .19th and 30th 
 numbers of the Repositorj-, I made the following remarks:- 
 
 "I should think this declaration of the standard and 
 test of doctrines sufficient, if I were not aware, that some 
 will claim the writings of some of our ozvn members, as 
 something that more immediately concerns us, and there- 
 fore more fit to be taken as the standard of our doctrines 
 than tlie Scriptures. I hope the number is not large, who 
 would entertain this idea; .but whether there are many or 
 few, I shall dissent from it in decided terms. It is not 
 my intention, directly, or indirectly, to countenance the 
 idea, that the dispensation of grace, which was introduced 
 by the Son of-God, has undergone any change; or that 
 any individuals whatever, have ever been able to set fort!i 
 the doctrines to be believed, and the duties to be per- 
 formed, so clearly as our Lord and his apostles did: — or 
 that any authority whatever is to be set up, in competi- 
 tion with the authority on which the Holy Scriptures 
 rest, — which is the authority of God. 
 
 "In regard to the writings of our own members, I be- 
 lieve they contain many excellent sentiments, examples, 
 and testimonies, in accordance with the Scriptures. But 
 I believe they have some imperfections, which ought to 
 be distinguished from what they said well- And this 
 discrimination would be made, if, with minds enlightened 
 by the Holy Spirit, we brought them to the test of Holy 
 Scripture, which is a principle most distinctly laid down 
 by Robert Barclay. * * * 
 
 "I know that there is now an injudicious turh, with somcy 
 (to make the best of it,) to press the indiscriiuinate com- 
 mendation of those writings into a sort of test of sound 
 
THE SOCIETV OP rUIKNDS. 
 
 93- 
 
 principles. Suck an indiscrcUon must necessarily involve 
 those who desire to hold the simple and plain doctrines of 
 the Scripiiires, in the painful alternative, of being -regard- 
 ed as apostatesj or of entering into an investigation of a 
 very mortifying character." 
 
 These mild exceptions. to some parts of the v^'ritings of 
 early Friends, were regarded as highly offensive; and 
 gave rise to many severe reflections on me. ■ The investi- 
 gation which I predicted has been begun, but when it 
 will end, no one, I conceive, is able at present to decide. 
 Much of a mortifying character has already been elicited; 
 much will be brought to light in the subsequent part of 
 this work; and much will still be left behind for future 
 examination. 
 
 But the .touching of these things, has been like the ap- 
 plication of Jirc to the Society. They should remember, 
 however, that no.thing short of Jire will purge away the 
 dross, the tin, and the reprobate silver. And my prayer 
 to the Lord is, that he would carry on his woi'k of refine- 
 ment, till these things are thoroughly destroyed.. 
 
 When I attended the Yearly Meeting in London, it 
 was found that I was, by the constituLioii of that meeting, 
 an official member of it, on an equal footing with the re- 
 presentatives themselves — being a correspondent for Ohio 
 Yearly Meeting, and as such entered upon their records. 
 An attempt was made in the meeting, to deny me the right 
 of exercising the privileges of a minister, in the meetings 
 for worship connected with the Yearly Meeting; but the 
 subject was instantly rejected by the clerk of the Yearly 
 Meeting. Thus was this matter disposed of, after it had 
 been rung through the United States and Great Britain. 
 
 I pass over the various vexatious proceedings that were 
 taken to harrass and discourage me in the preaching of 
 the Gospel, even while the persons thus engaged, were 
 compelled to confess thp doctrines were sound. And yet 
 
91 
 
 PROCEEDIXGS Wl) PRIXCIPI.ES 01' 
 
 it was perfectly evident that the doctrines were -the 
 grounds of dissatisfaction. 
 
 At the same time, sentiments identical with those which 
 characterized the doctrines of Elias Hicks, were promul- 
 gated with freedom, from the gallery and the press. 
 
 While in London, a friend purchased for me, at the 
 office of the Yearly Meeting, in Devonshire Meeting 
 House, a Tract, published by George Jones and others^ af 
 a Tract Association. The following is an advertisement, 
 relating to this Tract Association: 
 
 . . "Manchester and Stockport Tract Depository; For the 
 sale of Cheap Tracts, and other Publications: some ex- 
 planatory of, And all in unison with the Principles of 
 Christianity as held by the Society of Friends. 
 
 "The object T have in view is, not only to aflford a 
 greater facility for obtaining a variety of suitable Tracts 
 for 'general distribution, tending to promote an increase 
 of piety and virtue, but also to furnish Friends with an 
 opportunity of supplying their own and Monthly'Meet- 
 ings' Libraries with tracts and books published by our 
 Society; believing there is, at the present day, not only a 
 wide field open for the distribution of Tracts generally, 
 but that there exists a great desii'e in the minds of many 
 to receive correct information relative to the fundamental 
 doctrines of Friends; knowing they are much misrepre- 
 sented by some in the present daj'. 
 
 "The publications of this Depository may be had on 
 application to me; John Harrison, Printer, Manchester; 
 or Isaac Patching, 86 Houndsditch,- London. Ten per 
 cent, discount upon the purchase of twenty shillings' 
 worth and upwards at one time. Also considerable allow- 
 ance to the Trade. 
 
 "N. B.. When the discount to retailers istaken off the 
 tracts,' issued by this Depository, the price is not sufficient 
 to pay the expenses and to allow of a suitable gratuitous 
 
THE tOCIEfY 01 FRIENDS. 
 
 95 
 
 distsibiition. A few friends have kindly subscribed to- 
 wards promoting so desirable an object; but there are 
 still many calls for supplies of this kind, in quarters where 
 it is likely they might be useful. If such friends as are of 
 ability, and who have not the opportunity of disposing of 
 Tracts, incline to assist in promoting their circulation, 
 donations or subscriptions from them will be carefully 
 applied. 
 
 , , ieo- ■ GEORGE JONES." 
 
 Istockport, ISSd. 
 
 This, advertisement directly implicates the whole Socie- 
 ty by freely using its name, and declaring the Tracts, ex* 
 planatory of, or in unison with the principles of Chris- 
 tianity, as held by the Society of Friends — and as giving 
 ^'•correct information relative to the Fundamental doctrines 
 qf Frieyids." The object too, is declared to be, not only 
 to circulate Tracts, thus characterized, — but to enable 
 Friends, to furnish their ozun, and Meetings' Libraries, 
 with tracts and books Published by our Society." And 
 the Society, with these pretensions publicly advertised, 
 and the Tracts circulated accordingly — suffers this re- 
 sponsibility, quietly to rest upon it, not only not disclaim- 
 ing them, — but by suffering them to be Deposited for 
 sale or distribution at its office, in the Yearly Meeting 
 house. 
 
 The Tract lo which 1 have alluded,, as having procured 
 through a friend, from Isaac Patching, a clerk in William 
 Manley's office in Devonshire Meeting House, is called: 
 "An Incitation to Professors seriously to consider, whe- 
 ther they or we fail in .the true acknowledgment and 
 owning of the Christ which died at Jerusalem. By Isaac 
 Pennington." 
 
 In that Incitation the writer makes the follo,wing decla- 
 rations: 
 
 "First, that we do really in our hearts own that Christ, 
 who came in the fulness of time, in that prepared body, 
 
9G 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 
 
 to do the Father's will, (his coming into the world, doc- 
 trines, miracles, sufFerings, death, resurrection, «Sz:c.), in 
 plainness and simplicity of heart, according as it is ex- 
 pressed in the letter of the Scriptures. 
 
 "Secondly, that we own no other Christ than that; nor 
 hold forth no other thing for Christ, but him who then 
 appeared, and was made manifest in flesh." P. 2. 
 
 The reader is requested to notice here, that it is not the 
 man that walked about the streets of Jesusalem, as Elias 
 Hicks used to say — it it not the outward person that suf- 
 fered, as William Penn said, that is acknowledged by 
 Isaac Pennington, as the Christ. It is something that 
 was in him. It should also be noticed that I. P. is posi- 
 tive, "that we owti no other Christ than that, nor hold forth 
 no other thing for Christ," &c. 
 
 To put the subject beyond all doubt, I. Pennington 
 goes on to say : 
 
 "JVoTc the Scriptures do expressly distinguish between Christ 
 and the garment u-hich he wore: between him that came^ and 
 the body in which he came; between the substance which was 
 vailed, and the vail rchich vailed it, *Lo! I come; a body 
 hast thou prepared me.' There is plainly he, and the body 
 in which he came. There was the outward vessel and the in- 
 ward life. This we certainly know, and can never rail the 
 bodily garment Christ, but that which appeared and dwelt in 
 the body. Now if ye indeed know the Christ of God, tell us 
 plainly what that is which appeared in the body? Whe- 
 ther that was not the Christ . before it took up the body, 
 after it took up the body, and forever?" p. 4. 
 
 This very passage was one of the earliest selected from 
 the writings of Primitive Friends, in support of the doc- 
 trines of Elias Hicks. It is found in the Berean vol. 2, p. 
 278, under date 3 mo. 7, 1826, and italicised nearly as 
 George Jones has done it. The difference is, that G. J. 
 has italicised 54 lines more than the Berean did. He 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 makes the reference also, I. Pennington vol. 3, p. 01, 
 \vhicli is not done in the Tract. 
 
 Every body who knows any thing of the doctrines of 
 Ellas Hicks, knows perfectly v/ell, that this nption of the 
 character of Christ, lay at the very foundation of them. — 
 It -is not the question that I intend to investigate in this 
 place, whether the quotation before us, conveys the real 
 sentiments of Isaac Pennington or not. But that it con- 
 veys those of Elias Hicks not one odiis friends and advo- 
 cates will deny. And that George and Ann Jones, should 
 select this passage, in a cheap Tract — and not only so, 
 bat have it printed in Italics, as correct information 
 relative to the Fundamental doctrines of Friends, could 
 not have happened from mere inadvertancc. 
 
 And at a time when Isaac Crewdson was undergoing 
 the most severe course of censure by the Society, both in 
 England and America, for a work refuting . the doctrines 
 of Elias Hicks, not only did this Tract pass currently in 
 the Society, hut received all the evidences of approval, 
 that the nature of the case would admit, short of the di- 
 rect official action of meetings. 
 
 It is of some importance too, to remember, that Ann 
 and George Jones were' among those of the English Con- 
 servatives who were the most decidedly hostile to me. — 
 The-y were among the leaders of the opposition to me — 
 and of the intimate friends and correspondents to whom 
 Thomas Evans refers in his letter to B. W. Ladd, which 
 was copied and widely spread in the western country, and 
 reviewed in the Repository, vol. 5, p. 398 to 412. 
 
 A number of other recent publications were put into 
 active circulation, some letting down the conclusive au- 
 thority of the Holy Scriptures — others taking that mysti- 
 cal view of the character of Christ, of his body and blood, 
 which formed so prominent a part of what was railed 
 Hicksism. Among these were T. Thompson's Letter, 
 Hancock's Defence, Truth Vindicated, several of George 
 N 
 
9% PROCEEDINGS ANP PSINCirLES OT 
 
 Jones' Tracts, one by George .Richardson, a Pamphlet by 
 SamuelRundle, &c. &c. 
 
 In the mean time the Yearly Meeting's Committee, 
 •were carrying on their operations against Isaac Crewd- 
 son, AV. Boulton and some other friends, who were knowK 
 to hold the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, Jus- 
 tification by Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. 
 
 It is an important fact, that Joseph John Gurney, and 
 several members of that committee, who had been under- 
 stood to hold those doctrines as fully as Isaac Crewdson 
 himself did, lent themselves to the views of the high con- 
 servatives, to crush a man who would not truckle, and 
 make terms at the expense of a sacrifice of the most impor- 
 tant principles. 
 
 The Beacon, being m its most prominent character, a 
 refutation of the acknowledged doctrines of E. H. the sup- 
 pression, or professed suppression of the work, which was 
 what the committee required, must of necessity be under- 
 stood to be a recantation, as to the most obvious character 
 of the work. For his refusing to do this, the committee 
 determined to silence I. Crewdson's ministry, at the same 
 time declaring that they had passed no judgment on his 
 ministry. 
 
 In a Society, acknowledging the high character of the 
 ministry, as does the Society of Fiiends, and while Isaac 
 Crewdson's ministry stood recognized as being under di- 
 rine influence — to suppress that ministry, because he 
 could not be induced to compromise the very first princi- 
 ples of the Gospel, to please those, who from the facts al- 
 ready disclosed, were radically unsound in those doctrines, 
 is not only cause of astonishment but of deep regret. 
 
 In the progress of the dealings of the committee with 
 Isaac Crewdson, in which those who had been prominent 
 for holding Evangelical doctrines, were particularly care- 
 ful to have it understood that that com.mittee were fully 
 united^ some facts of a striking character, were brought 
 
Tthe society of fr;eni>9. 
 
 99 
 
 Out. I shall mention but one, in addition to thoae already 
 noticed. 
 
 Isaac Crewdson, had made some remarks on Elias 
 Hicks''s doctrine of the Inward Light, to which he applied 
 the terms, ^Hhis delnsive notion." In the second Edition 
 of the work he made a Note, in which he says: "We de- 
 clare the Hicksite theory of the inward light, to be a de- 
 lusive notion: but we believe and maintian the Scripture 
 doctrine of the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, 
 both in opening the heart, and in enlightening the under= 
 standing. See Acts xxi, 14 and 2 Tim. ii T." 
 
 The committee object to the arst remarks in the Beacon, 
 and say: "The note given (in the 2ad edition) as an ex^ 
 planation of this passage, is liable to precisely the same 
 objection, as the passage itself." 
 
 The Note, it will be observed, acknowledges a full be- 
 lief in the Scripture t^ocimie of the immediate operation of 
 the Holy Spirit, both in opening the heart, and in enligh-" 
 tening the understanding — and restricts the objection cn'< 
 Hrely to the Hicksite theory of the inward light. It is then 
 beyond all contradiction, in defence of the Hicksite theory 
 of the inward lights that the committee declared in the fol= 
 lowing decided language. "While the author of the Bea= 
 con here repeats his acknowledgment of the immediate 
 operations of the Spirit, he denounces the [Hicksite] doc^ 
 trine of the inward light, as the theory of an- infideL— 
 JSTow we regard the [Hicksite] doctrine of the Hnward lighJ^ 
 as absolutely identical with the doctrine of the Spirit. The 
 heresy of Elias Hicks, consisted not in holding, or pre- 
 tending to hold this precious part of divine truth, but in 
 denying other parts of the great plan of redemption."— 
 See defence of the Beacon p. 37, 38. 
 
 It has already been noticed that the committee, and es- 
 pecially those members of it, who were regarded as hold- 
 ing Evangelical doctrines, were careful to propagate the 
 idea that they were united in their acts ; and as they were not 
 
100 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 only performed under the authority of the Yearly Meeting, 
 but have been approved by that body since they were trans- 
 acted, they must be regarded as the acts of the Society. 
 In the above quotation, I have put in the word Hicksite, 
 in brackets, because simple justice to Isaac Crewdson de- 
 mands that it should be done. The committee knew, for 
 they had it before their eyes, that Isaac Crewdson's ob- 
 jection was to the Hicksite theory^ and to this alone; and 
 that he expressly distinguished it from the Scripture doc- 
 trine of the Holy Spirit. They have come forward, not 
 only with a direct vindication of that theory, thus distin- 
 guished from the Scripture doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 
 but in defence of Elias Hicks, so far as his doctrine of the 
 inward light is concerned. And they declare his theory 
 of tte inward light, to be '■^absolutely identical with the doc- 
 trine of the Spirit.'''' 
 
 They do indeed object, or leave an objection to be in- 
 ferred, against E. H. for "f/e«?/m^- other parts of the great 
 plan of redemption." But this places his error on nega- 
 tive, and not on positive ground. It recognizes all that he 
 asserted in reference to theinward light. If then E. H. had 
 gone, no further than the affirmative part of his doctrines, 
 he would have met the cordial concurrence of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Now the very essence of the error of E. II consisted in 
 his doctrine of the Inward Light, because he held it to be, 
 absolutely Christ. If this be granted, as to all the practi- 
 cal effects of the unsoundness, the 6?enza/ of Jesus of Nazar- 
 eth to be the Christ, need not have been made. The sum 
 and substance ofthe heresy was stated in the doctrine of 
 E. H. of the inward light: and itseffects,in all probability, 
 would have been more extensive if the negative part of 
 the system, had not been formally expressed. 
 
 But such is the nature of the case, that it is utterly im- 
 posible to admit E. Hicks's theory of the inward light, (for 
 that is the matter in hand) without a virtual denial ofes- 
 
THE SOCIETY OF rRII;^'»S. 
 
 101 
 
 scntial "pa.rl.s of the great, plan of redcnii)Lloii." Let the 
 roculcr take those parts of the sermons of E. II. in which 
 he brings out his theory of the .inward Ught, in the most 
 explicit terms, both in his positive and negative ass'ertions ; 
 let him take notice how he makes it out to be Chrint, in 
 the full sense of the term — and how he denies the man 
 "that walked about the streets of Jerusalem," to be tlic 
 Christ — let hira then strike out of E. II's language, every 
 plain and literal denial of the Lord Jesus, and aik himself 
 if E. H's. theory ojf the inzcard light as he actuality held it, is 
 changed? No man of common sense, can, for a moment, 
 suppose that any cliange whatever, in the theory, as it zvcs 
 held by him, would be made, by the .omission, in words', 
 of the denial of Jesus as the Christ, It was what w'as in- 
 tended by the theory of the inward light'-^itwas the point 
 to which that theory was naturally carried out. And the 
 plain, and formal defence of E. IJ. which is made by the 
 committee, is a virtual admission of his whole error, in re- 
 gard to the character of Chri^t and the means of Redemp- 
 tion. 
 
 We cannot excuse the conunittce on the plea ofina,d- 
 vertance on their part, or lack of ability; Ti:."y had had 
 the subject long under consideration: and some at least, 
 of their number, were men by no means under mediocrily , 
 in their talents or acfjuiremcnts. 
 
 It will be seen however, in the progress of this work, - 
 that the defence v\ hich has been set up for the whole of 
 the writings of Early Friends, in which the committee 
 are involved, cannot be confined to the mere affirmative 
 parts of the doctrines of E. H. They make as plain a 
 denial of Jesus of Nazareth, and of the efficacy of his blood, 
 asE. 11. ever did. While these thing were going on, 
 neai-ly thirty friends in England, including some of the 
 most estimable ministers there, who unflinchingly preach- 
 ed the doctrine of Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 Justification by Faith — were more or less annoyed, an4 
 subjected to difficulty by the Conservatives.. 
 
103 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 Tiie most common moJe of procedure was, at least it 
 was so in my case, to avoid discussions of doctrines; and 
 to rest the objeclion to the ministry of the person, on the 
 pretended lack of life: As the preaching of the Apostles, 
 was in that day, to some, the £ovour of death unto death — 
 as Paul expressly declared that the time would come, when 
 they would not endure sound doctrine—so it was at the 
 time of which I am speaking. It Was ackaowledged to be 
 sound doctrine, but it could not be borne, and every means 
 almost that was possible, wore resorted to, in order to 
 
 STOP IT. 
 
 After I had spoken at some length on Faitl) in our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, at a large meeting at Newington,on a 
 first da:y morning, an individual in the youth's gallery 
 made a vehement objection — that they had heard much 
 of an outward Christ — but nothing of the Christ within, 
 the Hope of glory. . Some time after this, the meeting 
 was broken up in a. disorderly manner, by W.. Allen, who, 
 with Barnard Dickenson, William Richardson and several 
 other prominent members, rudely stopped me as I was 
 coming down out of the gallery, and upbraided me with 
 imposition, great 'darkness,'''' &c. &c. in the face of a large 
 company of strangers; though I requested if they had any 
 thing to sa.y to me, the}' would take another opportunity, 
 when I could have some of my friends with me. But this 
 reasonable privilege was refused. In all my intercourse 
 with the world, I never met with ^uch treatment before. 
 
 It was then and there, that W. Allen said that he was 
 informed that my friends were very uneasy with me at 
 home, and that a committee of the Quarterly Meeting 
 was appointed to have the care of the Monthly Meeting of 
 which I was a member; but he would not inform me, from 
 whom he received that information. 
 
 That he had been informed from America, that the 
 committee of Short Creek Quarterly Meeting, was ap" 
 pointed on mv account, rests on his testimony: and I hav^ 
 
tut ^^0C1KTV OF IRIENIW.- 1(K> 
 
 no doubt it was true. But when I called for the reasons 
 for appointing the committee, in the meeting itself, the 
 author, and advocates of the measure steadfastly refused to 
 give any reasons at all.' But it was now brought to bear 
 upon me in a foreign country, plainly for preaching the 
 only hope of salvation. 
 
 Two official deputtitions waited upon me in I>ondon, 
 during the Yearly Meeting; the first of which grew out of 
 the meeting of which I have just spoken. But in both 
 cases they were driven to confess that- the doctrines I 
 preached were sound. Besides these, Eight of the most 
 prominent Ministers and Elders, after the Yearly Meet- 
 ing, called upon me t6 discourage me from preaching, while 
 they all, on being questioned, acknowledged that my doc- 
 trines were sound: and on being pressed by me on that 
 point, they acknowledged I had not delivered a sentence 
 against which an objection, could be made. The pre- 
 vailing theme of my ministry, like that of the Apostle 
 Paul, was repentance toward Cod, and Faith toward our 
 pLord Jesus Christ. Byt it was unpalatable, and every 
 means in their power was taken to discourage and stop me. 
 The Apostle rejoiced that Christ w^as preached, wheth- 
 % cr sincerely or not. But different, far different were the 
 feelings of those that waited on me, though not one of 
 them called in question my sincerity, or the soundness of 
 my ministry. 
 
 After the Yearly Meeting in London, I passed through 
 Manchester,- where I preached Christ unto them, and re- 
 mission of sins through faith in his name. 
 
 Here too it was thought to be intolerable, and they 
 held a consultation (as I was informed.) to stop my preach- 
 ing. But their counsel was thrown into confusion, and 
 the plan failed. 
 
 At Kendal the clerk- of the Quarterly Meeting— Sam- 
 uel Marshall, paid me a visit, requesting me <o be silent 
 as a minister. He made a direct objection to my preach- 
 
lOi rROCEEl)JN(JS A.Mi I'lilNClPLES OF ^ 
 
 iirg Faith in Christ. In the conversation, he unhcsitate- 
 ingly declared his approval of Penn's Sandy FoiVlidation 
 Shaken. 
 
 Thus it was, tliat I Avas prosecuted through the whole 
 length of the Society, fromlndiana in the west, to London 
 in the east. Private detraction, and deftimatory letters, 
 were succeeded by intrigue and management, to bring 
 the power of the Society to bear upon mc, in a way wholly 
 incompatible with the prescriptions of the Discipline. — 
 And the ruling Ministers and Elders of the Society, gave 
 themselves up to the impulse of their feelings, in the pros- 
 ecution of measures, which all' the rules of common de- 
 cency forbid.^ — And this determined hostility, was plainly 
 because I held, and uncompromisingly preached, the con- 
 clusive authority of the Holy Scriptures, and according to 
 their clear testimony, I endeavoured to call my hearers to 
 a deep consideration of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, 
 and testified that God commandeth all every where to re- ' *• 
 pent, because he both appointed a 'day in which he will 
 Judge the world in- righteousness, by that man whom he 
 hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all 
 men, in that he hath raised him from the dead — that we 
 ought to repent and turn to God, and do works meet foT re- 
 pentance, laying hold of the offers of eternal life through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord — To him give all the Prophets wit- 
 ness, that through his name whosoever belicveth in him, 
 shall receive remission of sins. — The Justification of the 
 transgressor, however penitent he may be, is only through 
 Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who died a sacrifice for 
 our sins. The condemnation for the sins that arc past, 
 must be removed by the efficac}^ of that one offering, 
 applied to our hearts by Faith, which Faith is one of the 
 fruits of the Spirit. In intimate connection with these 
 views, I insisted on the duty of Prayer, as that duty is 
 <:!early set forth in the Holy Scriptures. — Here was the 
 ground of offence, and the more clearly I explained my- 
 
 0 
 
TJIE society 01' FRIENDS. 105 
 
 self, the iiiore determined and violent the persecution be- 
 came. 
 
 My Vindication was printed in the 1st month, 183G, 
 but not generally distributed to subscribers till the 2nd 
 mo. This was like adding fuel to the fire. The leading 
 members here, who had been dissatisfied with the doc- 
 ^ trines I maintained, were now more dissatisfied — because 
 they saw them so clearly stated, and so fully sustained. 
 The Vindication Reviewed, M^as published on the 15th 
 " of oth month following. 
 
 When the Society had been prepared for it, by private 
 management, the Meeting for Sufferings of Ohio took up 
 the case, thus entirely inverting the order prescribed in the 
 Discipline, which directs, that individuals who give occa- 
 sion for uneasiness, should be first treated with in private 
 — that the Overseers should then take charge of the case, 
 extending further care, in private. If this should prove 
 r ineffectual, report is to be made to the Preparative Meet- 
 ing. This latter meeting is to appoint a committee to en- 
 deavour to convince the offender of the impropriety of 
 his conduct. It being understood in all cases, that the 
 offence charged upon the individual, should be disowna- 
 ble by the Discipline. There must be the violation of a 
 law — for where no Law is there is no transgression. 
 
 It is by such a process as I have discribed, that those 
 who transgress the Rules of the Discipline, and violate 
 the terms of membership, are to be disowned. 
 
 But in order to secure the rights of individuals, there is 
 the privilege oi appeal from the judgment of the Monthly, 
 to the Quarterly Meeting — :and from this to the Yearly 
 Meeting. And in order to maintain that safeguard to the 
 rights of members, the superior meetings must keep clear 
 of any action in the case, so as not to have prejudged it, 
 while in the meeting below. 
 
 But in all these cases, the preliminary steps of private 
 dealing with me, as the Discipline directs, were wholly' 
 O 
 
106 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIFLES OF 
 
 disregarded — a system of defamation and detraction was 
 let loose upon me, from one end of the Society to the oth- 
 er — the rules of common civility as well as of the Disci- 
 pline, were trampled under foot, even in the place for the 
 worship of God. Meetings both for Discipline, and those 
 of Ministers and Elders, stooped to the most unworthy 
 artifices of intrigue an-d duplicity, to eifect unworthy ob- 
 jects. And now when the way was fully prepared for it, 
 the Meeting for Suiferings — which like an executive 
 branch of government, represented the Yearly Meeting, 
 determined to pass a censure upon me, that should not 
 only result in my disownment by the Monthly Meeting — 
 but destroy my religious character, throughout the whole 
 Society. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 It was in the beginning of the 9th month, that the Meet- 
 ing for Sutierings entered upon the measure of issuing a 
 document against me. The whole machinery which had 
 been contrived to crush me, had failed to execute the in- 
 tended purpose, as soon as had been desired. And though 
 I wa& in a foreign country, 1 still preached the same doc- 
 trines for which I had been proscribed — and all the diffi- 
 culties which had been thrown in the way by open ene- 
 mies, and false friends — all the complaints about the lack 
 of life, and the burden of the doctrines I preached — and 
 the correspondence between the conservatives in this 
 country and that — still I had the privikge of attending 
 meetings as they came m course — and of speaking in theni 
 when I believed myself called to do so, by the Head of the 
 church. This was too much to be borne, and the Meet' 
 ing for Sufferings arose, in all its might, to accomplish 
 the work at one blow-— and that lev'eled against me in my 
 absence. 
 
 It was at the commencement of the Yearly Meeting, 
 when all the Ministers, as well as the members of the 
 Meeting for Sufferings, had an opportunity of attending. 
 Influential persons were also here from the Yearly Meet- 
 ings of New England, Philadelphia, N. Carohna,and In- 
 diana. Among these were William Evans, the Senior 
 Editor of the Friends' Library, Thomas Kite, and Jere- 
 miah Hubbard. 
 
 The Meeting for Sufferings, led on by E. W. Ladd, B. 
 Hoyle, &c. &c., first objected to my publishing the Viw 
 dication, without the consent of that Meeting. But it wa« 
 replied that the article alluded to, was published before 
 
108 
 
 PROCKEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 
 
 I left this country for England. Tliis suggestion, if I am 
 rightly informed, was made by J. Hubbard. It was also 
 mentioned, that in regard to the matter ot publishing, the 
 meeting itself had set me at liberty, and had never recal- 
 led that liberty. 
 
 This of course presented an obstacle to the plan of pro- 
 cedure. The Vindication Reviewed was then taken up, 
 and a number of charges were founded on it: some affect- 
 ing my moral character, some addressed, to the prejudices 
 already excited against me, but in relation to which there 
 was no rule of discipline at all — and some having refer- 
 ence to the discipline, in regard to publications, which 
 they, themselves, in their official character, and which all 
 the leading members in their individual capacities, had 
 virtually laid aside. The meeting was distinctly informed 
 at the time, that the statements which it made could not 
 be sustained. But they were determined to go on. It 
 was carried through the Meeting for Sufferings, and read 
 and adopted in the Yearly Meeting. John Howard, an 
 acknowledged minister, who had personal knowledge^of 
 some of the facts, to which the document related, objected 
 to it in the meeting. This was made a grave offence against 
 him, by B. W. Ladd , in a committee of the \ early Meet- 
 ing of ministers and elders, and brought forward to prove 
 that John Howard stood opposed to the body of Society. 
 Thus even the private rights of members, to express their 
 sentiments on subjects of importance, when brought be- 
 fore meetings, were violated or trampled under foot, the 
 simple exercise of these rights being made the ground of 
 censure, in a committee of ministers and elders. 
 
 I ask, Where, in civil or religious society, can such an 
 example of high-handed misrule be found? 
 
 Thus while I was ahsent in a foreign country — w^ithout 
 the least notice of an intended prosecution against me^ 
 was this document carried through the highest meetings 
 of the Society here, although testimony which would have 
 
TlIK SOCIRTY OF PRIENnS'. 
 
 109 
 
 been taken in any court of Law, in any country, was of- 
 fered at the time, in opposition to some of tlic most mate- 
 rial statements which tliat document contained. 
 
 The order prescribed in the Discipline for treating 
 with offenders was completely inverted. Instead of pri- 
 vate labour, and fair investigation before the overseers, in 
 which the accused party might have an opportunity of 
 meeting his accusers to the face — the Yearly Meeting 
 itself passes judgment against him — and sends that judg- 
 ment down to the Monthly Meeting for execution. Thus 
 every rule of right was violated, in the first place — rules 
 which even Pagan Rome considered most sacred — and 
 every hope was cut off, of either justice by the Monthly 
 Meeting, or justice by an appeal to the Quarterly or 
 Yearly Meeting.. 
 
 And not -only so: the document, directly affecting my 
 moral character, in charging me with making statements 
 "disingenuous and untrue," was directed to be sent — not 
 only to Short Creek Monthly Meeting, for its action in 
 my disownment — simple execution of me would not do. — 
 In days of darkness and barbarism, a spirit of vengeance 
 was sometimes indulged, which could not be satisfied with 
 simply putting a man to death. His mutilated mortal 
 remains must be exhibited iii the mOst public manner pos- 
 sible. Whether it v. as a shoot from the same stock or 
 not, I leave; but the Meeting for Sufferings, at B. W. 
 Ladd's recommendation, determined to send the docu- 
 ment against me, to all the other meetings for Sufferings — 
 not for investigation, but for advertisement and record. — 
 The usage of the Society, in the correspondence of those 
 bodies, would make what passed between them matters of 
 record — and also bring it before the resjjective Yearly 
 Meetings — not, as already observed, for inquiry — but as 
 matters settled in the wisdom and iiuthority of Truth. 
 
 It is to the credit of the Society in other places, and I 
 gladly avail myself of tb.e opportunity to state the fact, 
 
iio 
 
 PROr.Kiini.Nt-s \ND rKl.NCIi'LKS OF 
 
 l;hat ill some, at least, of the meetings for sufferings, I hear 
 it was received with evidences of disapprobation. Mj 
 information may be defective; but 1 understand tiiat the 
 meeting for-iSuffcrings of Indiana, merely minuted that a 
 document was rcce.is'ed — v. ii.hout stating its object. The 
 meeting for Sufferings, of Virginia, received it with de- 
 cided disapprobation. The meeting in New York neither 
 took it upon record, nor made any minute of its recep- 
 tion, and let it fall dead in the-hands of the clerk. Up to 
 the last accounts from London, it had not made its ap- 
 pearance in the meeting for Sufferings there. From 
 Philadelphia, New England, Baltimore, North Carolina, 
 and Ireland, I liavc not heard. In the first-mentioned 
 place, I have no doubt ft was cordially received. 
 
 When it had passed tlic Yearly Meeting here, my chil- 
 dren applied to Benjamin Koylc, Clerk of the Meeting 
 for Sufferings, and to B. W. Ladd, Clerk of the Yearly 
 Meeting, for a copy of it; to give me information of v. hat 
 had passed against me, and to enable them to defend my 
 reputation, in my absence; but they were coldly, and con- 
 temptuously refused. After I returned home, I made a 
 written demand on the meeting itself, but it was totally 
 disregarded, and neither v/as the document furnished, nor 
 any message sent by that body. Secure in the possession 
 of power, ihey sat at their ease, and looked with contempt 
 on the object of their persecution. 
 
 It may not be improper here to remark, that some time 
 after the Yearly Meeting in London, (the committees, 
 and other Conservatives in this country, having held no 
 com.munlcation with me), apprehending that I might pos- 
 sibly remain in England till the Spring — I wished to show 
 all reasonable respect to the constituted authorities of the 
 Society there. When I went over, it was with some ex- 
 pectation that I might return in the 7th or 8th month. 
 The common privileges, and common responsibilities in 
 the Society, a. hich attach to a member knov. n to be such. 
 
TiiE socirxv or fh.'kxhs. 
 
 nt 
 
 was all that I expected, and all tliat was nfjcessarj for the 
 short time, to which I supposed my visit might possibly be 
 contracted. In addition to 'this, the appointment I held 
 as a Correspondent, gave me privileges in- the Yearly 
 Meeting, on an equal footing with the Representatives 
 themselves. But now, when it seemed not unlikely, that 
 I should remain there some time longer, I determined to 
 request a Certificate for a ternporary residence. 
 
 I well knew that according to the discipline, this request 
 would bring objections here to a point — that if the dissa- 
 tisfied members, were disposed to maintain their dissatis- 
 faction, they must reduce it to a distinct form, and send 
 the complaint against me, to the meeting where I was 
 residing — that I might be treated with- — the monthly 
 meeting here retaining the power of decision in the case* 
 
 The request for a certificate was accordingly made, but 
 it did not reach the friends here, till after the Yearly 
 Meeting. A commiKee was accordingly appointed to 
 make the necessary inquiry, whether one could be grant- 
 ed or not. 
 
 Before I had heard from America, as to the proceedings 
 that were going on, I became' impressed with the necessi- 
 ty of returning home. I had maintained the ground suc- 
 cessfully there; and the opposition stood at bay. I be- 
 lieved the tinTie had come, for me, as soon as possible, to 
 return home, and meet the preparations which^ I was per- 
 suaded, were making for a formidable attack upon me 
 here. This impression rested with increasing weight 
 upon me; till at length I formed the determination to 
 return, just about the time that the Meeting for Sufferings 
 was concocting its measures against me. 
 
 I mention the latter fact, merely as' a singular coinci- 
 dence of circumstances. 
 
 It appears to have been the intention of my enemies, 
 to disown me Aere, before I returned, if not before I should 
 receive any official notice of the charges brought against 
 
112 
 
 raocEEDiXGs and Pii:.\ciPi,ES of 
 
 me. But from the application lor a certificate, and the 
 novelty of the course pursued by the Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings, some doubts had arisen as to the mode to be adopted, 
 and thus some delay took place. The document had come 
 down to the Preparative Meeting, and there J found it, 
 when I reached home in the 11th month. 
 
 It is proper also to remark, that every meeting, both of 
 ordinary members and of Ministers and Elders, from the 
 Yearly, down to the Monthly Meeting, had appointed 
 Committees to assist the Meetings below. The whole 
 powers of the Society w^ere mustered and arranged for the 
 most decisive and efficient action. These combined com- 
 mittees attended even the Preparative Meeting, and di- 
 rected the Overseers what to do. B. W. Ladd was put 
 on the committee of every meeting of which he was a 
 member. He was the nucleus upon which they were all 
 formed — he was the moving power, which gave action to 
 the whole system. In Short Creek Monthly Meeting, he 
 scouted the ideri of investigation of the charges brought 
 by the Meeting for Sufferings. The doings of that body, 
 were not then to be called in question. 
 
 But when I returned home, they knew that I would in- 
 sist upon investigation, and that they could not, now that 
 I was on the spot and demanded a hearing, carry on even 
 the forms of disownment, without it. They knew that 
 their document, w^as hollow in its pretensions; that it could 
 not stand the test; and that accumulated disgrace must 
 fall upon its authors 5 not only for the palpable mis-state- 
 ments which it coniained — but for the conviction of the 
 authors of it, of being guilty of those very things which, 
 to cast a censure upon me, they had pronounced a re- 
 proach to the Society. 
 
 B. W. Ladd and his associates, under the authority^ 
 some or other of them, of the Yearly, Quarterly, and 
 Monthly Meeting, attended the Preparative Meeting in 
 the 12th month, the first which occurred after my return. 
 
THE SOCIETV OF FRIENDS. 
 
 113 
 
 Enoch Harris, one of the Overseers, had made out a 
 complaint, founded on the document, which, however, he 
 had not presented to me, nor did I know that such a thing 
 was to be offered to the Preparative Meeting. This, B. 
 W* Ladd and the Committees, totally rejected. The 
 document was declared not to be a charge,, nor so intended 
 by the Meeting for Sufferings; and the Paper prepared 
 by E. H., embracing the charges contained in it, was 
 thrown out. And B. W. L. went to the Clerk's Table, 
 and drew up a nezo charge — merely for publishing the 
 Vindication Reviewed, without the consent of the Meet- 
 ing for Sufferings, asserting that it ha,d caused disunity 
 and discord. 
 
 This was to be no act of the Meeting then. No — it 
 was to be understood as originating, some time after, with 
 the Overseers, and as having been kept on that ground of 
 private dealing which the Discipline directs, though 
 transacted in the face of the Preparative Meeting; and 
 the authority of the Committees was held over the Over- 
 seers, to carry this contemptible piece of mummery into 
 effect. 
 
 They had determined that they would never meet me 
 in a fair investigation of the things contained in that 
 extraordinary document; — and thus, after all the combi- 
 nations to get it up, and all the formidable display of it 
 before the world, they now threw it away with their 
 own hands, rather than face me with it. 
 
 After this exhibition of unfair dealings, as I had been 
 publicly accused, condemned, and held up to the world,, 
 both as to my religious and moral character, I determined 
 to meet the charges against me, in print, as the only mode 
 of defence now left me. I accordingly published the 
 "Refutation." As soon as it was out, B. W. Ladd called 
 on me, to get one of them, which I readily gave him. I 
 also presented copies to several other persons concerned, 
 and sent one to each of the Meetings for Sufferings. I 
 
lit 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES 0? 
 
 likewise sent one to Benjamin Hoyle, Clerk of the Meet- 
 ing for Sufferings, to be preserved among its Papers — 
 accompanying the Pamphlet with a note, explaining the 
 object 1 had in view, and telling him, that I wished the 
 Meeting to know, that if it was not satisfied with the 
 statements I had made, I was willing to n>eet, either a 
 committee of that body, or the whole of it together, in a 
 free, open, and friendly discussion of the subject. In like 
 manner, I also wished tlie individuals whose names I had 
 used, to know , that if they thought I had not done them 
 justice, I was willing to meet any, or all of them, in setting 
 the matter right. I wished to maintain nothing but the 
 truth, and I invited investigation, and earnestly wished- 
 that good feeKng might be preserved. 
 
 The Clerk happening not to attend, the letter was pre- 
 sented to the meeting. Dr. Parker, John Street, and- 
 David Fawcett, were directed to examine it; and they 
 took B. W. Ladd along with them. On their return, 
 they informed the Meeting, that the letter did not require 
 its notice.* Thus both the Meeting itself, and the indi^ 
 
 *A curious circumstance occurred at this Meeting. While the 
 four persons named were out, examining my letter to the Clerk, W. 
 Wood opened a "concern," that he had. To make a short story of 
 it, Joshua Shinn, a member, had concluded to reprint the Sermons 
 ofWm. Penn,&c. And W. Wood thought, to reprint sermons, for sale, 
 was making merchandize of Friends' sermons, and a violation' 
 of our Testimony against a hireliug ministry. When B, W. L.^ 
 «nd the others, came in, it was proposed that W. Wood's concern 
 should be opened again. 
 
 Dr. Parker tlrought that as the individual had paid the printer, he 
 might reasonably sell the books. But he tiiouglit it not consistent 
 to have them reprinted without the consent of some revising body. 
 He did not seem to have thought of the fact, tliat they were pub- 
 lished in the time ot early Friends, and oever called in question by 
 them. Nor did the idea appear to have occurred, that those ser- 
 mons were professed to be delivered under the immediate motion of 
 the Spirit. And if that profe.ssion was frue, revision was preposte- 
 rous. 
 
 B. W. Ladd thought the reprinting of such things was by vo 
 vieans proper, however excellent they might have been at the lime^ 
 Indeed he had thought it might be compared to the inanna that was 
 
 4 
 
THE SOCIETY OP FRIENDS. 115 
 
 vMuals whose names I have used in the Refutation, have 
 liad as full an invitation to meet me, if they were dissa- 
 tisfied, as I could give, or they desire. An<i I do insist* 
 that a total failure on their part, both as respects the meet- 
 ings and the persons immediately concemed, to meet the 
 statements contained in the Refutation, is a virtiial, but 
 full admission of its correctness. But they have not met 
 it, either publicly or privately. 
 
 gathered yesterday. By being kept beyond the time, it bred worms, 
 and stank. 
 
 Now, whether these sage reflections had any intended allusion ta 
 tiie old papers of George Fox, contained in the Appeal, which had 
 then recently been published in this country, I shall not de- 
 termine. But if the very sermons of our Early Friends, are such 
 as to breed worms and slink, in the estimation of one of their most 
 zealous advocates, the members at large ought to have the informa- 
 tion. 
 
CHAPTER lY. 
 
 While the Conservatives in England, had been com- 
 pletely beaten off from the ground of the doctrines I 
 preached, and from the cavilling objections to my being 
 there without a certificate, I had been painfully strug- 
 gling with an apprehension of duty, to prove, by evidence 
 that could not be resisted by reasonable men, that George 
 Fox was certainly mistaken in some of his claims to ex- 
 traordinary revelation. On subjects of Christian doc- 
 trine, continually rising in the Society, instead of a sim- 
 ple recurrence to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, 
 the views of George Fox, and of early Friends, were re- 
 garded as conclusive. This ground was taken by the 
 most prominent members in England. "The Friend," 
 had come forward boldly in making the writings of 
 Friends, the Standard of doctrine for us. Thomas Evans, 
 in his letter to me, had rejected all idea of making any 
 reformation in those writings — and B, W, Ladd, in his 
 letter to J. H. and D. B., had made a high charge against 
 me, that I did not hold myself bound to respect the wri- 
 tings of our early standard authors, any further than 
 they accorded with my understanding of the doctrines of 
 Christ and his apostles. And in his interview with me, 
 in the 2nd mo. 1835, he said that if I went beyond early 
 Friends, I would be a Reformer, and carry off a party. 
 And on my saying that I intended to keep very close to 
 the Scriptures, he replied. No — the writings of our early 
 Friends are something that has risen up between us and 
 the Scriptures, and we must not go beyond them. I 
 could recite much of a similar character, operating in 
 
TUn SOCIIITY OV rniKNDS. 
 
 in 
 
 various wa}6, to require aomc remedy Cor so fatal an er- 
 ror, as to take the views of George Fox as infallibly 
 riglit, and not subject to correction by the Scriptures 
 themselves. 
 
 The Manuscript Journal of George Fox, had fallen into 
 my hands; and in that MS. there were papers, plainly 
 intended by him for publication, which prove to eveiy 
 dispassionate person, that he, and some of his most inti- 
 mate and most esteemed friends, were, at some times, and 
 on some points, under a most extraordinary infatuation. 
 The evidence to the point, for the establishment of which 
 the Society was so deeply suffering, was clear, beyond 
 all rational contradiction. I believe there was a hand of 
 Providence in putting these papers in my possession, and 
 I deeply felt the responsibility which rested upon me, in 
 regard to them. I saw ^hat the direct testimony of the 
 Holy Scriptures was laid waste, by a mistaken estimate 
 of the claims of George Fox, to extraordinary revela- 
 tions; and it seemed that now, in a most peculiar state of 
 things, we might almost say, a voice from his grave, ad- 
 monished the Society of it? delusion and of its danger. 
 I felt that it rested upon me, to make this important dis- 
 closure to the Socieiy, authenticated as the facts were, in 
 the hand writing of George Fox, and arranged by him 
 for publication. 
 
 The thought of the work, how^ever, was painful, from 
 the mortifying character of the facts to be disclosed. I 
 yielded, at length, to the impressions of duty, and pre- 
 pared the Appeal, though I had not time to have it car- 
 ried through the press. This task was undertaken by 
 Robert Benson, who prefixed an Advertisement. 
 
 I chose to have the Appeal published there, because the 
 Papers were all there, except one of the Letters, which I 
 have in my possession.. 
 
 While this work was in progress, another important 
 event took place. 
 
118 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PUrNCIPLES OF 
 
 It was on the 15111 of the 9th montli 1836, that 1 was 
 baptized hy John Pye Smitli, at liis own honse, at llomei- 
 ton, near London. My investigations of the subject had 
 «omincnccd about three years before. Those examina- 
 tions had been carried on, in regard to the primary' ques- 
 tion, about one j ear, when I fully gave up my former 
 arguments, and those of the Friends, for the disuse of 
 water baptism. But difficulties attended my mind, in re- 
 gard to the adeption of the apostolic practice. These 
 difficulties were not^ removed, till a short time before I 
 was baptized. For as 1 had long been convinced of the 
 doctrine in the abstract, and had often fervently prayed, 
 that I might be enabled to see with clearness the path of 
 practical obedience, when the main difficulty was re- 
 moved, 1 felt it my duty to press forward. 
 
 I had not made baptism a subject of preaching; noi* 
 indeed had I discussed the doctrine in conversation, except 
 It very few times, when it was forced upon me. For I 
 could not sec the propriety of urging it on the attention 
 of others, till I had given evidence of the sincerity of my 
 own convictions. 
 
 Baptism, then, like the Appeal, is an offence of recent 
 ilate. They have both transpired since the document 
 was written; and even the 23rd No. of the Repository 
 was published full three years and a half, after I had been 
 denounced, as doing more mischief than Elias Hicks had 
 ever done in the same length of time. 
 
 I state these facts to show, that the charges which have 
 b"ecn taken up for the purpose of placing official censure 
 upon me, have all departed from the original ground of 
 dissatisfaction. 
 
 In a few days after I was baptized, I received a very 
 friendly -letter from Samuel Gurney, inquiring if the re- 
 port which he had heard Was true? I immediately re- 
 plied — informing him that it was. I have never supposed 
 
niE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 that S. G. intended any thing more than a perfectly 
 friendly itiquiry. I think he was drawn in hy others to 
 become a party to transactions, of which he had no inten- 
 tion in the beginning. 
 
 In the mean time, I took the earliest opportunity, to 
 let my friends at home know what had taken place. One 
 of the letters that I wrote by the very first packet, by which 
 I could write to America, was to the Clerk of the Montli- 
 ly Meeting, authorizing and requesting him, (if he thought 
 proper to do so), to let the Monthly Meeting know the 
 step I had taken — not as the acknowledgment of ai> 
 oiTence, but as an act of respect to my friends at home, 
 and to open the way for inquiry and full satisfaction, in 
 regard to what I had done. I also wrote, as soon as pos- 
 sible, "A Letter of Reasons,*' &c., addressed to the Soci- 
 ety of Friends, which I printed in England. 
 
 Samuel Gurney showed my letter to him, to Josiah For- 
 stcr and George Stacy. And they concluded to write 
 me a joint letter on the subje«:t. To that letter I imme- 
 diately replied, asking them some simple and plain ques- 
 tions, which brought the recent declaration of the London 
 Yearly Meeting, in which they had had an immediate 
 agency, directly to bear on the. subject of our corr(;spon- 
 dence. My object was, to bring them to a seripturaj 
 discussion of the subject, rather than to. appeal to the 
 views of Friends, as conclusivo in the case. They let 
 me know, in their letter, that they thought it right to 
 inform my friendsat home. In my reply, 1 informed them 
 that / had done this myself already. 
 
 Instead of replying to my letter, or letting it drop as a 
 correspondence which they were unable or unwilling to 
 maintain, they threw the subject into the Morning Meet- 
 ing, for that body to take it up, as a formal complaint 
 against me, to fix a principle for the action of the Society, 
 and send it over to the JMinisters and Elders of .Shor^ 
 Creek Monthly Meeting. 
 
120 
 
 PROCEEDINCfS AND PaiNCIPLES OF 
 
 Such a document was issued; a copy was sent to Dr. 
 Parker and B. W. Ladd, and another to me, together 
 with a letter from J. Forstcr, the clerk; informing me 
 that he had written to Samuel Parsons and Jonathan 
 Evans, on the subject. In that letter he told me that 
 they declined controversy — that he was unfit for it, &c., 
 and recommended me to the green pastures and still 
 waters of life. 
 
 Against all these proceedings from the beginning to end, 
 I thought I had abundant reason to complain. 
 
 In the first place, I thought it was a violation of the 
 rules of propriety, to open a private, and, as I supposed, 
 friendly correspondence, and failing to sustain their views, 
 to throw it into an official channc-1, and bring the whole 
 weight and power of the Society to bea,r upon me as an 
 offender. And this ground of complaint on my part, was 
 increased by the fact, that there was no rule of d'iscipline 
 on the subject, arid the Morning Meeting was acting extra- 
 judicially in the case. I complained too, that J. Forster 
 should, in addition to all the rest, busy himself in sending 
 the case to the correspondents of two other Yearly Meet- 
 ings. And then to finish off the business, in which he had 
 been soactivc, and that worse than gratuitously* too — when 
 he felt, and virtually acknowledged, that he was not able 
 to sustain the position he had taken, in regard to the sub- 
 ject of baptism — after he- had brought all the powers of 
 the Society to bear upon me — with all the coldness which 
 could well be imagined, he recommended me to the green 
 pastures and still vraters of Life!! Had he himself been 
 occupying those pastures, or seeking to enjoy those waters, 
 hehadnot busied himself with a correspondence, in which 
 he cast a heavy reflection on the Apostles and apostolic 
 church, nor would he have set to judge me according to 
 the Law, and command me to be smitten contrary to 
 the Law. 
 
 I replied to him at some length, and with freedom; 
 
fllE SOCIETY Op I'lUEXDS. 
 
 121 
 
 letting him know, lhat I should call upon them publicly, 
 to sustain the ground they had taken, or frankly to ac- 
 knowledge that they could not. And I .left the corres- 
 pondence in England, to be printed, if J. F., S. G. and 
 G. S» did not do something to place the subject in a differ- 
 ent position. After waiting some timo, my friend James 
 Foster received from Josiah Forster, informaaon that they 
 did not intend to write any thing further. The corrcs- 
 j)ondence Avas then put to the press. 
 
 The Document from the Morning Meeting was receiv- 
 ed by the meeting of Ministers and Elders of Short Creek; 
 and a committee of four Elders was appointed to treat 
 with me. The result of w^hich will appear, when giving 
 an account of the dealings of the Monthly Meeting's com- 
 mittee. 
 
 The last visit of the Elders was on the evening pre- 
 ceding the Monthl}^ Meeting in the 1st month, when 
 Baptism was completely given up, as a ground of censure. 
 The Preparative Meeting for Mountpleasant, was held 
 on 4th day of the week before. At that time the com- 
 mittee attended, but the Overseers refused to bring for- 
 ward the charge Avhich had been drawn up by B. W. 
 Ladd, and the whole project was a failure. 
 
 It was evident that no other charge could then be taken 
 "up, to be sent to the Monthly Meeting, unless 1 had been 
 treated with, by the Overseers for it. And thus 1 was left 
 without any prosecution lying against me. 
 
 It was not a week after this, when the Monthly Meet- 
 ing was held. Dr. Parker proposed that the several com- 
 mittees and all the Overseers of the Monthly Meeting, 
 should withdraw: which they did. On getting together 
 out of meeting, he inquired why the complaint against 
 me, which the committee had made out a month before, 
 had not been forwarded to the Monthly Meeting? One of 
 the Overseers replied, that that complaint was too vague 
 and indefinite, and that it could not be sustained. He in- 
 
 Q 
 
FROCEEDINGS A:VD PRIlVCIPLliS 01 
 
 quired why some other charge had not been brought for- 
 ward? To this it was replied, that the complaint drawn 
 up by B. W. L, had been palmed upon them, and they 
 had to get rid of that first. 
 
 It turns out, as I understand it, that these committees of 
 superior meetings, had felt so indignant at the opposi- 
 tion they had met in the Preparative Meeting of Mount- 
 pleasant, a few days before, that they had determined to 
 take, in that Monthly Meeting, some coercive steps in re- 
 gard to it. When I called on Dr. Parker, in the Monthly 
 Meeting's committee, to explain this most novel proceed- 
 ing, he replied, that if I knew the circumstances of the 
 case, 1 would see that it was the very best that could be 
 done at the time. I told him that the only explanation 
 1 could give to his remark was, that the committee had de- 
 termined to lay violent hands on the Preparative Meeting, 
 unless some measures against me could be agreed on. To 
 this he made no reply — it having been distinctly stated 
 to the Dr. before, that when I asked a question, I should 
 consider siVence as an admission of the thing suggested. — 
 So it was plainly understood, as granted by Dr. Parker, 
 t© be as I supposed. 
 
 Whether Enoch Harris had had any intimation of what 
 was intended or not, he came prepared, and took out of 
 his pocket the following written charges:* 
 
 "EKsha Bates has written and published an address to 
 friends of Ohio and Indiana Yearly meetings., which re- 
 lates to our religious principles, and Testimonies, without 
 the advice and concurrance of the meeting for sufferings 
 Also has written, and has had published a pamphlet in 
 England, an appeal to friends, which exhebits the most 
 insidious attempts to destroy our reJigious society and 
 George Fox's Christian characture and religious reputation, 
 by calling in question the soundness of his religious writ 
 
 •■The Mdd,-m: to itie Preparative Meeting it; oiiiittoit. 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. l^jt 
 
 ings. He has denyed the immediate revelation of the- 
 Holy spirit, independant of the scriptures; as it appear 
 by his late publications, therefore he is not one in faith 
 with us. 
 
 He acknowledges himself to have submited to the 
 right of Warter Baptism, and in this he has violated a well 
 known principle of our society." 
 
 The Overseers were directed to go on, in treating with 
 me on these charges, and then the company being satis- 
 fied, returned. 
 
 From this time, my friends gave up the matter to be 
 disposed of as those who held the reins and used the whip 
 of the Society, might please. I too saw that with such 
 men, it was in vain to reason, and in vain to plead. 
 
 In the transaction, immediately before us, there was a 
 total disregard of the order of discipline. 
 
 1. It was out of order for Enoch Harris to present a set. 
 of charges to such a company, before he had treated with 
 me, upon them. 
 
 2. It was not merely a departure from the forms of Dis- 
 cipline, but a violation of the guarantee of the rights of 
 individuals, for such a company to pass judgment, in any 
 way, on a set of charges, before the accused individual 
 had had an opportunity of atrial, before the constitutional 
 officers of the Society. Here were the authorized agents 
 of the Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, deter- 
 mining on the charges on which I was to be prosecuted. 
 Where then was the probability of a fair trial in the 
 Monthly Meeting, or of redress by an appeal to the 
 Quarterly or Yearly Meeting? Not only the ruling 
 members, but the appointed agents of all those meetings 
 had decided beforehand, what prosecution should be 
 brought; they were in fact, the accusers, prose cutorSj and 
 judges. And who that had the least sense of moral up- 
 rightness, the least regard for his own rights, the least 
 feeling of self respect, would Teccgnize such a tribunal, 
 as acting *'in the wisdom and authority of truth." 
 
134 
 
 rUOCEEDINC;S AM) PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 Let it be remembered that this prosecution, is both 
 formally and in fact, the act of the Society on the broad 
 Fcale. The Moiyiing Meeting in London laid the foun- 
 dation for one branch of the action. The whole subject 
 has evidently been a matter of correspondence, between 
 the influential members of the several Yearly Meetings, 
 or some of them at Ica^st. The complaii>t, in relation to 
 the Appeal, was predicated on an English copy of that 
 work, which I was told belonged to B. W. Ladd, and by 
 him put into the hands of Enoch Harris. The company 
 of official pei"sons, wdiich was called out of the Monthly 
 Meeting, acting in stern authority, as they did, over the 
 Overseers, and intending, as it appears, an immediate 
 chastisement of the Preparative Meeting, if the Overseers 
 had not agreed to act on the charges before us — did un- 
 deniably approve the forms of the charges, and give their 
 clearly understood judgmentj that the things so charged 
 were disownablc. They were not called out as mere in- 
 dividual members, to consult c^n some private matter, and 
 give their private opinions. Reference was made to the 
 appointments which they held — as Overseers, members 
 of the committees, &c., when they were called out of the 
 meeting, and therefore it was the authority of the meet- 
 ings by which they were appointed, that was intended to 
 be brought to bear upon the subjects laid before them. 
 
 When the Overseers had M^aited upon me with the 
 charges as directed, laid them before the Preparative 
 Meeting, and that meeting had forwarded them to the 
 Monthly Meeting, I wrote to that body a letter of Resig- 
 nation of my membership, giving some of my reasons for 
 doing so. But at the same time I gave them an assurance 
 that I would most readily meet their authorised agents ii> 
 any investigation of the matters at issue between us. 
 
 The following is a copy of it, together with the Adver- 
 tisement. 
 
 9 
 
THE SOriETY OF FlUENnS. 
 
 liKTTER OF RKSRiN VTEON oj ikc. rigJll of Mt 'illhl rsilip ill ihc 
 
 Socidt/ of Friends: Addressed to Short Creek Monthly 
 Meeting. 
 
 ADVEUTISEMENT. 
 
 The following Letter was presented to the Monthly 
 Meeting which was held at Short Creek the 21st inst» 
 when ihe Charges referred to in it, Wexe received from 
 the PreiJarative Meeting. 
 
 Two individuals were requested to go out and examine 
 it, to see if it was suitable to be read. When they came 
 back,' they neither returned the Letter, nor gave any re- 
 port or information respecting it. 
 
 In this proceeding there was not only a manifest de- 
 parture from good order, but an act of disrespect both to 
 the writer of the Letter, and to those to whom it was di- 
 rected. Every man has an undeniable right to leave a 
 Society with which he may have been in connection. — 
 Andif so, he has a n'o-A< <o be heard. To refuse this priv- 
 ilege is an assumption of Church Power, inconsistent with 
 the understanding of the age in which we live. And 
 those to whom the Letter was addressed, were the proper 
 judges of its suitableness to the occasion. It was both 
 their duty and their right to have heard what I had said. 
 But it is an evil of increasing magnitude in the Society of 
 Friends, that the most important matters are disposed of 
 by a fezv, while the great body of the members do not un- 
 derstand what is going on. 
 
 The cha,rgcs sent up by the Preparative Meeting are as 
 follows: which, to be better understood, I have numbered, 
 
 1. "The Overseers inform that Elisha Bates has writ- 
 ten and published an Address to Friends of Ohio and In- 
 diana Yearly Meetings, which relates to our religious 
 principles and testimonies, witliout the advice and con- 
 currence of the Meeting for Sufferings. 
 
 2. "Also has written and has had publislu d a Pamphlet 
 
126 
 
 PnOCEEWNCS AND PRINCirLES OF 
 
 in England, An Appeal to Friends, which exhibits the- 
 most insiduous attempts to destroy the Society, and 
 George Fox's christian chariicter and religious reputation, 
 by -calling in question the soundness of his religious writ- 
 ings. - 
 
 3. "He has denied the immediate revelation of the 
 Holy Spirit independent of the Scriptures; as it appears 
 hy his late publications, therefore he is not one in faith 
 with us. 
 
 4. "He acknowledges himself to have submitted to the 
 rite of Water Baptism, and in this he has violated a welt 
 known principle of our Society.'' 
 
 When the subject was introduced into the Meeting, by 
 reading the forgoing charges, some discussion took place, 
 and various changes in the charges themselves were pro- 
 posed. But the Meeting could agree in none, except in 
 leaving out the third charge altogether. The others re- 
 mained as sent up, and a committee was appointed to 
 treat with me on them. 
 
 But as the Resignation of Membership intheSocietj- was 
 complete on my part, the Letter is now offered to the 
 public, not only for the information of the members of the 
 Monthly Meeting of Short Creek, but of the whole Socie- 
 ty, and the community at large. 
 
 Mountpleasant, 2nd Mo. 22, 1837. E. BATES. 
 
 Mountpkasant^'ind mo. 20thf 18S7. 
 To Short Creek Monthly Meeting: 
 Dear Friends — 
 
 I have now, for upwards of four years, suffered an al- 
 most unexampled course of unkindness, from those I had 
 regarded as my friends. The causes of this, so far as I 
 am able to speak with confidence, have been: 
 
 I. My holding the divine Authority of the Holj' Scrip- 
 tures as co7uhisive in all matters of Faith and Practice; 
 and preaching the leading doctrines contained in them— 
 
Tin; sociEi v or i rik.nus. 
 
 'constantly holding, at the same time, tiiat no cloctrino 
 which is contained in the Scriptures should he rejected, 
 nor any doctrine that is not contained in them he believ 
 edor promulgated. 
 
 2. For cautioning my Friends against those errors in 
 regard to fundamental doctrines, which have been pro- 
 ductive of the most lamentable consequences in the So- 
 ciety; and which are still exerting a deadly influence — 
 clothed, as they were in the late schism, with the charac- 
 ter of the Spiritual Views of Early Friends. 
 
 Called, as I believe I have been, by the Head of the 
 Church, to testify the gospel of the grace of God, I have 
 been engaged to promulgate those blessed doctrines which 
 are recorded in the Scriptures; and to warn against those 
 things which appeared to operate against a free and 
 heartfelt reception of them. Of this description are sen- 
 timents and form of expression, which lie scattered 
 through the writings of our Early Friends; and also that 
 implicit confidence in them which would recognize those 
 writings as the deposilories of the true meaning of Scrip- 
 ture. I have believed it to be my duty to show that this 
 confidence rests on a ftUsc foundation — is fallacious in prin- 
 tiple, and pernicious in practice. 
 
 Deeply sensible of the infirmities of human nature, for 
 which I was willing to make large allowances to our Ear- 
 ly Friends, I have desired that we might escape their 
 weakness, and correct their mistakes, by a recurrence to 
 the revealed Will of God — receiving the doctrines as 
 there taught, and seeking the help of the Holy Spirit, to 
 writ e them on our hearts, to give us access to God through 
 Jesus Christ, to shed abroad in our hearts the love of God, 
 and to lead us in the way of the obedience of Faith. 
 
 For these causes my religious reputation has been a>'- 
 sailed, by various modes of private detraction. And when 
 the minds of Friends were prepared for it, official meas- 
 ures were taken, affecting both my moral and religious 
 
128 
 
 PKOCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 character, and phiiiilj iDlciulcd Lo result in ni_y disowir 
 ment. 
 
 These measures were cither icilhout Disciphnc, or con- 
 trary to its provisions. 
 
 Immediately after the Document of tlic Meeting for 
 Sufferings had been abandoned, and the new charge which 
 was got up at the Preparative Meeting by a combination 
 of committees, had been shown to be futile and untenable^ 
 a company was called out of the Monthly Meeting, con- 
 sisting of members of various committees, the Overseers 
 ofthe Monthly Meeting, &c.,in which a new set of charges 
 was agreed upon — which was /ifterwards presented to me 
 by the Overseers of this Meeting, laid before the Prepara- 
 tive Meeting, and by that forwarded to you. 
 
 This whole proceeding was out of order, and subver- 
 sive of those privileges which the Discipline was intended 
 to secure. 
 
 This set of charges is divided into four heads. The firsl 
 relates to a material part of the Refutation of the Docu^ 
 ment, by which I proved myself to be in the right, and the 
 Meeting for Sufferings to be in the wrong. By the pub" 
 lication of the Address it is shown that the opposition 
 which was made to it, was to the doctrines of the Resur'- 
 rection ofthe Dead and the Day of Judgment, asset forth 
 in Scripture language. It shows also that the statement 
 in the Document, that it contained '•few or no quotations" 
 from our acknowledged works, is incorrect. To bring 
 forward this charge was contrary to the Scripture which 
 says: "Keep thee far from a false matter: and the inno- 
 cent and righteous slay thou not: fori will not justify the 
 wicked." Ex. 23, 7. The second charge assumes that the 
 writings of George Fox are not to be called in question: 
 having particular reference, though not exclusively, to the 
 Extracts which I have lately made both from his manu- 
 script and printed Journal, in a Pamphlet entitled "An 
 peal to the Society of Friends." And in the face of the 
 
TilK SOCIETY OF FRIE.XDS. 
 
 129 
 
 most mortilying facts, it so fully takes upon the Society, 
 the responsibility of those Extracts, and of his religious 
 writings without limitation, as to represent the calling of 
 them in question as an insiduous attempt to destroy the 
 Society — and as such, a disownablc offence. 
 
 The third head is in terms that I may not understand. 
 And when I asked the overseer .who presented it, for the 
 ground on which he rested it, he gave me no distinct reply. 
 If it means, that I do not believe we are warranted to 
 expect a revelation of the doctrines of Christianity^ indepen- 
 dent of the Scriptures, it is true. If it means, that I deny 
 the immediate work and witness of the Spirit, in the 
 heart, it is not true, I never denied that doctrine, and I 
 trust never shall. If "this is the idea intended to be con- 
 veyed, I unhesitatingly pronounce it false. 
 
 The fourth head, relating to Baptism, places the Socie- 
 ty in a strongly marked opposition to the commandments 
 and example of the Apostles, and to . the Practice of the 
 Church while under their immediate direction, and while 
 in the . possession of the highest degree of spirituality, and 
 the most extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, ev^r conferred 
 on the Church. To suppose the ordinances have ceased in 
 point of obligation^ is one thing. To make the observance 
 of them c r/i^orynaWe q^'nce, is another- The first I be- 
 lieve is unwarranted by Scripture, and contrary to the 
 Practice of the Apostles and Apostolic Churrhes. The 
 second 1 apprehend is a nczc thing in. Christendom. 
 
 While these things have been going on, persons in 
 prominent stations, have been countenanced in preaching 
 and otherwise promulgating doctrines, identical with those 
 of Elias Hicks. And on the other hand, many estimable 
 members of the Society, who were known to maintain the 
 doctrine of Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and Justifica- 
 tion by Faith, have been subjected to various harrassing 
 I^FOceedings, to discourage them from promulgating those 
 R • 
 
130 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AXD PRTNCIPLEfe OP 
 
 doctrines, to destroy their influence, and finally to ptrf 
 them. down. 
 
 After the unhappy effects of many passages in the w rit- 
 ings of Early Friends, had been exemplified in the late 
 Separation, and after the attention of the Society had 
 been called to the danger of the same things, those very 
 writings have been earnestly recommended to Friends 
 generally, and especially to the youth — without any dis- 
 crimination, or any caution, against the unsound or un- 
 guarded sentiments and forms of expression which arc 
 scattered through them. And riot only so, but the Doc- 
 trinal Treaties of the early Members of the Society, which 
 really contain the most objectionable passages, have beeri 
 recognized as in strict accordance with Holy Scripture. 
 
 I object to the course of proceeding against myself — 
 and qomplain of the unkindness, and the unfairness with 
 which they have been marked. . And I protest again&t 
 the dissemination, and recognition of u-nsound doctrine, 
 and the opposition which in various ways has been made 
 to that v;^hich is sound. And I exceedingly regret that 
 the Society, by a combination of measures, should have 
 fixed upon itself, a character so de^dedly opposed to 
 Primitive Christianitj'. 
 
 My principles have been openly held. When I have 
 found an opinion ta be contrary to Scripture, I have 
 abandoned it; while the doctrines which I believed to be 
 established by that authorit}', I have maintained without 
 fear, and without compromise. I have sincerely endeav- 
 ored to promote a christian reformation in the Society — 
 without walking in craftiness, or handling the Word of 
 God deceitfully. And now, as the Society, in its official 
 capacity, has shown a determination to reject both me 
 and my labours, I feel no disposition to impose myself up 
 on it. And though I am fully sensible that there are 
 many individuals in the Society, wlvo truly, love the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, yet the official ac lM of the Body, have fixed 
 
 ♦ 
 
rUE SOCiCTV OF FRIENDS. 
 
 131 
 
 >Epon it a cluuTicter, with wliich I dare not be identified. 
 
 I therefore have concluded, painful as the conclusion is, 
 to offer jou the Resignation of my right of Membek- 
 9H1P in the Society of Friends. 
 
 I do not take this course to prevent Investigation ; for it 
 is my intention, at a suitable time, and that before long, 
 to publish a Summary View of the Case, embracing a re- 
 ply to the new charges. And I shall always hold myself 
 ready to meet any official member of the Society, or any 
 individual whose name I may have Hsed, in a fair and 
 friendly invesligation of any doctiine I hold, or any fact I 
 may have stated. 
 
 And now, in the dissolution of the bond by which we 
 have been bound together in a social relation, I desire 
 that f/iai Charity, which is an essential part of vital reli- 
 gion, may suffer no diminiition. 
 
 I do not feel myself as placed without the pale of the 
 Church. I recognize the true believers in the Lord 
 Jesua, whatever may be their denomination — and I trust 
 that I shall be recognized by them. I trust that ia the 
 common Faith, the language will be reciprocated, "One 
 is our Master, even Christ, and all we are brethren."— 
 May they know more and more of the consolation in 
 Christ, the comfort of love, and the fellowship of the Spirit 
 •—and increase and abound in those Christian virtues and 
 works of righteousness, by which Our Heavenly Fathers is* 
 glorified. 
 
 ''Christ loved his Church, and gave himself for it, that 
 he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water 
 by the vrord, and present it to himself, a glorious Church, 
 not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing." The 
 work of Reformation and the purging away of corrup- 
 tions, arise from the love of Christ. And happy will it be 
 for those who do not despise his love, or resist his work of 
 purification. 
 
 Assured beyond all doubt, that the hand of the Lord is 
 
PROCEEDINGS AM) PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 at work, to carry on a Reformation, arjd extend the' Re- 
 deemer's Kingdom in the earth — by the revival of vital 
 Christianity', as it was presented to the world by the Son 
 of God and his Apostles — I cannot believe that it will be 
 frustrated. The instruments which he may be pleased to 
 employ — however they may be despised, he is able to 
 sustain and bless. With this persuasion, I cast myself on 
 his unfailing care — and leave events to his unerring Wis- 
 dom. 
 
 With deep sorrow for the present state of the Society— 
 "with earnest desires for the effectual conversion of those 
 by whom its affairs are conducted — and tender sympathy 
 with its sound and suffering members, 
 
 I remain your friend, 
 
 ELISHA BATES. 
 
 This Letter when presented to the meeting, instead of 
 being read, as is uniformly done where the rights of in- 
 dividuals are at all respected; was referred to Dr. Parker, 
 and Robert Ladd, to go out and see if it was fit to be read. 
 On their return, they kept the Letter, and said not one 
 word to the meeting about it, " 
 
 The Meeting took up the charges from the Prepara- 
 tive Meeting, and concluded to drop that which relates 
 to revelation. They were now reduced to three. 
 
 L For publishing the Address, which forms a part of 
 the Refutation. 2. For calling in question the writings 
 of G. Fox, noticed in the Appeal. 3. For being Bap- 
 tized. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 The plan of the prosecution being thus agreed on, a 
 ■Committee was appointed to carry out the disownment. 
 The usual number appointed to treat with an offender is 
 two. But in my case they selected four. These were 
 John Loyd, Robert Ladd, John Ilall, and John C. Hill. 
 
 I then published my Letter of Resignation, and deter- 
 mined to claim a release from all obligationsto the Society: 
 but at the same time, I resolved to meet its accredited 
 agents, with all r.eadiness, in a full investigation of every 
 ihing they had to lay to my charge. 
 
 The Morning Meeting in London, in its document sent 
 over to the Ministers and Elders here, in order to bring 
 me under dealings, had taken, the position of bearing a 
 public testimony against the practice of baptism, as no part 
 of the Christian Dispensation. And the Elders in Liv;er- 
 pool, just before I embarked for America, sentme a note, 
 signed by five men and five women — in which, after 
 mentioning my "having submitted io the rite- of water 
 baptism," they say; "In this thou hast violated a well 
 knownprincipleof the Society,* and in our judgment, thou 
 art thereby disqualified, from any longer exercising the 
 office of a minister among us, and it is our advice to thee 
 to abstain therefrom." 
 
 Considering these official acts, and what the Meeting 
 for Sufferings had done in my absence, I determined, on 
 
 *Tbefratners of the charge sent up to the Monthly Meeting on 
 the subject of Baptism, have used the language of the Liverpool 
 Elders. 
 
13"4 Fnocr.EDiNOfi and principles of 
 
 returning home, to decline the uttendance of meetings. 
 
 1 could neither discharge the duties of a minister, nor take 
 my usual- seat in meeting, without being regarded and 
 represented by my enemies, as inTjoosjn^- upon the Society. 
 And to lay myself under any restraints in regard to preach- 
 ing, or to change my seat, would ha.ve been to exercise an 
 agency in my own degradation. And as the offence was 
 against the undeniable doctrines of the Apostles, I did 
 not think it proper to be subject, no not for an hour, in 
 that way, to those who would degrade me for holding the 
 doctrines of Christ. But I contirwed my custom of read- 
 ing a portion of the Scriptures in my family, and on fost 
 days I held these simple religiovis services at 3 o'clock in 
 the afternoon, to which many of my neighbours came.— 
 For though I had it distinctly understood that these Scrip- 
 ture readings were intended as a domestic regulation, 
 yet their sympatliy widi us in our peculiar situation, led 
 them to participa.te vrlth us, on these occasions.- 
 
 The manner "of conducting them was, to read a portion 
 of the Old Testament, and then another in the New; and 
 I usually made some comments on the passages I had 
 read. And as I felt my mind so engaged, Praj'er was of- 
 flpped, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I did not 
 introduce singing, though our hearts were often made to 
 rejoice, under a sense of the goodness of God to us. For 
 .A)eing still a member of the Society of Friends, I did not 
 wish to violate its' order any further than an irtiperioufl 
 sense of duty demanded. 
 
 On the first visit of the committee of elders, that vraited 
 " on me, on the subject of Baptism, I mentioned my con- 
 olasion to decline the attendant of meetings, and my praC' 
 tice on first day aftarnoons. All which they said they ap- 
 proved. But the Conscn'ative Friends made great ob' 
 jectioH to it ; and er>pecia,I}y to my praying, and my child' 
 ren'sA'nee/tVt^ with me on those occasions. And threats 
 ■were thrown out, of taking under dealing any memb.ers 
 who might attend. 
 
THE SOVIETV o;' i'k;em>s. 
 
 135 
 
 When my Letter of Resignation of Membership w.as 
 published, I commenced holding public meetings: which 
 have been- largely' attended: and in reference to which I 
 can say: "Hitherto the Lord hath he-lped mc." Having 
 claimed the liberty of the Gospel, 1 set out to preach 
 "those doctrines for which I had been so long persecuted 
 in the Society of Friends. The believers in Christ in the 
 ■dilFercnt denominations, gave me the hand of christian 
 fellowship, and opened their meeting houses for mc wher- 
 ever I went. 
 
 The Friends, however, were still pressing on v^ith their 
 measures, for my disownment. They were aware of the 
 sympathy which was excited towards me in the christian 
 public; and they ma,nifested an anxious solicitude to des- 
 troy it. In the Document issued by the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings, in my absence, they had charged me with making 
 statements disingenuous and imiruc. And though I liad 
 triumphantly refuted the charge, and turned it back upon 
 those who made it — so that they have not dared" to meet 
 me in their own defence, though they have been invited 
 to do so; yet they have still endeavoured to fix the charg^e 
 of falsehood upon me; to destroy both the sympathy in 
 the public mind, and the effects of the statements I had 
 made, and those -which they knew it was in my power. to 
 make. They endeavoured, too, to jn-ejadice the dther 
 societies against- me, by telling them that 1 -wrould soon 
 raise the' same difficulties among them, that "I had raisc'xi 
 among the Friends. The object plainly was, to make me 
 an outcast in religious society, shunned and hated by all. 
 But through mercy these measures have Taeen over-ruled, 
 to produce results, exactly- the reverse of those which 
 were intended. 
 
 • On the first visit of the committee, (Robert Ladd, John 
 Hall, and John C. Hill), v/e discoursed freely on the sev- 
 eral charges which had been brought against me. 
 -r-O-n the first,. I sho,ved that the .\ddress was published 
 
136 pkoji^bdiaNgs and principles of 
 
 as a accessary part of my defence, against the unjust, and 
 injurious attack which the meeting for sufferings had made 
 upon me. Tjiat attack had- Impeached my moral charac- 
 ter, in regard to the. statements which I had made in the 
 23rd number of the Repository. I had been virtually ad- 
 vertised to the world, as a mean and artful liar. This 
 was done when I was not only absent, but in a foreign 
 country. And on my return, a trial on the charges con- 
 tained in the Document, was denied me, and investiga- 
 tion before the constitutional authorities of the Society 
 had been evaded, by tlie most unworthy artifices. I had 
 no other alternative, than to appeal to the Society, and 
 to the christian public, in print. 
 
 In doing this, the -Address itself was called for. And 
 by the publication of it, I showed that the Doctrine of the 
 Resurrection,. which was so offensive, was set forth in 
 Scripture language. I proved, also, that the meeting for 
 sufferings was wrovg, in saying that it contained few or no 
 quotations from our acknowledged works. 
 
 These facts were material to my defence. And I could 
 not possibly have established them as I did, without pub- 
 lishing the Address itself. 
 
 It yras therefore most unreasonable, that I should be 
 made an offender, for publishing a necessary part of my 
 own defence — a part, too, which convicted the meeting 
 for sufferings of being in manifest error — it was a testi- 
 mony against which they have not ventured to make a 
 defence. 
 
 After I had made some free remarks on the unreasona- 
 bleness of this charge, I said to one of the committee, 
 that, as a man of sense and uprightness, I was sure he was 
 ashamed of the charge. His reply was, that he was sorry 
 that it was put in. To this the others made no objection. 
 This charge was therefore completely given up by the 
 committee, as improper to have been brought against me. 
 
 When we came to the second charge: "Also he has 
 
THE SOCIETY OF I'ltlEXDS. 
 
 written and has hatl published, a pamphlet in England, 
 "An Appeal to Friends,' which exhibits the mont insidu- 
 ous attempts to destroy our religious society, and George 
 Fox's christian character, and religious reputation, by 
 calling in question the soundness of his religious writings:" 
 I inquired of the com-nittee wha'; was the offence? Was 
 it in merely publishing the Appeal, or was it in calling in 
 question the things it contained from the Journal of Geo. 
 Fox? I told them that I thought the language of the 
 charge was clear. But I wished to know whether we 
 were agreed. For, if the offence was in the publication, 
 they would be nonsuitsd. Because it was a principle in 
 all jurisprudence, that offences were to be tried by the 
 laws which were in force where the offence teas committed, — 
 For example, a man cannot be tried in Ohio, for an of- 
 fence committed in Virginia; and when there was no Law 
 in Virginia that was violated. I showed them -that the 
 Appeal was published in England, where there was no 
 prohibition of discipline against publishing, without the 
 previous consent of some supervisory body. And besides 
 all this, it was neither printed nor published by me, though 
 I freely confessed that I both wrote it, and consented to its 
 publication. 
 
 After making some remarks on the invalidity of a 
 charge, resting merely on the publication of the pamphlet, 
 they freely and fully concurred with me, that the olfence 
 charged by the society, was for my celling in question the 
 things to which the Appeal related. In fact, it is impos- 
 sible to give the language of the charge any olher mean- 
 ing. 
 
 When we had agreed thus far, I took up the Appeal, 
 and read George Fox's Letter to Oliver Cromwell; in 
 which he calls himself "/Ae Son of God" and says: "My 
 kingdom is not of this world." And I asked them if they 
 were prepared to show that I was wrong, in calling such 
 language as this in question? Robert Ladd asked, if the 
 
 vS 
 
138 
 
 rUOCEEDINtih AM) FHlNCiri.Ks 01 
 
 Scriptures did not speak of sons l I answered — "True — 
 But does not the most ignorant believer that you can find, 
 know the difference between the term, "a son '' — and "i/ie 
 Sot," which is appUcable only to the Lord Jesus Christ?" 
 John C. Hill said, he did not suppose that George Fox 
 knew the difference. 1 said, "If you admit that he did 
 not know that difference, or mean zi-hat he said, you must 
 admit, at the same time, thaj; he was not moved by the Lord 
 to soy it. And if he was not moved by the Lord, as he 
 said he was, he was under a delusion.'''' J. C. Hill replied^ 
 that he would rather believe that he was under a delu" 
 sion, than to believe that he meant what he said. I an- 
 swered: If you grant this, we are agreed. But then you 
 are not acting in conformity with your appointment; for 
 you are appointed to treat with me for calling in question 
 the soundiirsi of these things. You must remember, too, 
 that you have no right to find out meanings for George 
 Fox — it is the icritings, that the society has determined to 
 defend, and you are to take them as they are. 
 
 I then read the Letter of Margaret Fell and others to 
 George Fox: and remarked to them — that they were ap- 
 pointed to treat with me for calling in question the sound- 
 ness of these things, and I wanted them to set about it* 
 
 John Hall remarked, that they did not know that "them 
 papers" were George Fox's. I told him if they knew 
 nothing about it, ihey were of course incompetent to say 
 any thing. But apart from that, the meeting had raised 
 no objections to the genuineness of the papers before us, 
 and it was not for them to do it. The meeting, in fact, 
 had fully admitted their genuineness, in recognizing them 
 as the writings of George Fox, and in making it a disown- 
 able offence to call them in question. For in their zeal to 
 defend the character of George Fox, they had entirely 
 forgotten to make the distinction between what he wrote 
 himself, and whai others wrote to him : and included the 
 whole under the general tenns of "his religious writings.' 
 
THE SOCIKTY 01' FRIEMDS. 
 
 139 
 
 I showed them that these papers were directly blasphe- 
 mous: and that the Society had made it a disownable of- 
 fence to call those blasphemies in question! that Quaker- 
 ism, in fact, was to stand or fall with them. 
 
 After remarking at some length, on these things, and 
 showing the monstrous absurdity of them, I asked them if 
 they had any thing further to say, why I should not have 
 called them in question? But they had nothing to say. 
 
 We then passed on to the subject of Baptism. John 
 C. Hill appeared to be relied on for this part of the busi- 
 ness. And he began to ask me some questions about the 
 use of Baptism. I told them that they had come to discuss 
 the subject in a business point of view. I was charged 
 with having violated a well known principle of the Soci- 
 ety. And 1 Inquired for the Discipline on which I was to 
 be tried. They confessed that there was no discipline in 
 the case. 
 
 J. C. Hill remai'ked, that there was no discipline to dis- 
 own a member for joining another religious society. I 
 replied. That is true, and there is no need for any. For 
 in such a case, the individual wishes to leave the Society, 
 and it is a matter of agreement betw'een the parties. 
 
 J. Hall replied, that they should suppose that any one 
 that had acted as contrary to the views of Friends as I had 
 done, would wish to leave the Society. But, I answered, 
 you are as wrong in your supposition, as you are in your 
 doctrine; for when I received baptism, I did not wish to 
 leave the Society. 
 
 I still pressed them for the rule by which I was to be 
 judged, and wanted to know if it was the mere ivill of the 
 ruling members — and showed that if this principle were 
 admitted, the rights of individuals would be open to inva- 
 sion — and the greatest improprieties might follow. 
 
 They had, in the previous conversation, expressed their 
 belief in the Scriptures: and I asked them for a rule of 
 Scripture to justify their proceedings. Where did they 
 
1 tO PROCEWrnxct: AND PUINCIPLKii OF 
 
 find in Scripture, that the receiving of Baptism was a 
 cause of disoicnmcnt, or even of disunity, in the Christian 
 Church? J. C. Hill, to whom the question was particularly 
 addressee!, confessed that Lhere was nothing of the kind to 
 be found in the Scriptures. And he wen-: on to say, that 
 he did not believe that the receiving of baptism would 
 hurt any one, and he was sorry that it was put into the 
 charges. The others were entirely unable to sustain the 
 charge as a drsownable offence, nor do I recollect that they 
 attempted to do it, from Scripture, from discipline, or from 
 reason. And thus the third and last charge was left, in 
 fact, given up — one of the committee wishing it had not 
 been put in, and the others having nothing to say. 
 
 Instead of mailing any sort of candid representation 
 of the case, to the Monthly Meeting, they made a long 
 Report, as it appeai-s, prepared by some other hand for 
 them, in which they said, in a phraseolog}" that is very 
 common on such occasions, that I was not in a suitable 
 disposition to condemn my de\'iation, or something equiv- 
 alent to this: and then went on to take up a number of 
 new charges. 
 
 To this E. Harris, one of the overseers, objected, as 
 contrary to the disciplirie. He said that the Yearly Meet- 
 ing had decided, that no acknowledgment should be re- 
 ceived by a monthly meeting, for any charges which had 
 not regularly come through the Preparative meeting. 
 And if they went on to disown, on charges thus intro- 
 duced by the committee, the meeting in future would 
 have no right to receive any acknowledgment from me, in 
 order for my reinstatement in the Society. 
 
 This argument, however, had no weight against taking 
 up the new charges. They were received, and three oth- 
 er persons were added to the committee. These were. 
 Dr. Isaac Parker, James Steer, and Evan Hurford: The 
 tv/o first being Elders. 
 
 On the first day of the 4th month, several of this com- 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FUIEIVDS. 
 
 Ul 
 
 mittcc called upon inc, without having Aiinished me 
 with a copy of the new charges, or even notified me of 
 the time they intended to come. 
 
 To such proceedings I objected in decided terms. I 
 told them that it was altogether a matter of condescension, 
 to meet them at all. And after the surprising course they 
 had taken, it surely was as little as they could do, to 
 furnish me with a copy of the new charges, and notify 
 me of the time they intended to call upon me. It was 
 then agreed that wc should meet again on the 14th of the 
 month. On making this arrangement, I told them, that I 
 was determined it should be a thorough investigation oi 
 all the charges; and that for this purpose, we would ad 
 journ from day to day, if necessary, for a month. 
 
 Before we parted, I told them, I should ask them, when 
 we met again, Whether the p;vNf?p/e which the Society 
 said I had violated, in receiving water baptism, was in 
 force in the time of the apostles or not? And I stated it 
 then, because I wanted them to take time, and be pre- 
 pared to answer it correctly. 
 
 They gave me the following paper, as the Report which 
 they had made to the previous meeting: and as the mi- 
 nute of that meeting. It will be observed, however, that 
 it has neither address, signature, nor date. It has not 
 one single line, in the character of a minute of the meet- 
 ing. It carries on the face of it no evidence of having 
 ever been before the meeting. They presented no doc- 
 ument to show whatthfc nrieeting wished — nor the appoint- 
 ment of the new members of the committee — nor the con 
 tinuance of the old. The following is an exact copy: 
 
 "The Committee appointed to treat with Elisha Bates 
 report they have had an oppertunity with him and find 
 \ipon examination of the case, he has in one of his essay s 
 in his repository falsely charged the meeting for sufferings 
 of Ohio Yearly Meeting with being opposed to the doc- 
 trine of the Reserection a,nd the day ©f Judgment: and 
 
U'2 
 
 PR.OCEEBINQS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 in another he charges erfoneously the society with being 
 inveterately and extensively opposed to evangelical doc- 
 trine, and to the preaching of faith in Christ, and says the 
 society is holding up their own writings as standards of 
 doctrine, more immediately binding on us than the scrip- 
 tures, he has also published various pamphlets without the 
 consent of the Meeting for sufferings, in violation of our 
 discipline calculated to promote discord and disunity in 
 tlie society. 
 
 He has recently sent in his resignation of right of mem- 
 bership which we propose read in this meeting. His 
 writings and general conduct clearly manifesting that he 
 has not unity with the society." 
 
 I have followed the original in punctuation, «Stc., that 
 I might not be charged with having made alterations. 
 
 It turns out, that this paper contained neither the min- 
 ute of the meeting, nor the report of the Committee. — 
 The facts drawn from them on their last visit were briefly 
 these — That when they met on the morning of the month- 
 ly meeting, to agree on a report, a paper for that purpose 
 was presented by one of their number, and accepted. — 
 But on my inquiring if it was written by that member, or 
 by some other person, they refused to answer the ques- 
 tion — saying it was none of my business. On inquiring, 
 if the paper they had given me, contained a true copy of 
 that which was adopted by the committee as their report* 
 and as such presented to the monthly meeting, they con- 
 fessed that it did not. On asking what were the changes 
 which had been made in it? they affected to be unable to 
 define v^'hat they were. On inquiring who had made the 
 changes, they seemed to be much at a loss for an answer. 
 I asked them if tJuy had done it? They answered, No» 
 I inquired if the meciing had altered it, or authorized its 
 being altered? They replied that it had not — and thus 
 they left the matter. The result of these disclosures is 
 the proof that they consented to be the mere toob of other 
 
THE ^ociiri Y or fkikmjs. 
 
 143 
 
 persons, who directed what they should do, and what they 
 should say. 
 
 The time ol' nreeting arrived: and I thought it proper 
 to have some friends present, who had personal knowledge 
 of some of the matters connected with the charges. I 
 had given them to understand this, when the appointment 
 was made, and had let them know that I thought proper 
 for Benjamin W. Ladd to attend. This was the more 
 necessary, as he had denied saying that "the writings of 
 our Early Friends were something that had risen up be- ^ 
 tween us and the Scriptures, and we must hot go beyond 
 iAem;" which I w^as prepared to prove he did say. I had 
 accordingly notified him to attend. He called at my 
 house, in the morning, before the committee arrived: 
 and after, sitting a few minutes, he went off, remarlc- 
 ing that he had a little business to attend to in town, 
 1 told him, he would of course return — to which he as- 
 sented. 
 
 The time appointed for the meeting of the committee 
 was 10 o'clock. But they did not come till 1. They 
 were, however, in the neighbourhood, consulting with 
 different persons, as I was informed — and among the rest 
 with B. W. Ladd. At 10 o'clock, five of the committee, 
 Robert Ladd, John Hall, James Steer, Evan Hurford, and 
 J. C. Hill, came to my house. The first thing they did, 
 was to object, in positive terms, to having any person 
 with us, except my own family, and my son-in-law Horton 
 J. Howard. I told them that 1 wanted witnesses to 
 prove certain facts, which were material in the case. 
 They said they did not want to have much to say; but 
 just to have an opportunity with me alone. I let them 
 know that if they did not intend an investigation of the 
 charges, I wished to have nothing further to say to them. 
 But if they would go into a fair investigation, which had 
 been agreed to in making that appointment, I would 
 waive my claims to having witnesses present, at that time. 
 
ill 
 
 ruOCliliJUNGS AND I*iHi\CIPLES OF 
 
 The friends whom 1 had sumnioucd to attend to give evi* 
 dence, if necessary, were requested to withdraw, but not 
 to leave the house. In the course of the afternoon, the 
 committee proposed that B. W. Ladd should be sent for. I 
 told them that as soon as they would admit other witnesses 
 to be called in, I was willing that B. W. L. should be admit- 
 ted. But this they would by no means agree to. And 
 this objection to the presence of witnesses, was tenaciously 
 maintained, till they broke up, in confusion, in the even- 
 ing. In the mean time, B. W. L. went home: and the 
 next morning, when the committee met, no objection was 
 made to the company of witnesses, or even of spectators, 
 of which several attended. 
 
 I mention these facts to show the sort of management^ 
 to which the committee and their advisers, resorted. 
 
 When wc proceeded to business, I called for the min- 
 ute, under which they were acting: but they produced 
 none. I then entered into the inquiries already noticed, 
 in regard to the paper which they had given me as their 
 report, when we were together before. 
 
 I then inquired why they made no report to the Month- 
 ly meeting, on the old charges, — but introduced other 
 charges, which had not been before the Preparative meet- 
 ing? The only reason they gave was, that they thought 
 it right. I wanted to know if it was not to lose 
 sight of the old charges, without saying any thing about 
 it? To this they gave no definite answer. 
 
 I asked them what were the reasons, so far as they 
 knew, for taking up the first charge, relating to the publi- 
 cation of the Address? The reason given was, that it 
 was contrary to Discipline. I inquired if they did not 
 know that this rule of discipline has been violated in the 
 publication of "The Friend," "The Defence of Friends,'' 
 (an 8vo. vol. published anonymously by Friends of Phila- 
 delphia, during the Hicksite controversy), and sundry 
 Pamphlets published by Friends of Philadelphia? And 
 
had not thr.y themselves, disregarded, and virtuall)' bro- 
 ken, the Rule of Discipline, by receiving and counte- 
 nancing some or all of those publications? The commit- 
 tee made no reply to the first-part of the inquiry— r-but 
 J. C. II. remarked, that there was no discipline against 
 reading such things. But I inquired further^ "Is it ax- 
 cording to order for a member to support a religious peri- 
 odical relating to our doctrines, &c., that is not published 
 under the supervision of the Meeting for Sufferings?" 
 The answer by J. C. II. was: "I do not think it would 
 be." 
 
 After some remarks on .the unfairness of the attack 
 which was made upon me by the Jdeeting for Saiferings — 
 and of the evasion of an investigation of . its document, I 
 asked:. '-Was it reasonable that I should have submitted 
 Jrire Refutation of the Document of the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings-, to that meeting itself, for revision?'' To this ?io 
 answer could be had. They sat mute, till I was tired of 
 waiting, and went on to another subject. 
 
 When we passed on to the 2nd charge 1 sa:id : 
 
 "The Committee are requested, each one, distinctly to 
 say, whether they are disposed to treat with mc as an of- 
 fender, for calling in question tlie language used in George 
 Fox's Letter to Oliver Cromwell, and in the Letter of 
 Margaret l^ell and others to George Fox, "and in the Let- 
 ter of M. Fell to J. Naylor, and in Ann Curtis's. Letter to 
 G. F., and in Thomas Lowers' Letter to George and 
 Margaret Fox?" 
 
 Janjes Steer said. They were there to treat with me 
 for calling them in question: and he, was sorry that I 
 called them in question. John C. Hill appeared to be 
 alarmed at this answer, and entered his di.«sent from it: 
 but without giving one of his own. -James Steer then 
 added: "I dont think those things would do now." Evan 
 Hurford said he hardly thought they were George Fox's 
 papers. "If they were, he was cither a fool or a mad- 
 T 
 
14(5 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PHlNCIPXfiS Or 
 
 man." But he thought it could be proved that he was 
 neither. On finding that I had written down his answer, 
 (for I not only did it before them, but read their answers 
 for correction), he begged me not to retain it. But I told 
 him it was too good an answer, and too creditable to him, 
 to be spared. 
 
 Robert Ladd would give no answer to the Question, 
 but said: "It was wrong in me to look up all those old 
 writings and publish them, Avhether they were their wri- 
 tings or not." 
 
 John Hall had nothing to say. 
 
 Q. "Do you think that those who cannot defend the 
 language of those letters, as sound and proper, can con- 
 sistently censure me for calling them in question?" 
 
 James Steer answered for the committee, that I was 
 taking them beyond their limits. 
 
 Q. "Do you think that those who regard these letters 
 as capable of no defence, and as reproachful to the Soci- 
 ety, can maintain that the writers of them, at the time 
 of writing them, were moved by the Lord, or under the 
 influence of the Holy Spirit?" 
 
 Evan Hurford replied, that his answer was conclusive 
 on that: and that he had nothing to say to it. 
 
 Q. "Do you not admit that those persons, in some of 
 their claims of revelation, or of being moved by the Lord, 
 were under a delusion?" 
 
 To this no answer could be obtained. 
 
 Embarrassed, and not knowing what to sa}', it was not 
 to be expected that they should treat with me, as they 
 had been appointed to do, for calling in question the 
 soundness of the writings before us. And after having 
 given them ample opportunity for the purpose, or for 
 extricating themselves from the difficulty they were in, 
 if that had been practicable, I proceeded to the third 
 charge, which says: 
 
 "He acknowledges himself to have submitted to the 
 
THE SOCIETY or FRIENDS. 
 
 rite of water baptism, and in this he has violated a well 
 known principle of our Society/' 
 
 I recurred to the notice I had given them two weeks 
 before, and said: "Will the committee say, whether that 
 principle (which the charge asserted I had violated,) was 
 in force in the time of the Apostles or not f 
 
 James Steer answered: "We need not go so far back. 
 We need not go back further than the rise of our Socie- 
 ty." No objection was made to this, and it was written 
 <lown as the answer of the committe — and the result of 
 two weeks consideration and consultation. 
 
 I asked: "Then was it a principle of Primitive Christi- 
 anity?" 
 
 To this no answer was given. 
 
 After waiting sometime, I proceeded: "Will you show 
 how this charge does not a-pply to the Apostle Paul, who 
 both received and administered baptism; and to the Apos- 
 tle Peter who commanded it, both to Jewish and to Gen- 
 tile Converts; and to the other Apostles who concurred 
 in its being so commanded; and to the Apostolic Church, 
 in which it was practiced — as fully, and as censoriously 
 as it applies to me? Was not their practice as irrecon- 
 cileable to the principle in question as mine?" 
 
 To this no answer was given. 
 
 Q. "Can you show by Scripture that the practice of 
 Water Baptism was ever laid aside in the Christian 
 €hurch?" 
 
 The answer was given by James Steer In these words: 
 *-Very short. Pass over that as easy as thee can." 
 
 Q. "Do you admit that the Apostles were authorized 
 to introduce Baptism into the Christian Church, or were 
 they in erfor in introducing it as they did?" 
 
 Ans. "The committee were not appointed for that. It 
 is not a fair question." 
 
 Q. "Is it lawful to call in question either the authorit;y' 
 of the Apostles, or the doctrines ^vhichthey taught?" 
 
148 
 
 PROCEETONnS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 ■ Ans. "Wc were not appointed to answer such ques- 
 tions." 
 
 Q. "Can any Society liave a valid claim to the cliris- 
 tian character, that makes it adisownahle oiFcnce for its 
 mwibers to obey the commands, and follow the example 
 of the Apostles?" 
 
 A long pause was made, but no answer given. 
 * Robert Ladd being one of the present committee, and 
 having been one of the committee of eldel's that waited 
 on me on the subject of baptism: I made the following 
 statement as a question: 
 
 . "You know that these three charges were -shown to the 
 company which was called out of the Monthly Meeting 
 in the 1st month; and bj'them agreed to, as the ground for 
 disciplinary proceedings. Did notDr.Parker,RobertLadd 
 and Samuel Barber, on the preceding evening, in the ca- 
 pacity of a committee from the meeting of Ministers and 
 Elders, acknowledge to me: 1. That Baptism was prac- 
 ticed by the Apostles: 2. That there was no evidence in 
 Scripture that it was laid aside: 3. That the subject was 
 now open for examination by the Society: 4. That the 
 question must be decided by the Scriptures: 5. That if 
 Baptism could be proven by the Scripture, the Society of 
 Friends ought to adopt it: 6. That acting conscientiously 
 as I did, I was not only not to be blamed for being bap- 
 tized, but that I would have been to blame if I had not 
 been baptized ?" This was read with pauses at its sever- 
 al divisions, and agreed to by Robert Ladd.* 
 
 Q. "Will- you reconcile these concessions with the 
 steps taken the next day, in declaring it to be a violation 
 of a well known principle of the Society, and in bringing 
 me under dealings, in order to my disownment'for it?" 
 Robert Ladd said he thought "it unreasonable for me 
 
 * Dr. Parker being present the next day, Ihe etateraent vvas rea4 
 to him and agreed to by him. 
 
TIIR SOCIETV OF FHIENDK. 
 
 149 
 
 to go so con Lrarj to the views of the Society, and yet to 
 expect to continue in tlic Society." 
 
 Q. "Did uot John C. Hill in the fu st A isit paid mc by 
 this committee admit: 1. Th;it Baptism was practiced by 
 the Apostles and early christians: 2. That there was no 
 evidence in Scripture, that the receiving of Baptism was 
 ever a cause of Disownment, or even of disunity in the 
 Apostolic Church: 3. That he did not believe that the 
 receiving of Baptism would do any one. any harm: 4. 
 And that he was sorry the charge was taken up ?" 
 
 These sentiments were admitted. 
 
 But the next day he wishcdj the statement no. 4. to he 
 altered to read as follows: "And that should not have 
 taken that up against mc.*' On waiting this down, he 
 v>ished to add the words: "Especially in the form it was 
 in.*' On asking him if he "would make it a matter of 
 disownment?" he replied that he "was not prepared to 
 say positively." 
 
 Q. ''The committee will now say whether the charge 
 rests upon the views of Early Friends — or on the views 
 of the Apostles, as exhibited in the doctrines and practices 
 of the Church, under their teaching — or in other words, 
 on the testimony of the Scripture?" 
 
 James Steer replied, that I had "adopted something 
 different fromany thing that has ever been in owr Society." 
 
 Considering further questions on this subject unneces- 
 sary then, I proceeded to the i?fport, which the committee 
 had made to the preceding Monthly ?vlecting, and to no- 
 tice the new charges contained in it. 
 
 Q. "Did the examination of the case, of which you 
 speak [in the Report] take place in the visit to which you 
 allude'? Was the Repository brought before us during 
 that visit?" 
 
 Ans. "No; it was not." 
 
 Q. "Where do you find in the Repository, the charge 
 which you say I have made against the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings?"' 
 
 « 
 
150 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PHTNCIPLES OF 
 
 The committee referred to the 23rd no. of the Reposi- 
 tory; and that part of it in which, speaking of presenting 
 the,^ddresx io the Meeting for Sufferings (See Refutation,) 
 1 said : '-Tiio Address was decidely opposed, and after 
 various proceedings and discussions, it was Avithdrawn. — 
 The opposition was to the Resurrection of the Dead, and 
 the Day of Judgment, set forth in Scripture language ," 
 &c. 
 
 To this I repHed: "You know that I hEtve said in the 
 ^Refutation,' p. 7, that I neither said nor intended to say, 
 in the 23rd no. of the Repository, that the opposition 
 which was made to the Address in the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings, was 6^ the meeting — but on the contrary , that the 
 Address was withdrawn ; and so the meeting did not come 
 to a formal decision upon it. Robert Ladd, and Dr Par- 
 ker were furnished, each with a copy of the Refutation 
 •on the evening before the Monthly Meeting in the 1st 
 month. Do you consider notwithstanding all this, that 
 the opposition which I stated to have been made to the 
 Address ui the meeting, should be understood as made 6^ 
 the meeting?" 
 
 ■ Robert Ladd, (a member of theMeeting for Sufferings,) 
 said, "the Address was opposed in the Meeting, by the 
 most who spoke upon the subject." 
 
 On my inquiring if he remembered any objection made 
 In the meeting, to the Address, on any other subject than 
 the Resurrection and Day of Judgment — he replied that 
 he did not. 
 
 Q. "Do you Avant. proof that such an opposition as I 
 stated in the 23rd no. of the Repository was made, or do 
 you admit that it was made?" 
 
 On this question they would neither admit it, nor refuse 
 to admit it, nor allow- me to bring in witness to prove it, 
 nor refuse to allow me that privilege. I think I never saw 
 men more completely confused than they were. And 
 thej broke up, without agreeing to any thing — evea 
 whether we should have another meeting or not. 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIE.XDS. 
 
 151 
 
 1 had given them to understand, that I considered they 
 had gone out of their way, to charge me with falsehood — 
 that I was resolved not to submit to the charge — and they 
 must either formally retract it, or liave it examined by the 
 testimony of witnesses. 
 
 The committee broke up, and John Hall and James Steer 
 quitted without ceremony. But Robert Ladd, Evan Hur- 
 ford, and John C. Hill remained behind, to tell me that 
 they did admit .that the opposition was ma<je, as 1 had 
 stated. I told them they were not then in a committee 
 capacity, and I insisted on a formal retraction of the 
 charge. 
 
 On this they went off, and in about half an hour, James 
 Steer called to tell me, that they would be there the next 
 morning at 8 o'clock. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The next day, that is, 4tb mo. 15Lh,Dr. Parker, Robert 
 L'add, John C. Hill, and James Steer attended. The Dr. 
 remarking that he could not stay long, I wished to em- 
 brace the opportunity of asking him some questions; which 
 were as follows: 
 
 "Did Dr. Parker ever say to me — 1. That the doctrine 
 which I held of the Resurrection and Day of Judgment, 
 was the doctrine of the Scriptures — 2. That it would 
 finally prevail in t!ic Society — 3. But that we must wait 
 till some of the old ignorant ones died off?" 
 
 To which he answered — 1. I don't know that lever 
 did^but I don't doubt that I did; for I fully believe 
 it. 2. I dont doubt that in the least. It does now as far 
 as I know. 3. I can't tell. I might have used the ex- 
 pression." But on being more closely pressed, he ad- 
 7niUcd that he did say, that we must wait till some of the 
 old ignorant ones died olF. 
 
 Q. "Did Joshua Lynch ever say to Dr. Parker, in refer- 
 ence to the doctrine of the Resurrection which I preach- 
 ed; 'That you elders ought to siop such preaching?' " 
 
 Ans. "I do not remember the particular expression 
 which he used, but I remember his expressing dissatisfac- 
 tion." 
 
 Q. "Does not Dr. Parker know, that there was an ex- 
 tensive dissatisfaction' with me, on account of my preach- 
 ing that doctrine?" 
 
 Ans. "If we take the sentiments of people from what 
 they say, we must know it. But I believe it was not ex- 
 tensive." 
 
Tlli: SOCIETV or riUKM):-. 
 
 153 
 
 (I. "-Does not Dr. Parker know that Willi;un Flanner 
 wasopposcd to the doctrine?"' I waited some time, but re- 
 ceived no answer. On this I remarked to the Dr. t'.iat I 
 shoiihl consider silence, as admitting the aflinnative. — 
 IVith this understanding we went on, and 1 gave the fol- 
 lowing names: "William Wood?" No answer. 'Jacob 
 Branson?"' No answer. "Jacob Holioway?" Ans. "I 
 do!i't know his sentiments." "Joshua Ljnch?" He referred 
 to his former answer as to him. "Benjamin Hoyle?"'* Ans. 
 "I don't know what to say. I don't remember any thing 
 particular about him." "Jacob Ong!" Ans. "Jacob Ongt 
 said somitliing, but I don't knov/ what it was." 'Benja- 
 min W. Ladd?"' Ans. "I am sure I don't know what to 
 say." 
 
 Q. "Dost thou not know, that certain prominent indi- 
 viduals, hold that the Day of Judgment, and the great 
 Day, is the day of each one's death?" 
 
 Ans. '•! don't remember that any one has made that ob- 
 servation to me." 
 
 Q. "Did not William Wood j)!-each that doctrine at 
 Short Creek meeting in the presence of several other min- 
 isters? And did an overseer of Mountpleasant meeting^ 
 speak to thee on that subject?" 
 
 Ans. "Well, I guess he -wont preach it any more." 
 
 Q. "Dost thou know that he has abandoned that opin- 
 ion?"' 
 
 Ans. "I can't tell any thing about it. I have never- 
 heard any thing of it since." 
 
 The other parts of the committee now put in to tell me, 
 that they.had agreed to something that would render these 
 inquiries unnecessary. This related to the retraction of 
 the charge, on which they had broken up in confusion, 
 the evening before. It was then proposed that they 
 
 *B. Hoyle objected to the Address in very decided terms. 
 fJacob Ong said he "had attended the meetinurs of Friends [I 
 think 47 years] and never heird each docirine before". 
 
 u 
 
should retire to have a consultation among themselves. — 
 At first Dr. Parker refused to go with the other part of 
 the committee, remarking that it was something in which 
 he was not conccrnedc But they avouM not go without 
 him; and he consented to go — taking charge of the report 
 of the committee. After a short conference they return- 
 ed and agreed to retract the charge, which I wrote down 
 in the following words: 
 
 "The committee refer to the statement made in the 
 Refutation, that I neither said nor intended to say, that 
 the opposition to the Address in the Meeting for Suffer- 
 ings was bz/ the meeting, or in other words, the act of the 
 meeting. And on this ground, they agree to retract the 
 charge contained in the Report, that I had falsely charged 
 the Meeting for Sufferings, with being opposed to the 
 doctrine of the Resurrection and Day of Judgment." 
 
 This, after some conversation wa^ agreed to by tlie com- 
 mittee and myself, as a full refraction of the charge. I 
 told them it was m.ateria! that the reference should be 
 made to the Refutation, because a part of the committee 
 that presented the Report to the Monthly Meeting, had 
 been furnished with the Refutation two months before 
 that Report was so presented — and therefore were in 
 possession of my explanation. It was material loo to re- 
 tain the words, ^hieither said jior,'^ because I did not say in 
 the 23rd no. of the Repository^ that the opposition was 
 the act of the meeting. I M as decided too that the word 
 retract should be in the written statement: because I 
 would accept nothing short of a DETRACTION. 
 
 One of their number, J. C. Hill, had cavilled on the 
 words referred to — or several of them — but the others 
 agreed that I was right, and the statement v.bich I had 
 written for their conclusion was correct. And one or 
 two of them used some arguments to convince J. C. Hill 
 that he was wrong. 
 
 After some conver;-atiou on the manner in which the 
 
THE :oi'jFTY or fritnue:. 
 
 155 
 
 Report was oiiginally prepared, and on the alterations 
 which had been made in it, as already noticed — we pro- 
 ceeded to the second charge contained in it: that "iti 
 another [essay] I had charged erroneously the Society with 
 being inveterately and extensively opposed to evangeli- 
 cal doctrine, and the preaching of faith in Christ." 
 
 They read parts of the Address in the concluding num- 
 ber of the Repository, as the ground of this new charge. 
 In that Address I said: "The re-action which has taken 
 place in the Society, and the t'earful relapse into Hicksism, 
 has been the work of a wily and unwearied enemy. — 
 And now one of the rnoit dangerous symptoms of that 
 relapse, is a confidence that those who so lately testified 
 against that heresy, cannot now fall into it. Factu are 
 stubborn thing;. The most palpable doctrines of Kicks- 
 ism are now, in print, declared to be the doctrines of 
 Friendi. And never — no, never — during the bitterest 
 time of that controversy, were evangelical doctrines so 
 extensively and so inveterately opposed, a3 they are no 
 I was a v>'itness of the worst of those times. I bore the 
 heat and burden of that day. And 1 knc%v well v/hat it 
 was. And I say again, and am prepared to sustain the 
 statement by a reference to facts— th'eit there never was, 
 within the range of my acquaintance in th" Society, at 
 that period— so wide spread — co decided — and so crush- 
 ing an opposition to the doctrine of J'ustificaiiou by Faith, 
 and other doctrines, inseparably connected with it, as 
 there is in the Society at the present time. The unkind- 
 nesE, the extensive plan, and the perseverance in it, to 
 put down the preaching of Faith in Christ, which rs now 
 going on among us, never was equalled, by those we deno- 
 minate Hicksites.' 
 
 AVhen the committee had referred to this passage, as 
 the ground on which they had made the charge under con- 
 sideration, I appealed to their own knowledge of facts, in 
 piy own ca-e, ar-. tuUy juitifying the statement I had made. 
 
loG 
 
 rr.ocF.F.niNcs and rmxcipi.r.s or 
 
 I was placed, however, in a singular posiLlon. Tiie com- 
 mittee, as it a,ppeared, yielding themselves as the instru- 
 ments to other hands, had taken up a paper which had 
 been prepared for them, as their report: and containing a 
 set of new charges. But in doing this, they had become 
 my accusers, while they held the office of mv Judges. 
 Instead of standing as impartial persons, investigating 
 charges brought in an open, and regular w ay by others, 
 and which the accused party had had the opport"'Jnitv of 
 meeting in the previous stages of the business, they occu- 
 pied the position of accusers, (directed indeed by others), 
 and sitting in judgment on the charges vv-hich they them- 
 selves had brought against me. In a court of Iiaw> a Judge 
 w ould not sit, in a case in which he had been a party, or 
 even an advocate. But in the case before us, the com- 
 mittee were the accusers, and the judges, in their own pro- 
 secution. And having consented to place themselves in 
 this position, by the adoption of the Report, it was not to 
 be expected that any defence which could be made, would 
 be regarded. 
 
 1 reminded them of the leading features of the Hicksite 
 separation, and of the small number of those called Ortho- 
 dox Friends, who were prosecuted for their principles by 
 the followers of E. Hicks — and I compared wiih these, 
 the cases which I knew of Evangelical Friends, who had 
 been brought into difficulty by the present Conservatives. 
 They themselves had knowledge of some of these cases. 
 In regard to myself, I had always readily obtained liberty 
 to travel as a minister, during the contest Avith the Hicks- 
 ites; and when travelling, with a few exceptions, I had 
 been treated with personal civility. But now I had been 
 persecuted for more than four years, by private defama- 
 tion and public hostility. I mentioned cases of personal 
 insult, and of official indignity w^hich had been practiced 
 upon me, from London to Indiana. With all the freedom 
 with which I handled the subject'- of the Hicksite contro- 
 
TiiK .socinrv OF rRii:\ris, 
 
 vci'Ny, the friends of Elias Kicks had never l>rought nic 
 under dealings. Bii( now I was on the point of being dis- 
 owned, by the Conservatives; and the committee, and 
 every body else acquainted with l.l>c sul)jcct, know per- 
 fectly well, that it was for the doctrines which I held, 
 and which they were afraid 7iow openly to call in question. 
 And more than all this, the Conservatives had actually 
 employed my former professed intimate friends, as the 
 active agents for my execution. I told them that thry, in 
 the Hicksite controversy, and in the beginning of these 
 difficulties, had professed unity with me. They knew 
 the hostility that had been manifested tovi ards me, and 
 they knew the grounds of it. And 3'ct they could now 
 lend themselves as the instrumcnis for effecting my dis- 
 ownment, for the maintenance of principles which they 
 themselves had acknowledged to be correct. 
 
 I then mentioned cases of official, and unofficial action 
 on sundry friends in England. But the committee refused 
 to admit cases in tl)at country, though the article to which 
 ihey referred vi as written there, and had direct reference 
 to the state of the Society in that country as well as in 
 this. I then mentioned the opposition which had been 
 made to Jonathan and Hannah C. Backhouse, while on 
 their visit in this country — an opposition known to have 
 arisen on account of the doctrines which tlicy sometimes 
 held — and more especially on account of their efforts to 
 promote among our members, the study of the Bible. — 
 Knowing the morbid sensibility which existed in the So- 
 ciety on this subject, they had adopted a plan of Scripture 
 study, which directed the a.ttention almost exclusively to 
 the historical parts of the Old Testament. And yet, so 
 great was the opposition to this, that this scripture study 
 was pronounced by a prominent minister of this Yearly 
 Meeting, to be worse than Hicksism. And th.it minister, 
 still standing, not only in unity, but high in esteem here, 
 had refused an interview with H. C. B., who requested it 
 
pRorRF.myos PRiNf iPLE-; or 
 
 when she aLLcmlcd tlie Yearly Meeting at MounLplea-;ant 
 in 1835. 
 
 I referred to the course which hail been pursued to- 
 wards Rebecca UpdegrafT, a minister of Short Creek 
 Montlily Meeting, on account of the doctrines which she 
 was understood to hold. I mentioned the paper which 
 B. W. Ladd got up, and had it signed by the ministers 
 and elders of the other two monthly meetings, to stop her 
 from performing a religious visit, after she had been libe- 
 rated by the Monthly and Quarterly meeting. And I 
 asked Dr. Parker, who was well acquainted with this bu- 
 siness, If he ever knew such a proceeding in the Society 
 before? He replied, It was a new thing to him. 
 
 On the subject of the doctrines involved in these pro- 
 ceedings, I reiTiinded them of w^hat theykn^io In regard to 
 the opposition to the doctrine of the Resurrection, Justi- 
 fication by Faith, Prayer, and the conclusive authority of 
 the Scriptures. I read a part of George Jones's Tract, 
 called, "An Incltation," (to which I have already refer- 
 red), and asked the committee, if they acknowledged thi'? 
 to be consistent with the true doctrine of Faith in Christ? 
 Dr. Parker answered, that he should not hold up such 
 doctrine as this.* 
 
 I mentioned the Interview which I had with Charles 
 Osborn, William Hobbs, James White, and John Poole, 
 In which a most decided opposition was made, and that 
 gratuitously, to the doctrine of J. J, Gurney on Justifica- 
 tion. I read two letters from Sarah Grubb, (a prominent 
 minister near London), and my answers — the prominent 
 subject being that of Faith in Christ. I related a dis- 
 course which I had with a prominent minister in England, 
 in which he declared that it was no justification that a 
 doctrine was the doctrine of the Scriptures — for the doc- 
 trines of the Scriptures were not the doctrines of Qua- 
 
 * And yot. Ihiis doctrine is openly vindicated in print by one of tlie 
 committee of London Yearly Meeting. 
 
159 
 
 keiibiii— Lhat Quakerism consisted in a certain modifica- 
 tion of the doctrines of religion, a particular view, which 
 particular view, George Fox had by revelation and not 
 from the Scriptures — that he did not believe a knowledge 
 of (he doctrines of Christianity was necessary for the 
 salvation of Cornelius, or that the faith of Abraham was 
 faith in Christ. I mentioned another prominent minister 
 who declared in my hearing, in a large public meeting, 
 That the work of the true ministers in all ages had been, 
 to turn people from every external thing, to Christ Jesus 
 revealed in the secret of the soul. I told them of another 
 that I had heard, warn Friends not to put too much de- 
 pendence in the sacrifice of Christ — and on another occa- 
 sion, in a large public meeting, he said, By grace ye are 
 saved — and this grace in the heart is the true Saviour — 
 there are not hvo Saviours* And the blood by which we 
 are sanctified is the Spirit. I mentioned the prayer which 
 I had heard delivered in a meeting of ministers and el- 
 ders — that "that Book called the Bible, might not be 
 made an idol." 
 
 I read Thomas Evans's Letter to me, dated 7 mo. 25, 
 1835— his Letter to B. W. Ladd, 4 mo.. 25, 1835 — men- 
 tioned B. W. Ladd's declaration to me, before B. Wright 
 and Dr. Parker, that tlic writings of our early Friends 
 are something that has risen up between us and the Scrip- 
 tures, and we must not go beyond them. — I adverted to 
 the preaching of certain ministers, who j)lainly rested .Jus- 
 tification on works — &c. And noticed the dissatisfaction 
 which was raised by the article called my Vindication. 
 
 In making these statements, I told the committee, that 
 if they would not admit them in evidence, I would be at 
 the trouble of collecting testimony from London to Indi- 
 ana. They told me they did not call them in question. 
 
 On the charge contained in the report, relating to the 
 standards of doctrine, I referred them to the article in the 
 Friend, upon that subject: and to other things, of a cor- 
 responding chariicter. 
 
IGO 
 
 When I had presented ihcsc fact:>, Dr. Parker confessed 
 that I had given more evidence of the opposition to 
 Evangelical doctrine :uid Ihcpreaching of Faith in Christ, 
 than ever he had thought of before. This was assented 
 to hy the other part of the committee. AVhen 1 read the 
 note I had made of his concession, he added— that it was 
 from a quarter that he had not thought of. 
 
 They have charged me also with publishing Pamphlets^ 
 calculated to promote disunity and discord in the Society. 
 I inquired of them, what vrere the pamphlets, and what 
 the point of doctrine to which they alluded? I told them 
 I had published but three — which I named. They said 
 they alluded to two of them. I remarked that they were 
 virtually included in the first charges: and asked why 
 should they charge them again? They admitted that the 
 charging of them again was redundant. 
 
 The committee having made a sort of general accusa- 
 tion, in the conclusion of their Report, I asked — "Why 
 did you make, in the conclusion, a vague, indefinite charge 
 against my writings and general conduct,. to stand upon 
 the records, without specifying Avhat the grounds of dis- 
 satisfaction were? AVhat did you mean?" John C. Hill 
 replied, "that they meant nothing but the pamphlets." — 
 "Then [I said] you have chaiged them not only twicc,'b\it 
 three times." 
 
 In conclusion, I appealed to the committee, that they 
 knew how devotedly I had served the Society, on all oc- 
 casions; not regarding the sacrifice ofmy time, my health, 
 my business, and domestic comforts, whenever the Society 
 called for my services: that in the late contest, 1 had 
 maintained the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and the 
 great doctrines of Christianity, Avhich they contained. — 
 And now it was for the same principles that I had been 
 pursued, with unrelenting persecution for the last four 
 years and a half. It had been for the Word of God, and 
 the testimony of Jesus Christ. And I reminded them of 
 
'I'lIK SOUJETV 1)1' IKiK.NUri. 
 
 161 
 
 the agency wiiic-h they, my former reputed friends, had 
 h.id.in these proceedings; and endeavoured to make them 
 sensihlc of the extreme hardness of mj- case. I showed 
 them how determined, how violent, and how contrary 
 to the rules of discipline, the measures against me had 
 been. And I called their attention to the fact, that they 
 had completely failed to support the charges, or any of 
 them; and that they were bound, in common uprightness, 
 to retract the whole of them. They were not at liberty 
 now, to take up the Letter of Resignation, and accept it. 
 Having treated that Letter as they had, and determined to 
 prosecute me on the charges,, for my disoicnmcnt, when 
 those charged had failed, they v. ere bound to acquit mc. 
 The Monthly Meeting should now do mc an act of simple 
 justice, for injuries which had been inflicted upon me. — 
 And the Meeting for Suirerings also, should retract its 
 Document. 
 
 According to all the rules of regular and orderly pro- 
 ceedings in such cases, when a prosecution cannot be sus- 
 tained, the defendant is permitted to stand again, in the 
 full enjoyment of the privileges v.'hich he would have ei - 
 joyed, had tlie prosecution never taken place. But w^aiv- 
 ing this undeniable right, I told the committee, that if 
 the meeting would do me the simple act of justice which 
 I had mentioned; 1 would be willing to meet them in a 
 calm and friendly conference, to sec if an accomodation 
 could not be effected. I stated that I did not wish to leave 
 the Society. But if the difficulty were adjusted, it must 
 be on the plain doctrines of the Scriptures — as resting 
 on the authority of God himself; without admitting an ap- 
 peal to any other authority whatever. 
 
 They heard me with patience. They asked for no ad- 
 ditional evidence in support of the defence I had made. 
 They had nothing to say in support of the charges. But 
 seemed heartily glad that the interview w as coming to a 
 conclusion. 
 
 V 
 
162 
 
 rKOCEEDIiNGS A.ND PKINCIFLES dp 
 
 Thev made a Report to the Monthly Meeting, with 
 —which I have not been furnished: but which was designed 
 to result in my disownment. They proposed however 
 that the charge,. which they had retracted^ should be drop- 
 ped — not on the grounds to which they had explicitly con- 
 ceded, but, as they said, because I had denied intending 
 to charge the Meeting for SufTerlngs. In this proceeding 
 there was a direct breach of faith. But notwithstanding: 
 all this, it was put into the paper of disownment. 
 
 On receiving the Report of the Committee, the meet- 
 ing concluded that I ought to be disowned, and a com- 
 mittee of three persons was appointed to inform nre o# 
 this conclusion, and to prepare the document for the pur- 
 pose. These were Dr. Parker, James Kinsey, and Elisha 
 Bracken. — The two first declined seeing me on the sftb- 
 ject, and sent Elisha Bracken, who, to do him justice, was 
 more candid and; reasonable in his remfa'-I's, than some of 
 his predecessors had been. When heinfornied me that he 
 was directed to let me know the judgment of the nieeting 
 in my case ; I asked him, oir wllat charges had the Bffeet- 
 ing delermincd to diso^wn me? lie repHed that h^e could 
 not tell! I then gave him a brief history of the inter- 
 views.! had had with the committee— with which he 
 seemed much surprised — and said they had not represent- 
 ed the case in that Ught to the meeting. I told him that 
 I thought it was great injustice, both to me and to the 
 meeting, for the reports to have been given as they had 
 l)een. 
 
 i touched briefly on the several charges which had been 
 made against me, and the results of the investigation oi 
 them. When I came to that of Baptism, I reminded him 
 that the Apostles undoubtedly commanded it — that it was 
 the practice of the Church, and never laid aside in the 
 Apostohc a^e. And then I inquired — "Suppose it were 
 possible, to transfer the Apostle Paul into the Society <rf 
 Friends, just as he was in his life time, would you notdis- 
 
THE socirrv or rniENDs. 
 
 163 
 
 own /t/m, on tlie ground you have taken w ith me?" He 
 paused awliile, and then repHed, th;it he supposed they 
 vvould ! ! ! 
 
 The following is a copy of tlie Paper of Dlsownnienl : 
 
 "Elisha Bates has written and published, contrary to 
 4iscipline, Sundry articles or pamphlets relating to our 
 religious principles and testimonies calculated to excite 
 disunity and discord and containing unfounded charges 
 against the meeting for Sufferiugs and our religious Not 
 jciety in matters of faith and doctrine alledging erronui- 
 pusly that our Society is inveterately and extensively op- 
 pQsed to evangeFical doctrines and to the preaching faith 
 in christ and says the society is holding up their own writ- 
 ings as standards of doctrine more immediately binding 
 on as than the scriptures, he has insidiously attacked the 
 christain character and religious writings of George Fox, 
 he has also departed from our christain belief oi the one 
 essential and saveing baptism that of the holy Spirit by 
 submitting to the cerremony and use of \vater, in a comr 
 munication which he forwarded to this Meeting in th 2nd 
 month last tendering the resignation of his right of mem- 
 bership, he further evinces that he is not in unity with 
 us and haveing been treated with, endeavours to Justify 
 him self in the course he has pursued again; t the society 
 and manyfesting no disposition to condemn his deviation 
 we there fore testify against his said conduct and disown 
 him from being a member of our religious society, never- 
 theless we sincerly desire he may be favoured with a true 
 Sence of his present condition and become prepared to 
 condemn his late course of procedings to the Satisfaction 
 of friends and to the peace of his own mind 
 
 Signed in and by direction of Short Creek Monthly 
 Meeting held 23rd, day of 5th month 1837 
 
 NATHAN HALL elk'' 
 
 From this document it will appear, that the three ori- 
 ginal charges are, in substance, retained — though, in some 
 
IGl 
 
 rROOEHDINGS AM) PRIXriri,T3<5 OF 
 
 degree, moJified in form — and thai the matters contained 
 in the Report, are also included, even that v/hich the com- 
 mittee formally agreed to retract. The Society held de- 
 termined on the grounds of its prosecution, and was hot 
 to be turned fi om them. It was to no purpose to show 
 to their appointed agents that a charge was not true, or 
 that another was not actionable by the Discipline, or that 
 one was absurd, another a vindication of Blasphemy, and 
 a third an open attack upon the Apostles, and on the 
 whole Christian Church. Like a wheel in a deep rut, 
 they could not turn on either hand, but must be dragged 
 on, or stick fast. 
 
 The whole proceeding was commenced contrary to tlie 
 provisions of the Discipline. 
 
 The first charge was ridiculous in the extreme — as it 
 ostensibly made the oflence to consist in publishing the 
 Address, without the revision of the Meeting. for Suffer^ 
 ings — when I was driven to the necessity of publishing 
 it, in my own defence, against the Meeting for Sufferings. 
 It is the mor€ absurd, inasmuch as it convicts the Meeting 
 for Sufferings of h.aviug made a statement, vticrly at vari-. 
 ancr with the facts of the case. 
 
 The second charge, without discipline — makes it a dis-- 
 ownable offence to call in question the soundness of G. 
 Fox's religious writings. This is virtually claiming infal- 
 libility for him — and establishing a precedent, that forever 
 seals the lips of the members of the Society, in regard to 
 whatever G. F. said or did. Those who are in power, or 
 in favour with those who arc, may feel themselves secure 
 from danger. But the precedent is settled, in making it a 
 disownable offence to call in question the soundness of G. 
 F.*s religious writings: and any man, hereafter, may be 
 taken up and disowned, for objecting to any thing con-' 
 tained in G. F.'s religious writings. But while this ground 
 is taken, the Scriptures are called, in the writings of Early 
 Friends, a corrupt stream, a nose of zvax, a Lesbian Ifulcy 
 
TIIK SOriETV OF FRIRM).':. 
 
 1€5 
 
 &r. — and now, the popular ministers arc publicly de- 
 claring, that the Apostles did not understand their com- 
 mission,* 6lc. But the application of this precedent, not 
 only meikes it disownablc to call in question the published, 
 but unpublished writings of ii. F.: and those which, taken 
 in the plain and literal meaning of the words employed, 
 contain blasphemy. The charge was not for giving the 
 writings a construction^ for they were given as the writers 
 had left them, and allowed to speak for themselves. It 
 was not therefore a forced co7istruction, that I called in 
 question, but the letters themselves, taken in the common 
 meaning of the terms employed by the writers. So then, 
 if G. Fox's writings contain the grossest Blasphemy, it is 
 disownablc to call it in question — the very existence of 
 the Society depends on maintaining it. The com- 
 mittee appointed lo treat with me, could not deny that 
 the Letters in question did contain Blasphemy. 
 
 The third charge arrays the Society against the Apos- 
 tles and the whole ('hristian Church. Instead of insist- 
 ing, as some of the Early Friends did, that Baptism had 
 ceased in point of obligation, and that the disuse was not 
 to be condemned, by those who still practiced it — they 
 come out now, in making it penal, and carry back the 
 censure for the use of it, to the Apostles themselves. I 
 ask, has any Society using the christian name, ever taken 
 such high, presumptuous ground ? 
 
 There is no possibility of making a valid defence for 
 the disuse of Baptism, but by proving that it was not in- 
 cluded or intended, in the commission given by Christ to 
 his disciples, after his Resurrection. And this cannot be 
 done, but by proving that the apostles did not understand 
 the commission. For the manner in which they carried 
 that commission into practice is undeniable. If, then, 
 the Lord Jesus did not intend Baptism in the common ac- 
 
 * Tliis was said by J. Hubbard, in tlie Ciuartcrly Meeting at 
 j\Joiintpleasant, in the 5 mo. 1837. 
 
rUOf'KEUINfiS AND TRINCIPLES OV 
 
 ceptation of the word, the apostles were mistaken : for 
 they caused it to be adininislorcd in that sense; and com- 
 manded it, as distinctly //t the name of Jesus C7i?-/i7, as they 
 did Ripcniuiice. Had they his authority for ])reaching 
 Repentance, as they taught it? No one will deny this. 
 Had they his authority for comynanding the converts to ho 
 baptized, as they did command it? If they had, all dispu- 
 tation on the subject is at an end. If not, the apostles 
 were in a serious error. For they did not introduce Bap- 
 tism as an inditXerent thing — a mere condescension to the 
 prejudices of the new converts, — no — they commanded 
 it — Rppent and be Baptized every one of you, in the name 
 OF Jusus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
 receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. — And they that gladly 
 received his zuord were baptized.'''' No man in his sober 
 senses, can deny that the apostles introduced it, and not 
 the converLs — that it was done with apostolical atithorily, 
 iuid not as an indifferent thing — that it was rested on the 
 authority of .Jesus Christ, as fully as the command to 
 repentance was. Were the apostles -mistaken, or not? — 
 Certainly they could not be in error — not only from the 
 opportunity they had of knoAving from Cdirist hmiself, 
 what was the meaning of the term — but because they 
 were, on the Day of Pentecost, filled with the Holy 
 Ghost — and spake us the Spirit gave them vtlerance. To 
 charge them with error, in what they then said and did, 
 is not merely to impeach the apostles, and whole body of 
 the church then assembled, but to charge the Holy Ghost 
 with error: for agreeably to Christ's own words, it wag 
 not they that spoke, but the Spirit of God that spoke in 
 them. 
 
 But while the Lord Jesus commanded Baptism, with- 
 out any thing to turn it from its simple and obvious mean- 
 ing — while the Apostles, under the extraordinary influence 
 and direction of the Spirit, commanded it, in that sense, 
 and claimed the authority of Christ for doing so — while th^ 
 
TH13 SOCIKTY OF FlllEi\US< IGT 
 
 i)elicvci s,'*every one," of them received ilon that ground^ 
 and die. praciicC) prevailing universally in the Church was 
 continued through the Apostolic age, and descended, with 
 undiminishing force, to the immediate successors of the 
 Apostles — the Friends have made it a cause of disown 
 ment from the Society. Where now is their claim to 
 Primitive Christianity Revived ? So far from its being Re-- 
 vtvcrl, they inflict upon those who dare to revive it, the 
 highest penalty which is known to the Discipline. 
 
 The charges contained in the Report — made out by 
 someone behind the screen; were taken up altogeth- 
 er out of order, in the first place. One of them was re- 
 tained in direct ^violation of a written agreement; I suc- 
 cessfully defended myself on every point — and the com- 
 mittee, beaten on their own grounds, were unable even to 
 defend themselves, for having taken up such accusations! 
 They had all the evidence that reasonable men could de- 
 sire, to prove that I had ample grounds for all that I had 
 said, to which the. objections were made. 
 
 But they saw that if this prosecution failed, I should 
 stand once more at liberty in the Society. And on what 
 other grounds could they attempt to disown me? It was 
 plain that if these charges would not do, tliey must come 
 at last, to the great doctrines on which the dissatisfaction 
 begun, and which were at the bottom, through all. But 
 they dared not to meet me upon these. On the contrary, 
 the most unworthy methods were practiced, to induce an 
 opinion that they never were dissatisfied with me upon 
 those points. Even on the subject of the Resurrection, 
 on which they had blown the Society into a flame, they 
 have tried to make it appear that they never denied the 
 doctrine which 1 held. The document of the Meeting for 
 Sufferings, carries this complexion on the face of it. 
 
 They knew that they were defeated in this attack. But 
 they knew also, that they, would fare no better in any oth- 
 er they could contrive. And as they had determined to 
 
1(38 
 
 rUOCKEBINGS AND PlimCirLES 01' 
 
 Disown me at all events— they concluded it would be a^ 
 well to do it after one defeat, as after tivo, or a still larger 
 number. 
 
 But if they dropped the present prosecution, two in- 
 ferences must follow — -First, That George^Fox and his 
 friends must be admitted to be wrong, and thus the very 
 Foundation of the Society would be loosened. . Second, 
 That the members were at liberty to follow the Apostles, 
 where the Early Friends differed from them in doctrine 
 and practice. This would, at once, be taking the Key 
 Stone out of the Arch of their Peculiarities; and it would 
 not require the gift of Frophcy to foretel the conse- 
 quence. 
 
 Let the revelations of (?eorge Fox and his Friends be 
 called in question with impunity, and the foundation of 
 the Society will begin to give way — hence the official acts 
 of the Society represent the calling of the old Letters in 
 question, as "an ^ns^Q^^^o^^s ft//empi to destroy the Society." 
 Let Baptism and the Lord's Supper be resumed, and a 
 prominent part of the superstructure will already be in 
 ruins. And therefore, though they had no Discipline in 
 either case, though they were, or would be, completely dis- 
 graced before the Christian world — yet rather than incur 
 the risk of consequences, they determined to persevere. 
 
 But I ask, will not these things tend to open the eyes of 
 the better part of the Society ? Will they consent to be 
 blinded by such proceedings? They must see that there 
 has been, on the part of the ruling members, a departure 
 from Discipline, and from all fair dealings. They must 
 see that I have been injured — persecuted — defamed, and 
 finally disowned, while I was able to defend myself on 
 every point, though they had appointed a committee of 
 seven to treat with me. They must admit, also, that I 
 have truth and sound doctrine on my side. Wherever 
 matters of fact have been brought into discussion, I have 
 triumphantly refuted every charge that has been made 
 
Tlli; SOCIETY OF I'RILNDS. 
 
 'on my vcraci<y. And on the point of doctrine, for whicli 
 I have been censured, even the committee themselves have 
 admitted, that the censure applies as fally to the Apostles 
 themselves as to me. How then can any one evade the 
 conclusion, that the Society has unchristianizcd itself — and 
 that Quakerism and Primitive Christianity, are utterly at 
 variance. For surely, to use an ulil adage, the rule must 
 work both vs^ays. If Quakers disown Christianity, Chris- 
 tians must disown Quakerism. If Quakerism will disown 
 a man for conforming to the doctrines and examples of 
 the Apostles and early Christians — Christianity must re- 
 ject the peculiar views of Quakerism — from wliich suck 
 results have proceeded. 
 
 It has been my wish, that the feeling excited among the 
 members of the Society, by these transactions, may not- 
 be of a personal or party character. It is not against 
 persons, in this view, that I wish to raise objections — but 
 against the principles and their natural fruits, which are 
 found among the Friends, that I have endeavoured to give 
 a faithful warning. 1 have not endeavoured to form a 
 party around m3'self, but to point them to Christ Jesus, 
 the Holy Head of the Church; and to that blessed order, 
 which he established in his own house. 
 
 If the Frie«ds are wise,, they will be wise to themselves, 
 and if they scorn, they aloue shall bear it. It is for their 
 benefit, not mine, that I have set before them the corrup- 
 tions, both in principle and practice, which are found in 
 the body of which they are members, and for the official 
 acts of which, they must be responsible, in some degree, 
 so long as they are thus identified with it. 
 
 . I am quite aware that majft/, very of the mem- 
 
 bers of the'Society, most heartily disapprove the measures 
 which have recently been pursued by the Conservatives — 
 and know and lament the maintenance of the principles 
 from which those measures have arisen. And while they 
 occupy this ground, without the least compromise, or con- 
 
»'ROCEl;i>IAc;s AM* l KI.\tirLES Of 
 
 cealmtni of their real sentiments, 1 can most tenderlv 
 sympathise with them'; But they must bear two things in 
 remembrance. That the true Christian can make no 
 compromise with that which is evil. He should neither 
 unite with it, norsmn to unites And further: That there 
 is alimit, beyond which, connection with an unsound body 
 beco-mes criminal and iiighly dangerous. "Come out of 
 her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and 
 that ye receive not of Iier plagues." 
 
 When any Associate Body, by its official acts, becomes 
 decidedly unsound, and plainly, .and openly opposed to 
 Christianity, as exhibited in the doctrines and practices 
 of the Apostles, connection with that body becomes ex- 
 tremely dangerous, if not directly sinful. 
 
 I have known some individuals, who in the commence- 
 ment of these difficulties, saw that the predominating 
 party were wrong. But observing the strong current 
 which was running in that direction, concluded to go a 
 little with that current, that they might not entirely lose 
 their injlucncc, and the opportunity of doing good. But 
 in a very short time they were going thoroughly with the 
 ruling party, and became the active agents of carrying 
 their plans into execution. People must not attempt to 
 do evil that good may come; They must not give up the 
 cause of Christ, nor seem to do it, in order that by some 
 nrianagement, they may, either underhandedly, or at some 
 future time^ pi omote it more successfully. 
 
 I know, that the sound members of the Society are sc 
 much in the minority^ and have so little influence, that 
 they cannot arrest the present course of proceedings. 
 But they certainly could bear an open testimony against 
 it. They may not be able to prevent the Society from 
 taking, as it has done, a position totally irreconcileable to 
 the doctrine and practice of the Apostles — but they can 
 search the Scriptures, and give practical evidence of their 
 sense of the obligation of the doctrines therein contained^. 
 
TUB SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 171 
 
 They may possibly think, it is in vain for them to contend 
 against the general current. But they ought to be faithful 
 in their own practice. But this is not all. For as the 
 candle is not lighted to be put under the Bed or the Bush- 
 el — neither ease nor advantage should induce them to 
 relinquish the full amount of influence which they might 
 be able to exert, for the spreading of the Kingdom of the 
 Redeemer, and the gathering of souls to him. 
 
 The love of ease, and the attempt to establish peace, , 
 upon a false and rotten foundation, never can lead to any 
 happy results. We cannot suppose that God will always 
 suffer corruption to be covered up, in the bosom of a high- 
 ly professing Society. And however painful the opera- 
 tion may be, the Society must prepare to have its ulcers 
 probed to the bottom. Nor should they think it unne- 
 cessary, if the knife should be applied, to open some of 
 those more hidden receptacles, in which offensive matter 
 has long lain, pent up, and concealed from superficial ob- 
 servation. As in the human, so in the social system — dis- 
 ease must prey upon the very vitals, so long as corruption 
 lies any where concealed in it. It must all be discharged, 
 before there can be any radical cure. 
 
 For the Society, in its official character, I confess I have 
 no hopes of a reformation. I think its character is fixed, 
 and will go with it to the grave. How long its existence 
 may be protracted, is not for me to pretend to determine. 
 But all who are acquainted with it, know perfectly well 
 that it is on the decline. And causes for that decline are 
 constantly increasing. However the older members may 
 regret to let go their hold on the Society of which they 
 are members — with education and intelligence increas- 
 ing among the young people — with the knowledge which 
 they and the christian public will have of the position 
 which the body has taken — we cannot expect that the 
 next generation will feel and act as their fathers have 
 done. 
 
172 
 
 rROCEEDINOS AND miNCIPLKR OF 
 
 The results of its History show to every dispassionate 
 person, that tlie Society of I'riends is not designed by the 
 Great Ruler of the Universe, to be the nucleus, on which 
 the Church General is to be formed. Taking the nunri' 
 hers, which are pretty clearly ascertained to have been 
 included in the Society in the year 1G60, and the natural 
 increase of population would amount to t:m times the pre- 
 sent number, both of Orthodox and Ilicksitcs. Taking, 
 then, the whole amount of proselytes into the account, 
 the Society has not retained more than one tenth of its 
 own children, during the last 175 years. How then 
 should it gather other churches into it? And much less, 
 should it evangelize the world. 
 
 But it has heretofore been understood, that while the 
 labours of missionaries sent out by other societies, have 
 been abundantly blessed- — Friends could not send mission' 
 arics. Their prculiar vinos forbid it. And though the 
 Yearly Meeting of London has, in some sort, encouraged 
 missionary visits, at greal expense^ yet compared with the 
 success of others, it has resulted in a failure. But this is 
 not all. For with all their zeal for meliorating the condi- 
 tion of the African Descendants, (which has been lauda- 
 ble), and with the advantage of the opportunity of instil- 
 ling their principles into the minds of the coloured people 
 under their care — few, very few, have ever been induced 
 to join the Society. 1 could not count up one dozen, of 
 all that have ever become members. The case of the 
 Indians, is not less striking than that of the African de- 
 scendants. No people have stood higher in the estima- 
 tion of the Aborigines of this country than the Friends. 
 But with this advantage of infhicnce, and with an almost 
 constant intercourse with them for the last 150 years, and 
 several stations maintained among them at the expense oJf 
 many thousands of dollars, there never has, so far as my 
 information has gone, been made one prosolyte to the So' 
 tiety of Friends: while the labours of other societies 
 
THE SOCIF.TY OF FUIF.NnS. 
 
 173 
 
 Ii.ivc hecn l)Icsscd, in l)iinf;ing many of these children of 
 t'lc wilderness, to the Faith once delivered to the saints. 
 
 These faets must he admitted to speak a very solemn 
 language. Taken in connection with tlie proceedings 
 and principles examined in this volume, they show that 
 there is a deeply seated malady in the hody — that tlie 
 seeds of this disease were sown in its very formation, and 
 the fruits luive been almost continually developing them- 
 selves. Sentiments of the most objectionable character, 
 are found not only in the unpublished writings of the 
 Early Friends — disclosing what were their real modes of 
 thinking — but also in their printed works. The extrav- 
 agances of the followers of James Naylor, and we may 
 now class the followers of George Fox with them, show 
 the pernicious tendency of the erroneous views they en- 
 tertained of divine revelation, and of the indwelling of 
 Christ in man. The views of Wilkinson and Story, in 
 opposing the establishment of any system of Church 
 Government, on the plea of the sufficiency of the guidance 
 of the Light within, was but the carrying out of the ori- 
 ginal principles of George Fox and his coadjutors. The 
 heresy of Hannah Barnard, and that outbreaking of Uni- 
 tarianism, (to use no stronger term), which swept over 
 the Society in Ireland, like a deluge, about the beginning 
 of the present century, were defended by the writings of 
 the Early Friends, and especially by Penn's Sandy Foun- 
 dation Shaken. These same writings have been fruitful 
 of mischief down to the present day — and with a know- 
 ledge not only of the General history of the Society, but 
 of many of the particular p<'issages in the writings of our 
 Predecessors, which have stumbled the minds of hun- 
 dreds and thousands of the members of the Society — the 
 Yearly Meeting of London has earnestly recommended 
 those writings, without any exception or any caution; 
 and the Meeting for Sufferings of Ohio has declared the 
 Poctrinal Treatises in which all tliose unsound passages 
 
174 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 are contained, to be in strict accordance with the Holy 
 Scriptures, and to give a clear view of the true Christian 
 divinity ! 
 
 In the mean time, God, in his over-ruUng Providence, 
 is shaking the Society from the centre to the circumfer- 
 ence. The corruptions which have been covered up in 
 it so long, are opening out, the dangerous delusionswhich 
 possessed the very Founders of it, are coming to light — 
 the high claims which have long been made to superiority 
 over every other denomination of Christians, are sinking 
 before the discovery of facts: and the unworthy conduct 
 of those who now direct the affairs of the Society, gives 
 farther evidence of the badness of that system from which 
 it proceeds, and which it is designed to uphold. 
 
f 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 As the "Appeal holds a piomineiit place among the 
 charges on wliich I have been disowned, so likewise it 
 holds a prominent place in the feelings of the Conserva- 
 tive Friends. The disclosure of the papers of George 
 Fox has filled them with indignation; while many sound 
 friends, feel an inexpressible mortification, in deriving 
 their religious views from a man who was evidently the 
 subject of a most extraordinary delusion. As soon as /Ac 
 Appeal reached the hands of the conservatives at Mount- 
 pleasant, it was made the foundation of a prosecution, in 
 order for my disownment, for attempting, as they said, to 
 destroy the Society and G. Fox's Christian character, and 
 religious reputation, by calling in question the soundness 
 of his religious writings. 
 
 But it was not enough, in their estimation, to make it a 
 matter of disownment, to call in question any thing that 
 G. F. said or did. Many persons confidently denied the 
 genuineness of the papers published in the Appeal. It was 
 represented as a base forgery, and as such demanding 
 the reprobation of all respectable people. ^ Others, who 
 could not be persuaded that the papers were a forgery, 
 severely censured the exposure of them, while in doing so, 
 they fully admitted the disgrace that was attached to 
 George Fox and his most intimate friends — and to their 
 successors in religious profession. And all the blame 
 which they bestowed upon me, for the disclosure of real 
 facts, passed over with increased weight, to G. F. and 
 Early and modern Friends. 
 
rUOCEEmiMGS AIVI) I'RINCIPLES 01' 
 
 This perplexing and, to tlie Friends, vexatious business, 
 tould not be sulfcred to remain, without further effort td 
 counteract the effects of the Appeal. 
 
 Soon after it made its appearance, the Meeting for Suf- 
 ferings in London, issued ail Epistle, eulogizing the iSarly 
 Friends, but saying nothing of the Appeal. In the latter 
 part oftheSrd month, George Richardson, one of the Con^ 
 servativcs in England, a minister, and one of the noted com- 
 mittee of the Yearly Meeting, in the case of Isaac Crewd- 
 son, wrote a pamphlet, entitled "Brief Remarks on some 
 of the charges recently made against the Early Writers 
 of the Society of Friends." 
 
 Subsequent to (his, as it would seem, another work has 
 been given to the public, by Samuel Tuke, a minister, a 
 member of the aforesaid committee, and Clerk of the 
 Yearly Meeting in London. This work is entitled "Plea 
 on behalf of George Fox and the Early Friends." 
 
 George Richardson, and Samuel Tuke, however have 
 not exactly taken either of the grounds to which 1 have 
 alluded in the beginning of this chaper; and in fact have 
 relieved me of the censure cast upon me by all three of 
 these parties. They have acknowledged the objectiona- 
 ble character of the language used in the letters; and 
 therefore they have virtually condemned the Society in 
 prosecuting me for calling the writings in question. They 
 have FULLY admitted the gemiineness of the papers; and 
 thereby they have silenced forever the imputation of for-- 
 gery. They have turned the force of their talents against 
 me, for the representation which they say I have made of 
 the views of G. Fox and his friends, and thereby they 
 have virtually released me from all blame which had been 
 cast upon me, for suffering the papers to speak for them- 
 selves. In fact, these friends have too much discernment 
 not to see, that no defence whatever could be made for 
 George Fox and his friends, on the ground that their let- 
 ters, taken by themselves, and speaking for themselves, 
 
fill: bOCiiii'Y or rRi:i:>'i»:-. 
 
 ^'erc scaucliilous. And yet tlicy have iiivolv>;cl them- 
 selves, ill no sm ill degree of contradicLion and absurditj'. 
 
 Let the reader then bear in rciTicmorancc that ti-!C gcn» 
 uincness of the papers in question, is fully admitted. 
 
 Before descending to the arguments used by these wri- 
 ters, in defence of G. Fox, I will make one remark which 
 I think of imporlance. Neither of them has done mo 
 justice in stating the plainly declared object of the Ap- 
 peal. And this is the more to be complained of, as that 
 object is spread broadly on its pages, in the commence- 
 ment, and is again distinctly referred to in the conclu- 
 sion. To state the object unfairly, is to place the zrkole 
 -subject, in an unfair point of view. Samuel Tuke begins 
 his Plea with the following paragraph: *'The following 
 pages are devoted to the consideration of two charges af- 
 fecting the character of the Society of Friends, the first 
 being against George Fox, viz: Hhat he assumed to him- 
 self aitributes which belong only to the. Divine Being:'' — the 
 second against the Early Fiiends, viz: 'that they ascribed 
 ?«ch attributes to him.' " Plea p. 1. 
 
 To enable the reader to judge of the fairness or un- 
 fairness of this representation, I will refer to the Appeal; 
 and more especially to the following passages, 
 
 ask then, where are we to find Primitive Cliristiani- 
 ty clearly and authoritatively set forth? in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, or in our own writings? If we take the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, some parts of our own writings must be given up. 
 If, on the other hand, we take our own writings, some 
 parts of the Scriptures will be virtually set aside. Should 
 this preference to our own writings be so enforced upon 
 our members, by official acts, as to subject those to censure 
 who do conform to the Scriptures, but, who, in so doing 
 deviate from some sentiments expressed in our own writ- 
 ings, then, plainly, Quakerism will be set up in opposition 
 to Christianity, and the language and authority of earlt/ 
 Friends be opposed to the language and autliority of Jesus 
 X 
 
I7S PUOCEEDlSCo XSD i'Kl.\ClPt,K6 uf 
 
 Chritt. 1 ask you, my fiiciid?, arc you prepared to laktS 
 this ground V 
 
 '•The controversy now existing in the Society arises 
 from a difference 011 the fundan^cntal doctrines of rchgion 
 but it is not confined to those fundamental doctrines. On 
 one side, the Holy Scriptures arc taken as containing, 
 the whole body of Christian doctrine as God himself was 
 pleased to give it. On the other hand, it is insisted, that 
 ti(t/ writings contain the form of doctrine which is binding 
 upon us. However speciously some may endeavour to 
 conceal the fact, it cannot be denied that a iair examina- 
 tion of our own writings by t!ie stairdard of Scripture is 
 not allowed; but, on tlie contrary, we are enjoined to re- 
 ceive the Scriptures us they are interpreted by our early 
 Friemis," 
 
 "■Now, besides the fearful discredit which is thus cast 
 tpon the Word of God, the question arises, — .Vre our own- 
 writings in full and perfect agreenieirt with the Holy 
 Scriturcs? Thi.-^, of necessity, brings us to an examina- 
 tion. To iTtakc this examination fairly, we must not en- 
 tertain the belief that our early Friends were infallibly 
 l^d by the IIol^ Spirit. Their inspiration wtis so con- 
 fidently asserted by some of them, and has been so often 
 repeated and admitted, that even the intimation that this 
 was not the case, is regarded by many as proof positive,' 
 that the individual who entertains doubts on this subject 
 is himself under a delusion." 
 
 '•Considering the impm iant bearing of these things on 
 individuals, and on the very truth of the Gospel itself, 
 how, I ask, are they to be met? The privileges of the 
 members of this society — the prosperity of the body — the 
 galvation of souls, and the honour of om- Lord Jesus 
 Christ, are all immediately concerned. To say in gene- 
 ral terms, that our early Fi lends were mistaken in some 
 things, in which they supposed they were led by immedi- 
 ate revelation, is regarded at once as evidence, that those 
 
THE sonr.Tv or frtrmd^. 
 
 179 
 
 svlvo fi.iy so arc in error. Tliis, if it, roliiled onl) (o per- 
 sonal reputation, miglit be cndin-cd. But when it bears 
 directly on things which relate to life and salvation, it be- 
 comes a serious qncslion, how far wc shall refrain from 
 stating facts, to prove, not only that our early Friends 
 "were fill lib! r, hut that, o/i some imporlnnl poinly, ihiij real- 
 ly zuerc mislnk'rn, when they confidently professed, that 
 they were taught by immdlUite. revrhilion. The great 
 mass of their writings which are still extant affords many 
 examples of the kind to which I have alluded. Sliould 
 the position be denied, this w hole mass of writings lies 
 open before us, for the collection of proof. At present I 
 shall confine myself to very narrow limits, and take only 
 -a few examples which directly, or indirectly relate to 
 George Fox. I do thisbecausc he was the Founder of the 
 "Society, and as such, demands the first place of <'onsidera- 
 tion among our early Friends." 
 
 "In venturing to take notice of the opinionr. and con- 
 duct of that very extraordinary man, I do sincerely desire 
 not to place his character in any improper point of view; 
 nor to withhold from him any of those charitable and 
 reasonable allowances wliich can jMoperly be claimed for 
 him. Ills sincerity and zeal will not be called in cpiestion. 
 Of these qualities, his deep sufTcrings, and his unweared 
 exertions, are sufficient proofs." — Jjppenl, pp. .'),(). 
 
 "Let the reader, however, reflect for a moment on the 
 depth and long continuance of his distress, and then say, 
 if it was not sufficient in ordinary cases, to have affected 
 the powers of .Judgment, at lenst on some particular 
 points? We know that it is not at all uncommon for what 
 is called religious melancholy, or gloomy and distressing 
 views of religious subjects long continued, to produce such 
 an effect." — iO. p. 7. 
 
 "This appears to have been in the year 1G^8, Avlieu 
 George Fox was twenty-four years of age. ],ci. the read- 
 er reflect for a niomenf on the juoniiiient circumstances 
 
130 
 
 mOCBEniNGS A?,'D PRINC'IPLES OP 
 
 oftlic CISC, and saj' if there is not some special allowance 
 to \>c made. Here was a youth,, with so little educatiou 
 that he could scarcely write legibly- — of a peculiar turn of 
 mind — who had passed a number of years in the deepest 
 distress, from hispeculiar views of religious subjects — who 
 at length, was carried along by an idea of extraordinary 
 revelations made immediately to himself, and with an ap- 
 parent defect of judgment on that particular subject. It is 
 evident that his imagination was powerfully excited, in 
 supposing that he had "come up in spirit through the fam- 
 ing sicord into the Paradise of God." — ib.p. 8. 
 
 '•That this was the result of an excited imagination, with 
 a v/ant of judgment on the subject of immediate revelation^ 1 
 should think very few, at this day, will venture to deny. — 
 I sincerely desire that every allowance which the circum- 
 stances of the case will admit may be made; but one thing 
 is of too serious importance to be passed over, and that, 
 is — the danger of holding the idea of having revelations 
 wiiich are not to be 'subjected to the test of the Scrip- 
 tures.' " — ib. 
 
 "I could bring forward abundance of evidence, to prove 
 that claims to revelation, and to the poicer of God, were 
 made, both by George Fox himself and by his friends, 
 which must be abandoned on calm and dispassionate ex^ 
 amination. Those papers which I have now produced, 
 and others in existence, furnish undeniable proof, that 
 there was the assumption by him, and the asci'iption to, 
 \\\m, of attributes u hit h belong only to the Divine Being. — 
 From them it is a.pparent, that we have been greatly mis- 
 taken in the estimate which we have made of the extra-. 
 ordinary c/eorness of the views of our early Friends; and 
 that the danger is extreme in suffering the views of such, 
 men to alter or pervert any of the doctrines of rehgion, aa 
 taught in the Bible."— 21. 
 
 "It is not my intention, at the present time, to follow- 
 out the inquiry respecting the frailty and fallibility of 
 
TiiK f:oc;ir:TV of rnir.\ns. 
 
 181 
 
 George Fox and liis Friends. Enongli has l)ccn adduced 
 to show that they were not only fallible bid did fail,u\soine 
 cases, when they made the highest professions of divine 
 guidance. The existing circumstances of the Society not 
 only call for these facts to he bi ought to light, as ex- 
 amples of warning to show the awful danger of slighting 
 in any degree the recorded w ill of God, and of mistaking 
 the workings of our own imaginations for immediate re- 
 velation; but also to prove, by undeniable evidence, that 
 we are not authorised to receive the views of George Fox 
 as infallible, any more than those of other fallible men. — 
 I ask, then, will you still receive his views implicitly as the 
 result of revelation, and be actually prevented, thereby, 
 from coming directly to the Holy Scriptures, in all mat- 
 ters of faith and practice?" — ib. p. 22. 
 
 These copious extracts, and others which might be 
 quoted, show the object of the Appeal. It was plainly to 
 call back the Friends to the Scriptures, as the only di- 
 vinely authorized record of the Will of God, in matters 
 of Faith and Practice — and to show that George Fox and 
 his friends were not on]y fallible, but that they did fail, in 
 some cases, when they made the highest professions of di- 
 vine guidance — and that we were not warranted to "re- 
 cieve his view^s implicitly, as the result of revelation, and 
 be actually prevented by them, from coming directly to 
 the Holy Scriptures, in matters of faith and practice." 
 
 Samuel Tuke is admitted on all hands to be a man of more 
 than ordinary talents, and high standing in the Societ}'. 
 But how did it happen that such a man should overlook 
 the c^e^/g-n of the Appeal as he has done? lam far from 
 imputing unworthy motives to him. For though I think 
 his representation is unfair, I do not mean to charge him 
 with intentional unfairness. I think, with alljiis sagacity, 
 he could see no other way of defending George Fox and 
 Early Friends, with any sort of plausibility, than that 
 which he took, And I give him full credit, as an advocate^ 
 
18-2 
 
 PROrrEniMos AND rRixriPLES or 
 
 for having m;ulc llio most specious Pica that could liave 
 been made. 
 
 But it would have lost much of its plausibility ifit had 
 shown the declared ohjccl of the Appeal to he, to present 
 conclusive evidence, that G. F. and the Friends alluded 
 to, were mhtnkrn in certain specific cases distinctly 
 brought into notice. 1 grant that the exhibition of those 
 cases, results in the conclusion that O. F. tind the other 
 persons whose letters arc given in the Appeal, judging 
 from what they said — did, on the one hand claim, and on 
 the other hand grant, to G. F. titles and attributes which 
 belong to no human being. But this is the effect of their 
 own ])apcrs, rather than the object which I had in view. — 
 Had I taken a mild or unimportant case, to show that 
 they were mistaken^ it would have produced no other ef- 
 fect on the Friends, than to have increased their confi- 
 dence in G. F. from the supposed impotence of all attempts 
 to call his views in question. It was necessary that 
 strong cases should be taken : Avhith I hoped would be 
 conclusive v/ith all persons of impartiality. But in doing 
 this, the nalurc (>/ the mistake could not he concealed. And 
 it would have been laying myself open to a most serious 
 imputation, from all intelligent christians, if I had not 
 shown that I bo'h understood the common meaning of such 
 la,ngnage as was used by G. F. and his Friends, and most 
 heartily reprobated its application to him, or to any other 
 man. 
 
 I have proven mistakes in particular cases. And the 
 Society, and the christian public must be aware of the 
 direction taken by these mistakes. 
 
 Alarmed at the obvious bearing of the language used 
 by G. Fox and others, the author of the Plea set himself 
 to work, to prove that they did not meati what they said. 
 Now, without at all admitting that he has succeeded in 
 maintaining his j)Osition, let us, for a moment, grant that 
 be has proven that they did not mean, what the terms 
 
 I 
 
TJIC SOCIUTV or l'KICNI>S. 
 
 183 
 
 ihey used, woultl in tlicir comtnon acccpUitlou coiiveyr 
 Does not every man of common sense perceive that he 
 has estabhshed, by another process, the very thing that I 
 intended to prove, by pubUsliing the Appeal? Certainly 
 if they expressed themselves in terms aa far from the ideas 
 they intended to convey, as blasphemy is from sound 
 principles — then such productions cannot be taken as of 
 authority in matters of religion. Tlie zcril/iigs cannot 
 be taken as the riyresciUutions or the (rcidcnccs of the 
 '•extraordinary c/tanimof the views of our Early Friends." 
 I ask Samuel Tuke, as an intelligent and honest man, if 
 he has not proved, (if we admit his own arguments), that 
 the writings of the Early Friends cannot be taken in the 
 common and obvious meaning of the language they used ? 
 I put this question now in the outset, and he may take 
 which horn of the dilemma he pleases. If he should insist 
 on the correctness of the writings themselves, he must aban- 
 don the whole ground of his plea — and either give up tlie 
 Early Friends as guilty of blasphemy — or vindicate blas- 
 phemy himself. If he maintains the ground he has taken^ 
 that the Friends did not mean what they said, or seemed 
 to say— he gives up their ivrilings, as a clear exposition of 
 truth. 
 
 Now, if he will prove that the Early Friends did not 
 mean any thing improper in what they wrote — and at tlic 
 same time have it clearly understood, that their writings 
 are to be corrected, ;uid taken entirely out of the way of 
 preventing the meml)ers of the Society, "from coming di- 
 rectly to the Holy Scriptures, in all matters of faith and 
 practice," I will be one among the many, that will most 
 heartily congratulate him. But the first he has not yet 
 done; and the last I presume he will not say he intended 
 to do. 
 
 But granting, as I have done, for argument sake, that 
 S. Tuke has proved that the Early Friends did not mcun 
 whfut thei/ said — and it follows, beyond all contradiction^ 
 
184 
 
 PllOUKEUl.M(i.S V.MJ rUIA'tiriiKS OF 
 
 that they were not divinely inspired at the time. But 
 here again S. T. may take his choice of difficulties. For 
 if they did not mean what they said, they could not be in- 
 spired; and if they did mean it, the claim to inspiration is 
 equally preposterous. But the ciaim to Inspiration was 
 made by the writers of both letters — that of M. F. and 
 others to G. F., and his Letter to O. C. The writers of 
 the first say: "Wc thy babes with one consent being 
 gathered together in the power of the Spirit," &c. And 
 G. F., (as the Printed Journal has it), says: "I was moved 
 by the Lord to write a paper to the Protector," «&c., and 
 '*Wlien I had written what the Lord had given me to write^ 
 I set my name to it." And the witnesses to the paper, as 
 it would seem, testify — that "G. F. was moved of the Lord 
 to give out these words following." These claims to the 
 Influence of the Spirit, arc plainly and palpably un- 
 founded. S. T. dare not say the parties were inspired, 
 in using the language which they did use. 
 
 The plea of knowing "little of the grammar of lan- 
 guage," Plea, p. 10. will not apply to M. F. and her chil^ 
 dren, who no doubt were persons of good education. — - 
 But even to G. F., to whom it docs apply — it is perfectly 
 preposterous, to advance such an idea, in a case of pre- 
 tended revelation. Shall it be said, that the man was 
 moved of the Lord to write — and he did write "what the 
 Lord had given him," and yet that he knew so "little of 
 the grammar of language," that it came out something 
 entirely different from what was intended ? Such a sup- 
 position as this, is calculated to bring these claims to 
 revelation, into perfect contempt, before all intelligent 
 men. 
 
 But the author of the Plea, and every other man of 
 sense, must admit that the writers of these letters were 
 not inspired, as they professed to be. Of course they were 
 under a delusion. Then I ask, what becomes of their 
 high claims to revelation? In the particular cases before 
 
Tiita SOCIETY or FUii;.\Ds. 
 
 185 
 
 «s, every body must see that they are given up, even by 
 their most zealous advocates. But the matter does not 
 end here. For if they wqvc under delusion in these par- 
 ticular cases, it follows, that they could not distinguish 
 true revelations, from the workings of their own imagina- 
 tions^ or the transformations of Satan. 
 
 This consequence, which I conceive must be admitted 
 by all candid persons, has a most important bearing, not 
 only on their particular claims to revelations, hut on cer- 
 tain doctrines which, it 4s well known, have marked the So- 
 ciety from its rise to the present day. I refev more par- 
 ticularly to the doctrine of the Primary Rule of Faith 
 and Practice, which is said to be inward — the Spirit, or 
 the Influence of the Spirit, immediately in the mind of 
 man. It shows most strikingly the fallacy of reasoning 
 from the infallibility of the Spirit, abstractly taken, to 
 the certainty of our own impressions. Now if the very 
 Founder oi the Society, and the most distinguished Early 
 Friends, were mistaken when the'y confidently claimed 
 being moved by the Lord, and being gathered together 
 in the power of the Spirit — how completely does this fact 
 show the danger of taking supposed revelations, as the 
 rule of faith and practice, independent of the Scriptures! 
 i say supposed revelations, for the facts before us prove, 
 that in the case of the Early Friends themselves, the doc- 
 trine, when reduced to practice, landed there— and in 
 some m.ost striking instances, in delusion. 
 
 I consider it altogether a shrinking from the prominent 
 points of the case, to go from a close and candid examina- 
 tion of the Letters themselves, to general reasoning on the 
 general character of George Fox and his Friends. It is 
 very much like the instinct of the old bird, who, well" 
 knowing the spot at which the objects of her solicitude 
 are immediately in danger— flutters on the ground to lead 
 the pursuer in an opposite direction, into the open field— 
 where, wheji the design is accomplished, she can mount 
 Y 
 
PROCEEDINGS AND rUlNCIPLES OY 
 
 into the air, and leave the pursuer to blame him&elf Im' 
 the fruitlessness 6f the chase. I shall therefwc leave S. 
 T. and his coadjutors, to- say all the excellent things they 
 can find, of the general character of G. F. and the Early 
 Friends. With such exhibitions I have nothing to do. 
 They may flutter on the ground, or wing the trackless 
 regions of the air, at their own discretion. It is with the 
 J)artlcular cases, contained in the Appeal, that 1 am im- 
 mediately concerned — and to show that the advocates of 
 G. F. and Early Friends, instead o^f invalidating the Ap- 
 peal, have confirmed it as to the genuineness of the papers 
 published in it, and the objects for which it was profess- 
 edly wntten. 
 
 But first I will remove out af the way some caviling 
 ibjections, which have been raised by these writei^s. 
 
 S. T. says: "It may not unnaturally be asked, where 
 this letter of [of M. FclFs] has been, that it has only now,' 
 after the lapse of almost two centuries, matie its appear- 
 awicc ? 
 
 "To this it may be briefly replied, that one of the de- 
 scendants of the Fell family has, it appears, in his posses- 
 sion, a mass of old papers relative to G. Fox, and amongst 
 which is a journal of many of the principal circumstances 
 of his life. There are in it several original letters, en- 
 dorsed by G. Fox, as having been filed amongst his papers. 
 The letter in question, as weU as that to Oliver Cromwelli,- 
 are of this number.'" Plea, p. 8. 
 
 Here, let the reader observe, is a complete acknow' 
 ledgment of the genuineness of these letters. George 
 Richardson, also, whchad the MSS. some time in his pos- 
 session, fully admits the genuineness of the letters in 
 ♦question. S. T. further says: "Tiiat he put the letter 
 [of M. F.] by; that he endorsed it, and that he wrote on 
 it something reUitive to the result of his return to Swarth- 
 SBore, is readily admitted." 
 
 In connection with the quotation before the last, S. T» 
 
THE ftOCiETV OF FRIENDf?. 
 
 18T 
 
 proceeds: ''It is odinillcd Lhal (liis collcrlion i-5 nol. the 
 MSS. from which the Journal as printed, was taken, and 
 no evidence is adduced to prove that George Fox placed 
 the letter where it now is, in the MSS. collection, or 
 had any other but the most private view in its preserva- 
 tion." P. 8, 
 
 To this passage there arc several ohjcctions. 
 
 After admitting the genuineness of the papers immedi- 
 ately in question, a shade of uncertainty is attempted to 
 be cast over the Manuscripts, as the Journal. As to its 
 not being that from which the Printed Journal was taken, 
 this must be evident to every one that reflects for a mo- 
 ment upon the subject — from the simple fact of the nume- 
 rous discrepancies between the two. Ikit who prepared 
 the MS. from which the printed Journal was taken? 
 ■Certainly not G. F., as 1 shall presently prove. 
 
 To the remark that "no evidence is adduced to prove 
 that G. F. placed the letter where it now is, in the MSS. 
 collection, or had any other but the most private view in 
 its preservation," it may be replied, that this alters not 
 the case, as it respects the blame which attaches both t© 
 the writer and receiver of the letter. The genuinenesi 
 of the letter is both proven and admitted: so likewise is 
 George Fox's reception of it — together with the endorse- 
 ment, and note which he placed upon it. And whether 
 the parties intended to keep these matters secret or not, 
 we see what sentiments passed between them. An unlaw- 
 ful action docs not become blameless, by the intention of 
 the parties to keep it secret. Neither docs it alter the 
 character of the Ittler to suppose that G. F. did not place 
 it in his Journal, but file it with his valued papers. But 
 the author of the Plea is mistaken, in saying, "no evidence 
 is adduced to prove that G. Fox placed the letter where 
 it now is in the MSS. collection." The fact of its being 
 a part of his Joiirnnl, is sufficient proof that it was placed 
 ibere by him. The sama objection might be made to hjs 
 
188 
 
 pitocuEDixciS VND ?it;\f>i:'i.n < of 
 
 putting any oilier paper into the collection, and so on, to 
 the whoic ofit. But iC such objections as this were al- 
 lowed, where is the manuscript in the world, tiiat could 
 be traced to any man, or Ijody of men, whatever? The 
 collection, now in the possession of one of the descendants 
 of the Fell fiimlly, is found in the form of a Book — with 
 all the marks of age, not only of the papers, hut of the 
 putting of them together. The general arrangement is 
 such as to preserve the order of dates, referred to in the 
 narrative part, and in tlie original letters. These letters 
 arc interspersed through the whole body of the collection. 
 The tradition in tlve family is, that this was the .Tournal. 
 As such it was shown to me on my first visit to London, 
 before the objectionable matters were found in it — and as 
 the Journal, it has been shown to many a stranger. 
 
 I believe that it is a rule in relation \:v> cvidencr.^ nniver- 
 sally admitted, that no kind of proof, wliich would i)e un- 
 reasonable to be expected, in the circumstances of the 
 case, is to be required. Now, I ask, what sort of evidence 
 does S. T. require to establish the fact., that this collection 
 of narrative and original letters, was the Journal pre- 
 pared by G. F. himself? Does he want somebody to tes-. 
 tify that he saw him put into that collection, with his own 
 hands, every individual paper that is in it? No: Such 
 evidence would be a refutation of itself. We have the 
 Bookm<xAe up, with all the evidences of age, necessary, to 
 carry it back to the time of George Fox. We have the 
 Tradition of the Family, in which it has been handed 
 down, as a precious relique. And we have G. Fox's own 
 hand writing upon the particular papers — by which they 
 were respectively verified by him. And in addition to 
 all this, it was in the bauds of Margaret Fell twelve years 
 after the death of George Fox — and by her, at her death — 
 at the advanced age of 88, handed down to one of her 
 daughters, who was immediately concerned in the letter 
 in question. Now I ask, what further evidence can any 
 
TiiK sociHTv OF rKii:?jns. 
 
 189 
 
 reasonable man demand, to establish the cliaraclcr of the 
 collection, as the Journal, and not as mere private papers? 
 It appears to mc to be a mere quibble — an objection that 
 can bear no serious examination. The reflection on the 
 family, and on mc, for exposing private, papers, is repelled: 
 and S. T. is called upon to prove that tliey were so — or 
 to retract the charge. 
 
 Again, S. T., after quoting from the Printed Journal, 
 the account there given of the Letter (o O. C, says: 
 "■This is his own description of the letter." But I ask, 
 where is the evidence, or even the probabiliiy, that this 
 description was given by G. Fox himself? The represen- 
 tation is materially different from that contained in the 
 MS. Journal. And who prepared the copy that went in- 
 to the hands of the printer? Not. G. F., as already ob- 
 served. It zvns the 7t>ork of Thomas Ellwood, after G. F.'s 
 death. I refer the reader to J. Wyeth's supplement to 
 Ellwood^s Life, London ed. 17G5, pp. 367, 36S: where 
 he will find the following statement: "Our dear friend 
 George Fox dying in the 11th month 1690, and leaving 
 behind him an excellent Journal of his travels and suffer- 
 ings, our friend T. Ell wood (as no body fitter) about this 
 time was at the pains of transcribing it, and fitting it for 
 the Press, (a laborious work): which was printed next 
 year, [1694], in a large folio." 
 
 Here then we have the testimony of one of the Early 
 Friends, that G. F. left, at his death, a Journal, &c., and 
 the tradition of the family in which it is preserved, says 
 that the MSS. in question is that Journal — and all the 
 internal evidence of the papers themselves, including the 
 well-known hand writing of G. F. verifying the most im- 
 portant of them, proves the fidelity of this Tradition. 
 J. W.'s testimony is conclusive, that it was T. E.'s man- 
 uscript, and not the original Journtil, that went into the 
 hands of the printer — so it was T. Ellwood's account, and 
 not George Fox's. 
 
190 
 
 rRot:T:r.r>TNOfi ano pthnciples or 
 
 J. W.'s language allows a fair inference, that T. E. 
 made imporlant changes in the Journal — in fitting it fop 
 the Press — for which no one was fdler than he. It wa^ 
 no doubt a. laborious rvork. And while 1 could pity the 
 man who had to perform it, I could neither approve the 
 freedom which was taken, nor the principle on which it 
 was conducted. I think that the Founder of a Society, 
 has as much right to hand dowii his own character, in his 
 own way, to his followers, as any man has to make his 
 own will, for the disposal of his property after his death. 
 Should there be incapacity in cither case, the Journal or 
 the Will might be set aside. But it does not appear to 
 me, to be correct, to make changes either in tho Journal 
 or the Will — and let it go to record in the name of the 
 deceased. But the idea of revising revelations i?, perfectly 
 absurd. Those who undertake the revision of things pro- 
 fessed to be by immediate revelation, virtually declare that 
 they believe the pretension unfounded. But G. Fox not 
 only made such a profession in particular cases mentioned 
 in the Appeal, but he claimed again and again to be in 
 the same spirit and power that the prophets and apostles 
 w^ere in. But it is a complication of contradictions, to 
 revise the pretended revelations of George Fox — to retain 
 the claims which he made to revelation — and then to in- 
 sist on the clearness of his views, and the authority of hia 
 opinions, as thus revised, without acknowledging the fact 
 that they are so. 
 
 But it turns out, that great liberty was taken, in revis- 
 ing George Fox'S revelations. It was not only found that 
 those revelations would not do, without passing through 
 the hands of some one that "knew [a] little [more] of the 
 grammar of language,"' than he did, but that the pruning 
 knife must be put to the revelations themselves. Why 
 else was it, that in preparing G. F.'s excellent Journal for 
 the Press, the words "George Fox who is the Son of God," 
 and "My kingdom is not of this world," were left out? 
 
THE bOCIKTY OV FKIENUS. I'Ji 
 
 If, as is said, "any candid reader of this letter, who is at 
 all acquainted with the character ol" the writer and with 
 his usual style, especially at that period, will find no diffi- 
 culty in understanding the passage in a wholly inoffensive 
 sense;" Plea, p. 5, why was so much care taken to keep 
 these expressions out of sight? 
 
 On the subject of revision, a comparison of the MS. 
 with the Printed Journal, will show, that great and impor- 
 tant changes were made. And these changes were not 
 confined to the first edition of the work. G. F. died in 
 1690; but so great was the work of preparing the Jour- 
 nal for the Press, that it was not accomplished till 1694. 
 In 1765, an edition was published, greatly changed from 
 both those which had preceded it. The two first retained 
 the cases of Witches, (in the common sense of the term), 
 which G. F. professed to discover by revelation. The 
 3rd edition left out the word zvitches, and put in wicked 
 persons — retaining all the former claims to revelation. 
 Here was evidence that the revisers believed he was mis- 
 taken in the very thing said to be revealed; and yet they 
 retained the claim to revelation — applying it to quite a 
 different character of subjects.* 
 
 * Another illustration of the difficulty of coining' at the real in- 
 tention of George Fox, by what is given to the world in print, by 
 his zealous admirers, occurs in the Friends' Library, now publiali- 
 mg in monthly numbers, edited by William and Thomas Evans of 
 Philadelphia. In that work, p. D6, the editors have given what is repre- 
 sented to be one of George Fox's old manuscripts. It relates to 
 certain bequests which he made: and ainona' the rest, a Case and 
 Bottles, which G. F. is made to say, in the Friends' Library, he 
 gave to stand in the meeting house to hold 'Hoaler ' for Friends to 
 drink. 1 have in my possession an old paper, which was preserved 
 with the Journal, but not embodied in it, in which G. F, says: "My 
 wife shall have the profits or use of Pettyes with the land as long 
 as shedsth Live, if she will, and then after her Death to ye. Lord 
 ^ Friends as ye Deed doth order of mine. And my Ebnney Bed 
 with the curtins & my great Chair & my Sea Case witli the Glasa 
 Bottles in itt. 1 doe Give to stand in the house at Pctlyes which I 
 have given for a meeting place, & ye Chairwill serve for Friends to 
 nitt on & ye Bed to Lie upon, and ye Sea Case will hold Some Liquor 
 or Drink if any should be faint." 
 
 Here let it be observed^ that the version of this bequest^ a« .qivca 
 
192 
 
 PKOCEEUINGS VXU rUI.NCirLES OF 
 
 One argument used by the advocates of G. F. in de- 
 fending him in the use of the terms the Son o f God, as ap- 
 plied to himself, is, that if it had been considered objec- 
 tionable by Cromwell, he would not have suffered it to 
 pass as he did. This however is perfectly beside the mat- 
 ter. It is not the question what Cromwell thought of 
 the expressions, or what were his motives for passing it by : 
 but whether it was corrrct. On this there ought now to 
 be no difference of opinion. That O. C. at the time of 
 the writing of this Letter, was using his utmost address to 
 attache F. to him, and his policy, is fully evinced in the 
 printed Journ.il. And if he, in carrying on an artful 
 piece of management, to promote his own schemes of am- 
 bition — gave countenance to any erroneous sentiments or 
 forms of expression in G. F's. letter, it becomes no rule of 
 decision in the case for us. 
 
 I confess that I am really surprised that the Friends, 
 in order to defend G. Fox, should even seem to justify the 
 use of the terms the Son of God, as applied to him or any 
 other man. Let S. T., G. R. and others reflect on the 
 zeal which has been displayed from the days of G. F. to 
 the present time, against the commn mode of salutation, 
 because the Early Friends and their successors thought 
 those salutation, made too near an approch to the honour 
 which belongs to God only — though every body knows 
 
 in the Friends' Library, destroys both the teller and the spiril of the 
 original. Every body who knows any thing of tlie terms in ques- 
 tion, knows that Cases were used to hold ardent spiriis. G. F. 
 thought it necessary to keep a supply of this article at the njceting 
 house, "if any should be faint." But the version of the legacy con- 
 tained in the Friends' Library — (not saying that the editors altered 
 It), puts G. F. in advance of all Temperance reform that ever has 
 been thought of. For vvho would think of keeping wa/er, boltled up 
 in a case, at a meeting house, while sorings or wells afforded a sup- 
 ply] 
 
 One word, as we pass along, on the singularity of making the 
 Lord a joint reversionary legatee, with Friends, to come in, after the 
 death of the widow, to the permanent possession of this lot of land 
 called Pettyes, containing about three acres : which seems also to 
 have been previously secured by deed. 
 
T!IE sociKi v oi' Mi:i:.\ors. 
 
 19:^ 
 
 p:;rrectly. well, t!iat tliej arc not used to express any i;hing 
 i;i the character of divine honours. Lot them alio coniider 
 what has boon said ag linstcalling theScriptur^stha Word 
 of GoJ, though in nam ?roas cases inScriptureit was used 
 to signify the message which God had sent to men. • The 
 perpetually recurring objection to this has been, tha'. the 
 term belongs peculiarly to Christ. Why should G. F. 
 have been so sensitiye in these cases, and so dull of ap- 
 prehension in the other? He could call it blasphemy to 
 apply the term thi fVord of Gj I to the Scripljiires — and 
 yet he could receive the app jlla ;ions of the Bread of Life, 
 the Fountain of Life, the Fatiier of Eternal Felicity &c* 
 &c. and could call himself not a Son, but the Son of God. 
 You may take a Iloiientoi:, or Greenlander — and if he 
 knows tha tlrst principles of the Gospol of Giirist, he v/ill 
 know that the terms the Son of God apply to t'.ie Lord 
 Jesus, and to him alone. How awfully ignorant then, 
 do the advocates of G. F. represent him to have been, 
 when he had been a preacher seven years, and had al- 
 ready gathered a, large Society! But such is the plea 
 which his ablest advocates are making for him — such the 
 extremities of the case — either to sufl'er him to be reput- 
 ed a blasphemer, or makeiiimoul: consummately ignorant. 
 But in either case, his authority as an inspired teacher is 
 gone. 
 
 8. T. observes, page 2, that the charge against G. F. 
 and that against the Early Friends are almost inseparable. 
 And yet he say, pp. 8,9, in regard to Gsorge Fox, "I 
 must utterly deny that there is one tittle of evidence that 
 he approved the olFensive expressions in this Letter. He 
 doubtless knew ho'.v to distinguioh between enthusiastic 
 feeling in new converts, leading to extravagant expres- 
 sions and grossly misapplied Scripture terms, and the im- 
 pious ascription to him of that which belongs to the Lord 
 of Life alone; and there is no reason whatever to doubt, 
 that the least idea of such an ascription would have drawn 
 Z 
 
 I 
 
l&l PaOCEIiyiNliS .'..NI> I'JtTNi.IPLES OF 
 
 from liim the indignant cxciannation substantially used by 
 him on another occasion, lam noihing, Christ is all.''' 
 
 Here S. T. completely inverts the n;.tural order of evi- 
 dence. He utterly denies that there is one tittle of evi- 
 dence-that he apj)rovcd the ofrensive expressions in the 
 letter — and assumes that the least idea of such an ascrip- 
 tion as the plain meaning of the words conveyed, would 
 have drawn from him the indignant reply I am nothing, 
 Christ is all. But what, I ask, vrould the form of expres- 
 sion here quoted from him amount io, with the notion held 
 by Nayler and others? Would it have been a rejection 
 of the title of Christ? It is a form of expression as 
 equivocal as that used by Nayler himself — ''to dscribe 
 this Name, Power and Virtue to James JVayler., (or to that 
 which had a beginning, and must return to dust) or for that 
 to be exalted or worshipped, to me is great Idolatry, and 
 with the Spirit of Christ Jesus in me it is condemned;" 
 &c. And yet it was the notion both of Nayler and his 
 followers, that ihry might worship the Christ that rvas in 
 him. 
 
 As G. R. has acknowledged the letters to G. F. and 
 the worship paid to J N. to be of the same character, and 
 S. T. has also referred to the case of Naylor, in a manner 
 corroborating the views of G. R. as will be more fully 
 shown hereafter, I shall make the following quotations re- 
 lating to this most extraordinary case. When Nayler 
 was examined by the committee of Parliament, he said: 
 "I do abhor that any honour due to God should be given 
 to me, as lam a creature. But it pleased the Lord to set 
 me up as a sign of the coming of the righteous, One, and 
 what has been done as I passed through these towns, I 
 was commanded by the j .ord io sulier such tilings to be 
 done by n>c, as to the outward, as a sign, not as I am a 
 creature.*' Burton's Diary, vol. 1. p. 11. 
 
 Again. "Being asked about assuming the title o{ the 
 fairest often fhousond.he slufted it notably llui«. He that 
 
THE SOCIETY cr y«;c:;:3'=. 
 
 has a greater measure of Christ; than 10,000 below him, 
 the same is the fairest of 10,000/' — ib. p. tG. 
 
 Again, ill reference to the women he said: "It is not 
 true. They gave no worship to me, I abhor ii, as I am a 
 creature." — ib.p.Al. 
 
 Every one acquainted with the case, knows perfectly, 
 that these seeming censures on worship ©fferod to him as a 
 creature, was no condemnation in fact, either on himself or 
 his followers, for they are mixed with direct justifications 
 of both. 
 
 But what did G. F. ever say of Margaret Fell and her 
 daughters, of Thomas Salthouse and WiiliamCaton (both of 
 whom became prominent miaisters) and of Thomas Lower, 
 a son-in-law, that even made an approach to the appear- 
 ance of censure here expressed by Nayler on his followers? 
 J. N. could deny worship, offsred to him as hi rvas a crea- 
 ture, and yet recieve and justify it, on the perverted view 
 which was entertained by himself and his deluded follow- 
 ers, of the indwelling of Christ in him, and the character 
 which he claimed from that indwelling. And yet whea 
 "S/r Gilbert Pickering offered another question (being un- 
 satisfied) about what his hope was in Christ's merits, and 
 how he prayed to Christ that died at Jerusalem," T.Burtoa 
 says: "Whereupon Nayler was called in again, and an- 
 swered pretty Grthodoxhj to those questions, and gave an 
 account of his faith in God and Christ." vol. 1. 48. 
 
 So he could, on such questioiis as these, answer pretty 
 orthodoxly, and yet hold his own wild and visionary views, 
 in regard to his ov.'n character, and justify his followers 
 in their extravagant admiration of him. I make there re- 
 marks from the acknowledged afSnity of the two cases — - 
 and from the fact that S. T. restj an important poiat of 
 his plea, on the orthodox statements, v,'hich G. F. made on 
 the same points, with those embraced in Sir Gilbert Pick- 
 ering's questions. The case of Nayler shows completely, 
 the faJlacy of arguments drawn from the circumstance of 
 his having answered such qur'sl'ions prrfh/ orthodoxhtp 
 
106 
 
 PUO( I'KDIXi;? AM) IMliACil'l.KS OF 
 
 There certainly were reasons \vl:y the Soclciv inaclj up 
 with J. ]N. as they did. Lat hh Jiixa/Uation bears strong 
 marks of an adherence to !iis original opinions, which led 
 to those unhappy results. He still retained the form of 
 expression, limiting his condemnation to the worship paid 
 to his pcrsoa — to him «s a creature, which left the essence of 
 the dclasion out ofvicw: or passed it over virtually jusiiU- 
 ed. This was the perverted doctrine of tlie indwelling of 
 Christ, and the character thereby conferred, instead of 
 those pure and simple views of the subject presented in 
 Holy Scripture. Thus in one of his papers, speaking of 
 his previous experience he says: "Into that Life I was 
 comprehended, and the apple of tha.t pure eye was opened 
 in me, which admits not an evil thought, but is wounded 
 a,nd bruised with the least appearance of evil, even this 
 birth was born which reigns through rlgliteQUincss, and 
 suffers till all righteousness be fulfilled in every particular. 
 And this is the Son of God forever, and into lliis Life and 
 Kingdom I was translated."' Collection of sundry Books 
 &c. by J. X. London ed. 17iG, p xli. 
 
 And again, speaking of a letter written to ijim, in which 
 it was said: 'Tiiy name sliall no more be .Tames Nayler, 
 but Jesus;' he says: "So tliis I deny ako, That tlie Name 
 of Christ Jesus is received instead of James Xaylcr, or be 
 ascribed to him; For the name is to the Promised Seed to 
 all generations, and he that hath ihe Sun, hatii the name 
 which is Life and Pov/er, the Salvation and the unction, 
 into which all the children of Light are baptized,'" — ib. 
 p. liii. 
 
 Now I ask any man of common understanding, if this 
 is not claiming the jYame at the very moment he v,'as seem- 
 ing to reject it? He that hatii the Son hath the Kame^ 
 &c. 
 
 But to return from this necessary digression to S. T"s, 
 assertion, that there is not a tittle of evidence to prove 
 that G. F. approved the offensive expression contained in 
 
THE SOCIiri'V OF l'Rii:.M).S. 
 
 197 
 
 thcleLtera — we are dirccUj at issue. 1 insist t'iat the fact 
 ol' the preserva'ion of the letter, as it was preserved by 
 G. F., the endorsement upon it, and the note on the face 
 of it, in his own hand, arc prima facia evidence that he did 
 approve it. The whole body of the Letter is improper, 
 yet the printed Journal makes him say, tliat he felt free- 
 dom from the Lord to comply with this most extraordin- 
 ary requent. The authority makes liim say, before 
 this letter was written, the Power of God broke in upon 
 M. Fell and her daughter Sarah &;c. He received and 
 preserved similar letters through a period of 23 years, 
 w ithout one single indication of disapprobation. 
 
 The author of the Flea, should knovv, that the burden of 
 proof now lies upon him^ if the disapprohalion of George 
 Fox, on these letters is to be contended for. But in tak- 
 ing this ground, there is a most striking incongruity v.iLh 
 the position laid down in the beginning of the second pari 
 of the Plea, where he sayt : "The claim and the grant can- 
 not be separated, for there can he no doubt that George 
 Fox and his coadjutors were essentially united in opinion 
 on substantia] points!" The use which he makes of these 
 two positions is this. There is no evidence that George 
 Fox approved the offensive expressions of Margaret Fell 
 and others — therefore he did not approve them, of course 
 he was free from blame. Tlie writers of the Letter were 
 free from blame also, for there could be no doubt of their 
 being united in opinion &lc. This is the substance of 
 the argument — the weakness of which is not to be at- 
 tributed to the want of talent in the adiocale, but to the 
 total badness of the cause. 
 
 But if G. F. did not sec the objectionable character of 
 the Letter in qr.cstion, it is no great argument for the 
 clearness of his perception. Comparing this letter with 
 his supposed rer/elation, forbiding him to say "good mor- 
 row" &c. reminds me of one of those formerly who, (in 
 figurative language,) strained at a gnat, and swallowed a 
 camp). 
 
193 
 
 PftOCEEDINGS AND PRv^CiPLES OF 
 
 But wether he was capable of discovering the objec- 
 tionable characlcr of the terms used in the letter or not — 
 taking the language in its plain and obvious meaning of 
 the words, it was ascribing to him what belonged only to 
 Christ, in the fulness of his divine character. As to the 
 mzaningoi the writers — there is one general rule; tojudgc 
 of what people mean, by what they say. 
 
 S. T. and G. Richardson both lay great stress on the 
 shortness of the time which had elapsed from the con- 
 vincement of these persons, to the date of the letter. But 
 a wetiker apology could scarcely bethought of. Suppose it 
 were placed in the very hour — or under the immediate in- 
 fluence of the preaching of G. F. you would only have a 
 more distinct illustration of the effects of his ministry. — 
 The further you trace the parties from the time of their 
 hearing G. F. the more time you give for their own sober 
 reflection to correct the immediate effects of his preaching. 
 But here we have it so early, as to be at no loss for its or- 
 igin — and we have it so late as to put all idea of a mere 
 momentary transport quite out of the question. G. R. and 
 S. T. both entirely overlook the fact, that this same Mar- 
 garet Fell wrote the Letter to J. Naj-ler four years after 
 the Letter to George Fox was written. They forget that 
 Ann Curtis's Letter was written eight years after M. F'b. 
 and that Thomas Lower's was written tweniy-ihree years 
 after the first of this description. How weak then is the 
 apology, which has been made, on account of the shortness 
 of the time after their first acquaintance^with G. F. ! 
 
 G. Richardson gives, as one Apology, that M. F's. dangh- 
 ters were msre girls, inferring that it was a sort o( girlisk 
 indiscretion. Let thie Letters Speak for themselves. Mar- 
 garet Fell evidently held the pen for herself and family. 
 She wasSS years of age, the wife of a man of distinction, 
 with her daughters and servants about her. In the ab- 
 sence of her husband, she had embraced the views of a 
 stranger, and on the approach of her husband, grieved and 
 
TiiF SOCIETY OF ritzn:;Ds. 
 
 199 
 
 ofl'chded with what had transpired in his fai^iily — she, 
 writes to this sti-angcr the Letter now before us.* Let 
 the reader examine that letter, and its pccuHar features. 
 They begin by calling G. F. "our dear father in the 
 Lord'" — which might pass as unobjectionable, but for 
 what follows, "Eternal Praises be to our father." Now I 
 ask what idea can we suppose they had of G. F. to con- 
 sider him as an object to receive '•'Eternal Praises?'''' Is 
 any being to receive Eternal Praises but God? And this 
 sentiment is immediately connected v/ith the following: 
 "We thy babes, being with one consent gathered togeth- 
 er in the power of the Spirit." &c. Will S. T. and G. 
 R. or any one else, dare to say that this was true? They 
 might as well say that the worshipers of Nayler were in- 
 spired. But here is a direct claim to the influence and 
 power of the Spirit. If this was true, G. F. was an ob- 
 ject of worship — if it was not true, they were under a de- 
 lusion. But to proceed. Let us first notice the allusions 
 to the particular dijjiculties which they ha,d in their minds 
 in writing to G. F. "And let not t'.iat beastly power 
 which keeps us in bondage separate thy bodily presence 
 from us, who riegns as King above it, and would rejoice 
 to see thy kingly power here triumph over it." — "My own 
 
 *There is some discrepancy between the accounts given by M. F. 
 in her "Testimony," and that in the printed Journal, as revised by 
 Ellvvood. M. F. represents Nayler and Farns worth, 'as in the house 
 at the time Judge Fell came home: and that she had received in- 
 formation, or in the some way understood that G. F. would come 
 that night, which he did. Of course G. F. was sent for before 
 Judge F'ell came home, which no doubt was the case. F,llvvcod's 
 version of the story, (which must be incorrect] is this: "Soon after 
 Judge Fell being come home, Margaret Fell his wife sent to me, 
 desiring me to return thither. And I feeling freedom from the Lord 
 BO to do, went back through the country to Swarthmore." But botli 
 accounts agree in representing his being sent for, as on account of 
 Judge Fell. M. F. says: "And any may think what a condition I 
 was like to be in, that either 1 might displease rny hiishund. or of- 
 fend God, for he was very much troubled with us all in the house 
 and family, they had so prepossessed him against us." — M. F. Ten- 
 limony. p. ^. 
 
I'ilOtKKUIAUS A^U rK',:'.CiI'L!:;ii OP 
 
 deal- hart, though thoa hast sha!;cd the dust of ihj foct at 
 him who would not receive thee, nor is not worth} of thee 
 which shall be a testimony aijaiiist him forever, yet thou 
 knows that toe have recicvcd thee into our licarts and shall 
 live with thee eternally, and it is our life and joy to be 
 with thee. And soc my dear hart let not the power of 
 darkness separate thy bodily presence from us which will 
 be a grief and trouble to us, and especially thorrow him, 
 whom tliou knowcs can call nothing his own but the 
 plagues and woes. 
 
 "My soul thursts to have thee to come over, if it be but 
 for two or three days to strike down the deceit in him for 
 the truthes sake. And if thou do not come, it will add 
 abundantly to our sorrow & strengthen the beastly pow- 
 er," &c. M. F.'s Special I^ctter. 
 
 G. F. writes under this, the following note: "This was 
 sent to G. F. and he came back againe to thes that sent 
 for him & he, that he shaked the dost of hise feet against 
 was not long after convinsed." 
 
 What, it may be asked, was the beastly power that kept 
 them in bondage, over which G. F. reigned as King — 
 and over which they Avould rejoice to see his kingly pow- 
 er triumph? Who Vv'as it that G. F. had shaked the dust 
 of his feet against — who could call nothing his own but 
 the nlasrues and woes — and in v. horn G. F. was to strike 
 down the deceit? Who v/as it, that was not long after 
 convinsed? G. F. saj's in the printed Journal: "Where 
 when I came, I found the priests and professors and that 
 envious Justice Sawry had much incensed Judge Fell and 
 Captain Sands against the Truth, by their lies. But 
 when I came to speak with him, I answered all his objec- 
 tions: and so thoroughly satisfied him by the Scriptures 
 that he was convinced in his judgment." — Journal P. 1. 
 p. 150. 
 
 1 shall now proceed lo other parts of this extraordina- 
 ry letter. 
 
riu; 
 
 21)1 
 
 Passngts of Scripture nearhf 
 or (juite in the same form. 
 "Jesus said unto ttiein, I 
 am the Bread of Lif no. 
 f>, 35. 
 
 "Then ?aid thi-.y unto him 
 Lord, tvermore give us this 
 brcad.^' — ih 34. 
 
 "When Christ who is our 
 life, shall appear. "-Col. 3, 4. 
 
 "I am come that ye might 
 have life, and that ye might 
 have it more abutirtantbi,''' 
 J no. 10, iO. 
 
 vv ill not leave yo!i com- 
 foi-iJes?; I win come to 
 you.'J— Jno 14, 18. 
 
 "In his favour is life, 
 weeping may endure for a 
 night, but joy comelh in the 
 morning." — Ps. 30. 5. 
 
 "These things have 1 
 spoken unto you that mv 
 joy might remain inyou.and 
 that your joy might befall:' 
 — Jno. 15. 11. 
 
 "//t thy presence is fnltncsH 
 "f y>yy fit thy right hand 
 thei'c arc pleasures forever 
 more — Ps. IG. IJ. 
 The letter goes on to say: 
 
 "Oh Fountain of eternal life OHT souls thur=ts ;iftev 
 ihec, (or in thee alone is our lifi and /j,crtcc, and without 
 thee have we no peace for our souls is much refreshed by 
 seeing thee, and our lifcs is preserved by the, O thou Father 
 of Eternal Felicity.'' ^^Thou art the Fountain of life'' ^^Our 
 life and peace is in thee." 
 
 Eight years after the date of this letter, Ann Curtis, 
 not a mere girl, but the wife of a man of wealth and dis- 
 tinction (for so it appears Thomas Curtis was,) a woman 
 who was considered a suitable person to wait upon the 
 King, to procure the release ofG. F. ftom })ri?on, writes 
 
 Passages in (he letter addres- 
 sed to Gi F. 
 
 "O thou bread of Life" 
 without which bread our 
 souls will starve." 
 
 "O forever more give us 
 this bread.'' 
 
 "0/i our life, our desire is 
 to see thee again." 
 
 "Our desire is to see thee 
 again that we may be re- 
 freshed and established, and 
 so have life viore abundantly." 
 
 "We hope thou wilt not 
 leave us comfortless, but wilt 
 come again." 
 
 "Though that sorrow be 
 for a time, yi t joy cometh in 
 the morning." 
 
 *'Oh our life, we hope to 
 see thee again, that our joy 
 maybe full, for in thy pre- 
 sence is fullness of joy, and 
 where thou dwells is pleas- 
 ures forever 'more," 
 
202 
 
 rKO(. F,Kr>i.M;.v \M) ruixciri.r.s oi 
 
 a letter to liiui, nilstl with most extravagant expressions 
 of regard for G. F. and concludiiis: with these words: "O 
 what shall I say, for m v heart i« rafeshcd and I am over 
 come with thy love, and the excellency of thy beauty that 
 my desire is after thee, in thee is the everlasting being, the 
 fulness and fouyitnin of eternity, in thy presents is life, O my 
 dear father bless me with thy presents, and grant that ! 
 may live with thee forever, and he cload with thy righte- 
 ousness." &c. 
 
 Fifteen years after this — Thomas Lower, as already 
 noticed, wrote to G. and M. F. saying of the former, 
 "Whose company is a blessing to all that sec, know and 
 receive him as he is, a blessing to the nations, and the joy 
 of his people, the second appearance of him who is blessed for^ 
 ever.-^ These were not the (ransports or "enthusiastic 
 feelings of new converts.'' 
 
 But how did it happen that these things should have 
 been said again and again to G. F. by his most intimate 
 friends — and nearest relatives, and the very persons who 
 were most likely to know v,hat Avould be agreeable? How 
 was ii, that he preserved these letters — vcrefied by his 
 own hand, and the most oftensive of them bearing on the 
 #ame pr/g-e, a note which showed that the whole subject 
 ■was in his mind, as well as in his eye? 
 
 George Richardson gives a solution of this most extra- 
 ordinarv portion of the History of the Society, and of the 
 Early Friends. His words are tlicsc: 
 
 "But the real fact appears to be, that some of the early 
 converts, previously to the fall of James Nayler. and pos- 
 ■iblv some instances may occur later — intending reverence 
 to the Power and Spirit of Christ, with which these cho- 
 sen vessels were eminently filled, do not appear on all oc- 
 casions, in their language at least, to have duly discrimin- 
 ated between the mortal instrument, and that divine in- 
 fluence by which they were actuated. The fall of James 
 Navler forciblv drr-w the- attention of the vet infant So- 
 
THE aocierv of KiiiKr'.lJS. 
 
 203 
 
 ciety to lliiij danger; and a peroepUble change in their 
 style and phraseology took place. A more chaste assump- 
 tion of divine authority, and less fullness of expression, is 
 very observable. Thus a Gracious and Mercifull God, by 
 that painful event, gave them a salutary admonition." 
 Brief Remarks, p. 6. 
 
 S. Tuke substantially corroborate this statement, by 
 saying: '-I am willing to admit, that the fall of James 
 Nayler was mercifully over-ruled to the lasting benefit of 
 the Society." Plea, p. 25. 
 
 Here G. R. professes to disclose the real fact, and every 
 impartial person must admit that he has done it. I am 
 much obliged to him for placing the subject in a point of 
 view, that fully justifies all that I said upon ic in the Ap- 
 peal. He has made a full confession, that the i Jclalrous 
 worship otfered to James Nayler, and these addresses to 
 George Fox, originated from the same cause. He goes 
 further, and says, that these '■'converts" do not appear on 
 all occasions, in their language at least, to have duiy dis- 
 criminated between the mortal instrument, and that divine 
 injlucnte by v.'hich they were actuated." Thers in Ian 
 guagc at least, it was Vt'onsmr — divine honour, paid to the 
 MORTAL iNSTEUMENT. It is proper however to notice some 
 incongruity In this pn.£sage. The "chosen vessels," as he 
 calls them, were plainly George Fox, and James Nayler. 
 And if these men were "eminently filled" with the"Power 
 and Spirit of Christ" — if they were actuated by the divine 
 influence, how did it happen that they suffered their de- 
 luded followers to go on in this "shocking course? Hew 
 could they have silently received, to use the language of 
 S. Tuke, ^'extravagant expressions and guo33LV jiisappubd 
 SCRIPTURE terms;" or permitted without reproof or even 
 instruction, language to be addressed to the mortal instru- 
 ment, v.'hich belonged only to Deity? The only reasona- 
 ble 9,n3wer that can be given is, that the persons who re- 
 jceived thcsr idolatrou? addresses, were under the sam** 
 
iM:oci;i;r>i\(;;N and rRiNciPLEs or 
 
 nusapj)r.;!oniiio!i offcims or of mbjccts, which led (heir 
 followers into these extravagances. 
 
 But the origin of this truly disgraceful ])nsiness, appears 
 to bean erroneous idea of the character of Christ. They 
 appear to have regarded this term, essentially to belong 
 to a more inward "principle." That Jesus of Nazareth 
 was not truly or properly thr. Christ, l)ul that the Christ 
 was iT) him.— And that the outward person was so de^ 
 noKiinatedj in consequence of that which was in him — ap- 
 ])1ying, by a sort of figure of speech, the term to "the 
 thing coyitaining"- — which belonged to "the thing contain- 
 ed.''' We may easily perceive how this perverted idea of 
 the cnaracter of Christ, wa,s carried out by the deluded 
 followers of Fox and Nay ler, (for G. R. justly classes thepi 
 together in the real fid of the case,) to the monstrouis ex- 
 travagances of language which they used. For if it was 
 intended to distinguish between Jesus of Nazareth and 
 Christ — to deny utterly that the outward person that suf- 
 fered wag properly the Son of God, and yet to admit the 
 titles to be applied to him, on account, merely of what 
 was in him — and that he was an object of w^orship on this 
 ground — the delusion, could easily be carried out, as the 
 rca/ /*ad of the case demonstrated, to apply to these men, 
 the same epithets, and the same language of adoration, 
 that was offered to him — it being supposed, that the same 
 thing vras in /Af7«, that was in that outward person that 
 suffered at Jerusalem. 
 
 We can easily concieve also, how, under this delusion, 
 a man should suppose the term, ^Ae Son [o/" God, might be 
 applied to himself — and how he could grow up into tho 
 condition of Jesus Christ, as well as into the condition of 
 the Froi>hets and Apostles, and of Adam before he fell. 
 
 It is now matter of history, that this was the delusion 
 ofNajlerand his followers. He condemned the prac^ 
 tice of his followers, so far as they had idolized his person. 
 But I am not avvarc tliat he ever saw the root and origin 
 
THE .^oriKTY OF ruTF.vnp. 
 
 oflliccv!]. He never, ?o f;u- as 1 know, coiuleiiuicd the 
 principle from which these extravagances proceeded. 
 
 Bui" in the case of G. F., he as fully admitted the Idola- 
 trous language offered to him, as *Nayler did — and even 
 more so. J. N. put the letter of one of his friends into 
 his pocket — not intending that any one should sec it. G. 
 F. preserved, not one letter only, hut a numher — written 
 through a series of 23 years. — lie not only kept them, but 
 he endorsed, and 7mdcr wrote them. And not only s,o, but 
 he wrote a letter to tiic Chief Magistrate of tlie nation, in 
 the very same strain, and applied to himself a title which 
 all christians use to Jesus Christ, and to him only. He not 
 only preserved these letters, written hy himself and his 
 friends, but he kept them to tlic day of his death — and 
 those the most nearly related to liim, and who knew his 
 sentiments and feelings the best, handed them down to 
 their children. 
 
 If G. F. ever went as far as J. N. in denying the pro- 
 priety of applying such titles to him as a creature, he 
 did not do it like James Nayler, with direct refcrance to 
 his friends who had used such language to him. Instead 
 of reproving Margaret Fell for her folly in writing to him 
 as siie did, he sliowcd all along llic highest respect for her 
 — and eleven years after the death of licr former hus- 
 band, he married her — without any evidence of a change 
 of opinion. And five or six years after they were so mar- 
 ried — a son-in-law, standing higii in esteem — speaks of G. 
 F. as the second appearance of him n-ho is blessed forever! 
 
 G. R. thinks the fall of Nayler forcibly drew the atten- 
 tion of the yet infant Society to tliis danger;" in which S. 
 Tuke concurs. I think this is very probable. And that 
 it might have been the means of saving the Soeiely as a 
 body, from worshipping George Fox. I think it also prob- 
 able, that this might have induced T. E., W. Penn and 
 others, the more determinately to resist the insertion of 
 |.hese letters in the printed Journal, as they stood in the 
 
20G 
 
 pp.orr,i::)TNr;.'-; a?,i> piirxrirLEs or 
 
 Manuicrlp!,. Both the disgrace and the punisJtmoit of 
 Naylcr, were calculated I'orcibly to draw attention to the 
 danger. He was regarded as a biaspliemcr — was brand- 
 ed in the forehead with the letter B: bored throuoh the 
 ionguc with a hot iron — whipped most dreadfully, and 
 immured in a dungeon, it )nay well be supposed that 
 some at least ofG. F. friends became more cautious how 
 they expressed themselves. But it is perfectly astonish- 
 ing, that he should have kept the letter which had been 
 written to him, and that others of the same stamp should 
 have been written aftenoards. A. C's. letter was written 
 ybwr years, and T. L's. nineteen years after the affair of 
 Nayler broke out. 
 
 These facts prove beyond all question, that the delusion 
 Jiad taken dcrp root, in the minds of G. F. and his friends, 
 and there is no evidence, in my possession, to prove that 
 it ever was effectually removed. 
 
 All the arguments about the change of the meaning of 
 words, in the lapse of time, arc lost in the admission 
 which the advocates of G. F. have made. 
 
 For they are admitted to have beenimpropcr, offensive — 
 grossli/ misapplied Scripture terms — and identical with the 
 delusion of Nayler and his followers. It is well known 
 that the public considered the honours paid to N. as Idol- 
 atrous and Blasphemous. When R. Barclay was called 
 upon by an opponent to say what he thought of these 
 things he replied, I think them io/^ mckedand ahominable. 
 The attempt to soften the matter by pleading a 
 change in the meanine; of the terms has failed — the more 
 the case is examined, the more decidedly reprehensible it 
 appears. And now, as G. F. and his friends are 
 placed on the same ground v, ith Nayler and his followers, 
 the language of Barclay, must apply to them all — it was 
 both wicked and abominable. 
 
 And now, the two champions in the cause, may set down 
 and condole each other, nol oaly in their signal failure. 
 
THE SOLIIil'Y Ol- l UIU.M-'S. 
 
 207 
 
 hut in their having cut up their own cause iit the very 
 root — noi only in having proven, that the Early Friends 
 wore noi inspired, when they claimed inspiraiion in the 
 most positive terms; hut that their writings ai'e not to be 
 taken for what they say — and over and above all this, in 
 having connected G. F. and his friends with N., and to 
 draw upon them the full and unequivocal censure pro- 
 nounced by R. B. 
 
 G. R. speaking of the case of Nayler, and acknowledg- 
 ing as the real fact, that the two cases originated in the 
 same causes — says: '-Thus a Gracious and Merciful God, 
 by this painfull event, ga.ve them [the Early Friends] a 
 salutary admonition.'' Brief Rentarks, p. 6. 
 
 And by ehe exhibition of these letters, another "salu- 
 tary admonition" is given. But instead of receiving the 
 admonition, and pi-ofiting by it, the official acts of the 
 ■Society have made it a disownable offence to call in ques- 
 tion, language which in its plain, and literal meaning is 
 Idolatrous and blaspliemous; and some of the most disting- 
 uished men in the Society have come forward to Plead 
 for the authors of such things! 
 
 The ingenuity of the author of the Pica, was displayed 
 in shifiirtg, as much as possible, from an examination of 
 the particular cases noticed in the Appeal, and dwelling 
 largely on far-fetched conclusions from G. Fox's general 
 doctrines and general character. 1 have often said, and 
 am willing to repeat it again, that G. Fox said many ex- 
 cellent things: and so did James Nayler. But those ex- 
 cellent things in either case, are pci-fectly irrelevant when 
 opposed to facts, both proven and admitted. Nor docs it 
 follow that because either of them could write or speak 
 pretty orthodoxly on faith in Christ, that they and their fol- 
 lowers were not under delusion, when they claimed in- 
 spiration, in receiving or ascribing to the mortal inslrmncnt 
 titles and honours due only to him who is the object of 
 worship, both of saints on earth and r-n'r''!- in licavf-n. 
 
i'UOc;EEi)i.\*is .v.\u I'la^cu'LEs of 
 
 The remark wliich I made in the Appeal, Am. cd. p. 
 21, brings the charge to specific cases — and this, not as 
 the object of the Appeal, but as the result of tlie papers* 
 '•^ Those papers 7chich I have now p7'oduced, and others in ex- 
 istence, furnish undcn'-able proof, that there was the as- 
 sumption by him, and the ascription to him, of altrihutcs 
 lohich belonged only to the Divine being.'''' This position has 
 been fully maintained, in the foregoing remarks. 
 
 But the argument used in the beginning of the second 
 part of the Plea, is entitled to some attention. In the 
 first part of the Plea he says: "In regard to George Fox 
 I must utterly deny that there is one tittle of evidence 
 that he approved of the off;'nsivc expressions in the letter." 
 Plea, p. 8. And again: "but these circumstarrces certain- 
 ly furnish no evidence of his approbation of the terms in 
 which the letter is couched." ib. p. 9. But hear him in 
 the; place to which I have alluded. "If I have succeeded 
 in relieving the character of George Fox from the im- 
 putation of assuming to himself divine attributes, the char- 
 acter of the Early Friends must also have heen in a great 
 degree relieved from the imputation of ascribing those 
 attributes to him. The claim and the grant cannot be 
 separated, for there can be no doubt that George Fox and 
 his coadjutors were essentially united in opinion on sub- 
 stantial points;" &c. First he gives up the letters, and 
 endeavours to justify G. F. by denying that he approved 
 them, while all the facts of the case were directly against 
 him. And having, as he seemed to sujjpose, brought G. 
 F. off clear o[ approving the things contained in the letter, 
 he attempts to bring oiT the writers also — by the argu- 
 ment, that ifG. F. was clear, </iei/ must be clear also — for 
 they were no doubt united in opinion. If this is not 5yjc- 
 cial pleading I know not what is. 
 
 Now I will admit most readily that "the claim and the 
 grant cannot be separated." What follows? If it had 
 not been claimed it would not have been granted. If it 
 
Was granted, it had been claimed. I ask if these arc not 
 undeniable conclusions from S. T's. own premises? We 
 come to the question, Did the writers of this letter grant as 
 criptions-of divine attributes to G. Fox? No man in his 
 sober senses can deny that they did. George Richardson 
 places them along with the worshipers of James Nayler, 
 and Robert Barclay pronounces their extravagance, 
 "both wicked and- abominable." Oh! but G. Fox was 
 not to blame — lie did not approve of this gross misappli- 
 cation of Scripture terms — and therefore tJipy were not to 
 blame, for there could be no doubt that he and they were 
 united in opinion, and the claim and the grant cannot be 
 separated ! ! ! 
 
 What a logical conclusion! What a a noble I'lea for 
 G. Fox and Early Friends! 
 
 The writers of both pamphlets, ought to know, and no 
 doubt do know, for I have made the declaration again 
 and again in print, that I believe George Fox and Early 
 Friends said many excellent things. The same may be 
 said of James Nayler himself. But this is no argument 
 against their having been in error in particular cases. 
 
 Such particular cases, I have proven, in reference to 
 George Fox and some of his particular Triends, to show 
 the danger of resting unduly upon them, or making their 
 writings the standard of doctrines: or admitting the no- 
 tion, that they received their doctrines by immediate re- 
 velation, independent of the Scriptures. 
 
 The evidences oi dclus ion on i\\c part of those immedi- 
 ately concerned in the papers published in the Appeal, 
 are such as to render it imperious on every member of the 
 Society of Friends, to take nothing on the bare authority 
 of those individuals, and of their supposed revelations. — 
 They must come directly to the Scriptures for doctrine, 
 and not to George Fox. Whatever he held or whatever 
 he did, that was according to the Scriptures, I would with 
 all readiness approve. But I would not agree that he 
 2B 
 
210 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRIVCIPLES Ot 
 
 was in tlie same spirit and power tliat the Apostles were 
 in. I would not unite with those who suppose that all 
 Creation was open to him — or that he icrought miracles, 
 detected witches, or cnvsl out devils* I believe, to use the 
 language of R. B., " it was both wicked and abominable," 
 to suppose that he was "The Son of God" or "before lan- 
 guage were'" — or the "Bread of Life," the "Fountain of 
 Life."— The "Father of Eternal Felicity"— "the Second 
 Appearance of him who is blessed forever." And I think 
 it is a disgrace to the Society of Friends, and an insult to 
 the good sense, and the christian feeling of the age in 
 which we live, for such things as these to be openly defend- 
 ed; and the maintenance of them made essential to the 
 very existence of that Society. 
 
 I am deeply impressed with the conviction that the So- 
 ciety of Friends, is imperiously called upon, to make a 
 thorough, christian reformation — and purge out those un- 
 sound things which have so long been covered up among 
 them. To aid them in this reformation, as well as to 
 thow them the necessity for it, I shall present them with 
 some passages contained in the printed works of the Early 
 Friends. 
 
 But before proceeding to quotations from the printed 
 works, I think itproperto insert the following letters; which 
 were published in the Appeal, as taken from the MS. 
 Journal of George Fox; that they iViay speak for them 
 selves, whether I have misrepresented either the letters 
 or the writers. A dispassionate examination of them, is 
 necessary to place the Brief Remarks of G. R. and the 
 Pka of S. T. in a proper point of view. 
 
 * For MIRACLES see the Index to the .Ioui-n;il. For Wilches, see 
 .Toiirnal 'Zncl eel. Lond. 1709, Fart, 1. pp. 194, 195. For ca,stin<>- out 
 Devils See rail 1. p. "0, where it it said: "For the Lord made 
 nare his Omtiipo'ent Arm, and manifested his power lo the aston- 
 /shmontof many; by the healing: virtue wtiereof many have been do- 
 Jivercd from great infirmities, and the lle.oils were made subject 
 ,'hrough his Nfiiiie, of which particular instances might be given 
 oeyond vvhat tliis unbelieving age is able to receive or bear." 
 
THE SOCIETV OF PUIENUS. 
 
 211 
 
 Letter from Margaret Fell and others to George Fox: MS. 
 Journal. 
 
 for g. f. (45) 
 
 Our clear ffather in the Lord for though wee have tea 
 thousand Instructers in Christ, yet have we not many 
 fathers for in Christ Jesus thou hast begotten us thorrow 
 the Gospell, eternali praises be to our father, wee thy 
 babes with one consent being gathered together in the 
 power of the spirit thou being present with us our souls 
 dolh thirst & hmguish after- thee, & doth challenge that 
 right that wee have in thee, O thou bread of life, without 
 which bread our soulls will starve, oh for ever more give 
 us this bread & take pitty on us, whom thou hast nursed 
 up with the brests of consolation, oh our life our desires is 
 to see thee againe that wee may be refreshed & estab- 
 lished & soehave life more abiuidantly, & let not that 
 beastly power which kecpes us in bondage seperate thy 
 bodyly presence from us, who reignes as King above it, 
 & would reioyce to see thy kingly power here triumph 
 overit, ohour dear nursing father wee hope thou wilt 
 not leave us Conifortlesse, but will come againe, though 
 that sorrow be for A time, yet ioy comes in the morning, 
 oh our life we hope to see thee againe, that our ioy may 
 be full, for in thy presence is fullness of ioy, & where 
 thou dwells is pleasures for evermore, oh thou fountaine 
 of eternal! life our soulls thursts after thee, for in thee 
 alone is our life and peace, & without thee have we no 
 peace for our soulls is much refreshed by seeing thee, & 
 our life? is preserved by thee, O thou father of eternali 
 jfelicytie. 
 
 Margrett ffell 
 Tho: Salthouae 
 Ann Cleaton 
 Mary Askew 
 Margrett ffell 
 Bridgett ff<-l\ 
 Will: Catoa 
 
212 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 O iTiy dear ffather when wilt thou come, Susan ffell, 
 Dear ffather pray for us Sarah flcll 
 
 Oh my dear hart shall wee not see thee once more againc 
 
 Issabell ffell 
 Thou art the founlaine of life Mary ffell 
 
 My owne dear hart, though thou has shaked the dust 
 of thy feet, at him who would not receive thee, nor is not 
 worthy of thee, which shall be A testimony agt. him for 
 ever, yet thou knowes that we have received thee into 
 our harts, & shall live with thee eternally, & it is our 
 life and ioy to be with thee. And soe my dear hart let not 
 the power of darkenesse seperate thy bodyly presence 
 from us which will be A greefe & trouble to us, «& espe- 
 cially thorrow him, whom thou knowes can call nothing 
 his owne but the plagues «& woes. 
 
 My soull thursts to have thee to come over, if it but for 
 two or three dayes to strike downe the deceite in him for 
 the truthes sake, 
 
 And if thou doe not come, it will add abundantly to our 
 sorrow & strengthen the beastly power, 1 know it is A 
 burden &, suffering to thee, but thou hast borne our bur- 
 dens & suffered for us & with us, & now dear hart doe 
 not leave us nor forsake us, for our life &c peace isin thee. 
 
 M ff 
 
 1652 
 
 Under this, in George Fox's writing is the following 
 note: — 
 
 this was sent to gff 
 & he came back againe 
 lo thes that sent for him 
 & he, that he shakd the 
 dost ofhise feet aggainst was 
 not long after convin 
 sed 
 
TiiK soc'iiyrY OF fuiuxds. 
 
 Account of George /oar's letter to Oliver Crvimccll, as given 
 in the MS. Journal. 
 
 "Upon the 5th day first month Captaine Drewry who 
 brought G ffupto London by order from Colonell Hag- 
 gar did come to the Inn into the Chamber where G fflay 
 and said it was required of" G fFfrom OHvcr CrumwelJ, 
 that hec would promise that hec would not take up a 
 sword against the Lord Protector or the Government as 
 it is now And that G tT would write downc the words in 
 answer to that which the protector required, and for G 
 if to set his hand to it the fifth day of the first month: G 
 fi'was moved of the Lord to give out these words following 
 which were given to Oliver Crumwell and G fF was then 
 ■presently brought before him by Captn Di»ewry.'' 
 
 George Jox's letter to Oliver Cromwell. 
 
 "I who am of the world called George fTox, doe deny 
 the carrying or drawing of any carnall sword agt any, or 
 agt thee Oliver Crumwell or any man in the presence of 
 the lord god I declare it god is my wittnesse, by whom I 
 am moved to give this forth for the truthes sake, from him 
 whom the world calls George fTox who is the son of God, 
 who is sent to stand A wittnesse agt all violence, & agt all 
 the workes of darkenesse, and to turne people from the 
 darkenesse to the, light, & to bring them from the occas- 
 sion of the warre, and from the occassion of the magis- 
 trates sword, which is A terrour to the evilldoers which 
 actes contrary to the light of the lord Jesus Xt, which is A 
 praise to them that doe well, which is A protection to them 
 that doe well, and not,, the evill and such souldies that are 
 putt in that place, no false accussers must bee, no violence 
 must doe, but bee content with their wages, and that mag- 
 istrate beares not the sword in vaine, from under the oc- 
 casion of that sword I — doe seeke to bring people, my 
 >veapon? are not carnall but spirituall, And my kingdome 
 
!214 PnOCEEDI.NOS AND PRINCIPLES OF' 
 
 is not of this world, there fore with the camall weapon I 
 doe not fight, bat am from those things dead, from him 
 who is not of the v, orld, called of the world by the name 
 George iTo\, and this I am ready to seale with my blood, 
 and this I am moved to give forth for the truthes sake, who 
 A -wittncsse stands agt all imrighteousncsse, and all nngod- 
 lynessc, v/ho A sulferer is for the righteous seed sake, 
 waiteing for the redemption of it, who A crowne that is 
 mortall seckcs not for, that fadcth aw^ay, but in the light 
 dwells, which comprehends tliat Crowne, which light is 
 the condemnacon of all such, in wch Light I wittncsse 
 the Crowne that is Imortall that fades not away, From 
 him who to all your soulls is A friend, for establishing of 
 righteousnesseand cleansscing the Land of evill doers, and 
 A wittncsse agf. all wicked inventions of men & murder- 
 ous plotts wch Answered shall bee with the Light in all 
 your Conscienres, which makes no Covenant with death, 
 to which light in you all I speake,"& am clear 
 
 ff G 
 
 who is of the world called George fibx 
 who A new name hath which the 
 world know-es not 
 
 Wee are w-ittnesses of thib Testimony 
 
 whose names in the flesh is called 
 
 Tho Aldam Robert Creveji 
 
 Lstter ofM. F. to J. JV. 
 
 Szsarthmore I5th of ye 8 month (56) 
 
 Dear Brother 
 
 I have received thy letter and it was gladness to me 
 when I received it, and I could receive and bear wt. thou 
 had v/ritten in it if thou had kept in subjection love and 
 unity as thou did express in thy Letter, But since I have 
 heard that thou would not be subject to hira to whom all 
 nations shall bow, it hath greeved my spiritt Thou hath 
 confessed him to be thy Father and thy life bound up in 
 
THU SOCILTV 01' I Kti;.MJS. 
 
 215 
 
 liirr. and when hec sent for thee and thou would not conne 
 to him wlierc was thy Ufo then; was thou not then ban- 
 ished from the Fathers House, as thou knows thou hath 
 writ to mec And yt wch showed thee this wch was to 
 come I owne, but that wch banished thee I must deny and 
 when he bended his Knees to ye most high god for the 
 Seed's sake and thou would not bend nor bow nor Joync 
 with Irim, How wilt thou answer tiiis to him who hath 
 given him a name Better then every name to wch every 
 Knee must bow This is contrary to what t!:iou wrett to 
 nie where thou saith he is buring thy name that bee may 
 raise liis owne but it was thy name yt stood agst him then 
 And thou wrett to me ye truth should never suffer by thee 
 for where ye seed Suffers the Truth suffers do h not ye 
 seed »& all ye body suffer by yt spiritt yt houlds not the 
 head Butrebells against him; oh consider what thou art 
 doing I am sure ye lamb in his suffering is in subjection 
 not resisting nor exalting but in the time of his Suffering 
 hee is servant to all ye seed and if Thou stood in ye suf- 
 fering for ye seed thou had not resisted him who is the 
 prmise of the Father to ye seed who hath said blessed are 
 ye y t are not offended in me. oh deare heart mind while 
 it is called to day wt thou art docing. Least thou walke 
 naked and be a stumbling blocke to the simple &, bee 
 tender of the truth which thou hath [iwi legible] before &. 
 suffered for, which draws thyne eare from unclean spiritts 
 wch is like frogs which cometh out of the Mouth of the 
 dragon ye Beast and the false P.iitt these was seene when 
 the first Angel poured out his vial upon ye great river 
 Euphrates read and understand and return to thy first hus- 
 band my deare brother, 1 can beare allyt hath been past, 
 if thou wilt be subject to je will of the Father & hee who 
 doth ye will hath Learned obedience & is subject & I 
 could ly downe at thy fecte yt thou might trample upon 
 me for thy good &, soe I know would hee whom thou 
 hath resisted though to yt spiritt yt rebels it cannot bee 
 
I'ltOUiiEUIiNCJS U AiNl'IUACirLKb OF 
 
 foi- lhat is not one wth ye father, soe in deaiuess & tea^ 
 dei-ness have I written to thee my Father shall bear me 
 witness and I warn thee from the Lord God yt thou be- 
 ware of siding with unclean spirits Least thou bee cut of 
 for ever, Let me heare from thee shortly as thou can after 
 the receite of this 
 
 Thy dear Sister in the 
 eternal love 
 
 M. F. 
 
 I wrett to thee after I had 
 received thy Letter whch 
 may bee may come to thee after this but then 
 I did not know of this 
 
 My husband tooke some letters from the fecld post which 
 was to me which mentioned the difference between G and 
 thee &L he read them 
 
 Letter from Ann Curtis to George Fox, from MS. JournaL 
 Reading the 23 of the 5th Month 1660. 
 
 DeareG. F. 
 
 My true faithfull & inexpressible love is to thce^ 
 deare thou art to me, fare beyound what lean declare doc 
 I greatly love, & highly honour thee with my soule & 
 with my whole heart am I freely given up to be thine, to 
 doe thy will in all that I can, if my life would be an ex- 
 ceptable sacrifise for or to thee I have freely given it up 
 & it would be my greatest Joy if I might be Accepted 
 for thee, Oh there is nothing soe deare to me as thou art, 
 
 0 what shall I say for my heart is rafeshed & I am over- 
 come with thy love, & the exlcncy of thy beauty that my 
 desire is after thee in thee is the everlasting being, the 
 fullnesse & fountain of eternity in thy presents is life, O 
 my deare father, blesse me with' thy presents & grant that 
 
 1 may live with thee forever & be cload with thy righte- 
 ousnesse which is my true desire who am thine true and 
 faithfully & I beleeve soe shall continue unto the end 
 thine A. C. 
 
TUB- SOCIETY OF FUIE\D!=i. 
 
 217 
 
 Ldtp.r from Thomas Lower to George and Margnni Fox: 
 
 MS, Journal. 
 Dear& ever lionorcd ffadier <Si mother 
 
 Yours of ye: 21 of ye 12tli wee received, «& our 
 heartcs and soulcs doth praise «k magnify ye: name ofye: 
 Lorde for his abundant mercyes & favours towards us all 
 & as oft: as wee think off ye: overuleing arme & power 
 yt: sett my ffathcr on toppe off all his tSt truths adversa- 
 ry es: &L wrought his deliverance after such a noble & 
 honorable manner wee cannott but ascribe ye: praise &, 
 glory thereof unto him whoe rules In ye: heavens above; 
 & in ye: earth beneath doth whatsoeverpleases him: whoe 
 drew pharoh & his hoast to follow ye: Isralites Into ye: 
 way prepared for there safe passage: & then ealed to ye: 
 waters to returne &: destroy yt harde hearted per&ecuter: 
 even soe hath hee suffered these blinde «& harde heaited 
 ones to persecute & pursue our deare ffather as fur re as 
 they in there envy couldc goe: 6c then when hee saAv (itt 
 hath caled to ye: waters to returne & come over: ye: 
 horse & its rider our Justices &. there beast-like tlarke: 
 glory bee unto ye: Lorde for ever: who caused Moses &l 
 ye: Isralites to beholde yc: deade carkasses of there ene- 
 myes: and to rejoyce over them and singe ye: songe of de- 
 liverance even soe hath hee caused our Moses & all ye: 
 true upright Isralites: to beholde his & truths adversayes 
 deleated and slaine & to ly as deade carkascs: before ye: 
 feet of our Moses & his people: & therefore our heartes 
 are engaged to singe praises unto ye: Lorde whoe is our 
 deliverer now as hee was his peoples In ages past: praises: 
 praises: honnor glory & rcnowne bee unto ve: Lambe 
 yt: Sittethupon ye: throne for ever & for evermore Amen 
 saith my soule: 
 
 Wee are all well heere praised bee ye: Lorde My wife 
 something better since shee tookesome off my pills: little 
 margarett a lovely thriveinge childe; wee greatly re- 
 joyce to hcarc of our sister Rouses happy deliverance: 
 2C 
 
218 PIlOCBEmNGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 and good houre wherein my ffather visited lier: whose 
 company is a blessinge to all yt: see knowe and receive 
 him as he is a blessinge to yc: nations and ye: Joy off his 
 people: ye: second appearance of him whoe Is blessed 
 for ever: 
 
 We greatly rcjoyce to hearc off your Inclinations Into 
 these parts: & If my ffather intends to come before ye: 
 general meetings: I desire to heare by ye: return of ye: 
 next post thereof yt: I may provide ye: [some kind of car- 
 riage, the name of u-hich cannot easily be made ow<] to meet 
 you att Westchester, &c. [The remainder relates to fam- 
 ily matters.^ Soe rests 
 
 Your dearly loveing Son 
 
 Thomas Lower 
 Swarthmore this 4tb of ye: 1st mo th IGT^ 
 
 The monstrous sentiments contained in these letters, in 
 •6 many varied forms of expression, through a period of 
 ^ years, must be shocking to every sincere christian. 
 
CHAPTER. IX. 
 
 In the iiolice already taken of these pamphlets, (The 
 Brief Remarks and Plea.) which have been industriously 
 circulated, I have passed over some passages, which are 
 more conveniently answered a part from the refutation of 
 the principal arguments, on which the respective writers 
 relied. 
 
 George Richardson, without the least foundation, has 
 endeavoured to convey the idea, that I do not hold the 
 doctrine of the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit on 
 the human mind. Thus he says at page 9. "E. Bates's 
 remarks on the sorrows which George passed through are 
 most eictraordinary. He has adopted Water Baptism. — 
 Does he mean really to undervalue — is he about to speak 
 disparagingly of the true and essential baptism of Christ 
 (the dispensation which George Fox was passing through 
 at the time alluded to, evidently being of this character — ) 
 as though these conflicts were evidence of unsoundness of 
 faith in the article of Justification." 
 
 And why, I ask, did he introduce the subject of Water 
 Baptism here? The connection explains the object. It 
 was to prove that I did not believe in the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit. But I ask, if such an argument as this, is 
 not an insult to the whole christian Church, to the Apos- 
 tles themselves, and to Him also, under whose commission 
 and in whose name they commanded the converts to Chris- 
 tianity to be baptized? 
 
 But in answer to G. R's. enquiry, I will tell him no. 
 I certainly do not mean, and never did mean — nor did 
 the Apostles or primitive believers mean, to undervalue 
 
323 
 
 PROCEBDINRS ANU PR1>XIPI-E5 OF 
 
 or speak disparagingly of ihc Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But he confidently asserts that the sorrows of George 
 Fox were of this character! And here I must take the 
 liberty of remarking, that G. R. show'shimself as ignorant 
 of the J5ojo//s»i of the Spirit, as he is hosiilc to tlic doc- 
 trine and practice of tlie Apostles. I.ct the reader ex- 
 amine the examples given in the New Testament, of the 
 Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and sec if he can lindin them 
 the least resemblance to tlie sorrows of George Fox. In 
 the 2nd cd. of the Journal, part 1. p. 31, he says: '"And 
 aficr some time, I went into my own country again, and 
 was there about a year, in great sorrows and Troubles, 
 and walked many nights by myself." And after going 
 from Priest to Priest to seek for comfort, but finding in- 
 crease of Trouble .and sorrow he says: "After this I went 
 to another, one Macham, a priest in high account. And 
 he would needs give me some physic, and I was to have 
 been let blood." Here it is evident, his adviser thought 
 him labouring under some physical malady. "But [says 
 he] they could not get one drop of Blood from me, either 
 in my arms or head (though they endeavoured it) my body 
 being, as it were, dried up with sorrows, grief and trou- 
 bles." p. 32. 
 
 Do we find the Apostles, and others who were assembled 
 on the Day of Pcnticost, "in great sorrows and troubles," 
 by the out pouring of the Holy Spirit upon them?. Did 
 the}' go from Priest to Priest, to inquire what was the 
 matter with them? Did they endeavour to get cured of 
 the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, by taking physic, and 
 getting bled? Were they so dried up with sorrows-, 
 grief and troubles, as the effect of that Baptism, that a 
 drop of blood could not have been got out of them either 
 in their arms or heads? Ought not the Society of 
 Friends to blush for shame, not only that their ministers 
 should represent this as the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
 but that a Pamphlet containing such a representation 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 221 
 
 sliould be approved and sent out by thousands among their 
 members? 
 
 George Fox says: "But Temptalions grew more and 
 more, and I was tempted almost to despair. And when 
 Satan could not effect his design upon me that way, then 
 he laid snares for mc, and baits to draw me to commit some 
 sin, whereby he might take advantage to bring me to des- 
 pair," part 1. p. 30. And again: "I was about twenty 
 years of age when these exercises came upon me ; and 
 some years I continued in that condition, in great troubles, 
 and fain I would have put it from me." — ib. 
 
 Now I ask the true christian, if this was evidently the 
 baptism of the Spirit? Was this the joy and peace of be- 
 lieving? 
 
 The Baptism of the Spirit is to be distinguished not only 
 from the besetments of Temptation, but from those oper- 
 ations of the Spirit, by which Temptation is discovered, 
 the snares of the devil laid open, and a sense of the sinful- 
 ness of sin, and its deep demerit, powerfully impressed up- 
 on the heart. It is no where said, that the multitude who 
 assembled on the day of Pentecost, were baptized with 
 the Spirit, when they were pricked in their hearts, and 
 inquired of the Apostles — what shall we do? But Peter 
 told them to "Repent and be baptized every one of you 
 in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. And 
 ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'''' It is not said 
 that Paul was baptized with the Holy Ghost, at the time 
 that he saw the Lord Jesus by the way — nor during the 
 three days that he fasted and prayed in Damascus. But 
 Ananias was sent to him, that he might receive his sight, 
 be baptized, and "be filled with the Holy Ghost." Then, 
 and not till then, did he enjoy this high privilege. 
 
 And now, the Friends, ministers and others, instead of 
 keeping to the simple and clear views of this doctrine, as 
 presented in the Holy Scriptures, are adapting their ideas 
 £>f it to the example of George Fox, when he was, from his 
 
i'uocF.i;uiNx;-< \m) pkinhplks or 
 
 own accoiuil, lor yenr<. under sirong temptations uliich 
 he could not put iVoni him; and when he was in an ex- 
 tremely disordered state ofniind. 
 
 G. R. sa^ys: "Il'G. Fox's mind had not heen frequent- 
 ly in an excited state, especially in the year 165'2 [the 
 tlate of Margaret FelTs letter to him] he must have been 
 more than human.*' Rrief Remarks p. 7. Then why, I 
 ask, should he quarrel with me, for suggesting that he 
 was at times in a state of mental excitement? 
 
 Again, in the same page, he says: "How dare these 
 apostatizing friends thus attempt to vilify and calumniate 
 the character of such a man?" — ib. 
 
 If G. R. had not been blinded by the smoke of his own 
 zeal, he might have seen that I neither vilified nor cal- 
 umniated the character of G. Fox. I published a few 
 papers from his manuscript Journal, which <t. R. who 
 once had that MS. in his possession, fully admits to be 
 genuine. And I apologized for G. F. by supposing that 
 he might have been, at times, in a state of mental excite- 
 ment. And G. R. says if this had not been the case, he 
 would have been more than human. And in addition to 
 all this, he tells us that the "re«/ facf appears to be — 
 what? Why, that the case ofG. F. and his friends, was 
 of the same character with that of Nayler and his delud- 
 ed followers!!! 
 
 G. R. in connection with his passionate, but ill-timed 
 and ill directed inquiry first quotted, goes on to ask: 
 "Was the work in which he [G. F.] was engaged, of man, 
 or of God.*' I answer, that whatever good things G. 
 Fox might have done or said (from which I never wished 
 to detract in the least degree) no man in his sober senses 
 can suppose it was the work of God, to write, or to sanc- 
 tion, or now to defend, such things as are contained in the 
 letters published in the Appeal. And G. R. and the 
 Friends are mistaken in their estimate of the understand- 
 ing of the age in which we live, if they think that such 
 
THE SOCIETV OV FUIE.NDS. 
 
 223 
 
 gross delusions, can be passed ofFas liie ffuit of the Spirit, 
 and the work of God. 
 
 "I have aheady proved" says he, ''and it is universally 
 allowed that the doctrines taught hy George Fox, va hen 
 faithfully put in practice, do produce good fruit." Brief 
 Remarks p. 9. 
 
 Then why are not his doctrines universally adopted — 
 at least by the sincerely pious? Mhy good fruit, he means 
 morality, in the common sense of the term, and by the 
 doctrines, he means only so7/ie of the doctrines taught by 
 George Fox, he has said what amounts to nothing for his 
 purpose. But if by doctrines he intends to include all 
 that G. F. held and taught, and by good fruit?, he means 
 both faith and practice in general terms, his assertion is 
 not true in^ither of its parts. Neither has he proven it, 
 nor is it universally allowed. To say that G. Fox taught 
 some or even many good things, is what I never denied. — 
 But I object to some things which were held by G. F. and 
 the Early Friends, and I published the letters &c. con- 
 tained in the Appeal, to show that we cannot accept the 
 whole of what they said and did, as correct. This point 
 is now established beyond contradiction. Then a dis- 
 crimination, and separation of the good from the bad, is 
 the imperious duty of Jhe Society. But the moment this 
 position is allowed — that investigation and discrimination 
 are admitted — the detection of errors will follow in rapid 
 succession. The Conservative Friends know this; arid 
 therefore their utmost exertions are used to stop incjuiry — 
 to shut up the minds of their members against conviction 
 — and to prevent the very grossest mistakes, and most 
 palpable errors, both in Faith and Practice, from being 
 represented in their real character, or acknowledged to 
 be wrong. Nothing is too shocking to be palliated or even 
 directly defended, lest the work of discrimination should 
 begin, and the members of the Society, encouraged to 
 ifiink for themselves, should bring the opinions and prac- 
 tices of their fore-fathers to the (f>t of Holy Scripture. 
 
PROCEEDINGS AND PHINCIPLES OF 
 
 The contest now is, in the first place, for the Vindica- 
 tion on the one hand, and the exposure on the other, of 
 the grossly unsound, and unscriptural parts of the writ- 
 ings of G. Fox and his cotemporarics. The Society, in 
 its official character, has recognized and recommended, 
 the writings of tlie Early Friends v/ithout exception. 
 And I have shown that they wrote many things utterly 
 incompatible with Christianity, and subversive of its 
 most important doctrines. But the Society, has made 
 it a disownable offence, to call the writings of G. Fox 
 in question. And George Richardson and Samuel Tuke 
 have come forward to defend liim and Early Friends 
 in cases which must astonish the Christian world. 
 
 Perhaps it may be said, that G. R. and S. T. both gave 
 up the Letter of M. Fell and others, as highly objectiona- 
 ble. 
 
 But I ask, do G. Richardson or S. Tuke admit that G. 
 Fox or any of the writers of those letters were in error? 
 Do they give up one iota of their claims to revelation, when 
 writing those grossly offensive things? No. The great 
 object of both these writers, is to justify George Fox and 
 the Early Friends. To what purpose then is the prctctid- 
 ed admission of the objectionable character of the Letter 
 of Margaret Fell, and others? The letter contains very 
 objectionable expressions — say these apologists, but the 
 writers were not to blame. And even though they claim- 
 ed to be gathered in the power of the spirit — yet no idea 
 is to be entertained of their being under a delusion. — The 
 writing was wrong, but not the writers. And then to 
 cap the climax, the Society has made it a ground of dis- 
 ownment to call in question the soundness of those writ- 
 ing!!! 
 
 George Richardson thinks I overshoot the mark by say- 
 ing, in a Note in the Appeal, "As to the martyrdom of 
 one thousand Christians at Lichfield, in the time of the 
 Emperor Dioclesian, I have not been able, after consider- 
 
TUa SOCIETV OF FRIKXIXS. i>3.1 
 
 able research, to find any foijndaliou for llicj slory. TJiis 
 lusloric.al fact, he says, is supported by the most uiKptcs- 
 lionable evidence. — 
 
 But what, I ask, if it be so? Suppose we grant that 
 there ■w:isfouiulalion for the story — it only follows that I 
 had not found it. And George Richardson may claim 
 the credit of more extensive researches than / had ever 
 made. And most readily do I concede to him the palm 
 that i.s due to his erudition. But tliis has nothiag to do 
 with my objection to the conduct of George Fox, at Lich- 
 field. The doiibt which I had of the truth of the story, 
 was riierely suggested in a Mle. It was the transaction 
 itself, proceeding as it did, on the high claims to revela- 
 tion, that I wished to present to the view of the Friends, 
 as an example of OT?s<aA:e, in taking the wild fancies of 
 imagination, for immediate revelation. And I again Ap- 
 peal, not only to the Friends, but to the Christian public, 
 if they can believe tliat George Fox was directed by re- 
 velation — and not by imagination, in that extraordinary 
 business? 
 
 First he says: "And as I was one time walking in a 
 close [or field] with several Friends, I hft up my head, 
 and I espied three steeple-house spires: and they struck at 
 my life. And I askt friends what they was, and they 
 said Liclifield. So the word of the Lord came to me, 
 thither I might go."' I think the indications of a disor- 
 (lercd mind, mectusat the very commencement of the 
 narrative. 
 
 He proceeds: "And I bid friends that was with me 
 walk into the house from me, and they did. And as soon 
 as they was gone, for I said nothing to them whether I 
 would go; but I went over hedge and ditch till I came 
 within a mile of Lichfield, and when I came info a ^i^eat 
 field where there was shepherds keeping their sheepc, I 
 was commanded of the Lord to put off my shoes of a 
 -udden. And I stogd still, and the word of the Lord wa» 
 
 5>r> 
 
520 
 
 rUOCEEDIKGS AND PKI-NCIFLES OF 
 
 like afucinmc. And being •winter, I untied mj shoes 
 and put them off. And when I liad done, I was com- 
 manded to give them to the sliephcrds, and was to charge 
 them to let no one have them except they paid for them. 
 And the poor sheplici ds trembled and were astonished.'' 
 Here arc at least three special revelations. And con)ing 
 over hedge and ditch (he docs not tell us how far, but as 
 it would seem a considerable distance) he had, no doubt, 
 become quite warm — and this he supposed was the Word 
 of the Lord in him. It is not at all surprising that the 
 Shepherds, seeing him coming over hedge and ditch, and 
 acting in all respects as strangely as he did, should trem- 
 ble and be astonished. It was an age of superstition. G. 
 F. tell, in his Journal, of a g; at woman that thought he 
 w:js an angel or spirit, when he went into a place of 
 public worship — and he relates several cases in which 
 the people thought the house shook where he was. And 
 in another place in his Journal, he says he spake through 
 Kendal upon a market day, "And so dreadful was the 
 power of God that was upon me, that the people flew 
 like chaff before me into their houses." On another oc- 
 casion be says, "The power of God thundered amongst 
 them, and they did fly like chaff before it." And in an- 
 other place he says: "So that it was a dreadful thing 
 unto them when it was told them, The man in Lcalhcnt 
 Breeches iscomc»'^ 
 
 But to proceed, he says: "And so I went about a 
 mile till I came into the town. And as soon as I came 
 within the town the ^V^ord of the Lord came unto mc 
 again to cry Wo unto the bloody City of Lichfield. So 
 I went up and down the streets crying Wo unto the 
 bloody city of Lichfield. And being market day, I went 
 into the market place, and went up and down in several 
 places of it, and made stands crying Wo unto the bloody 
 City of Lichfield. And no one hushed me, or laid hands, 
 off me."' 
 
THE SOCIETY or miF.NUS. 
 
 2^7 
 
 Bat what effect did this wondei/ul exhihition produce? 
 No body seems to have heen frightened — no one run 
 .^jvay — the man with the Icatliern breeches, passed with- 
 out interru2)tion — but .«ome of the most considerate, 
 wondered what had become of his shoes! He says in 
 immediate connection with Luc foregoing quotation : "And 
 so at last, some friends and friendly people came to me 
 and said, Alack George where is thy shoes? And I told 
 them it was no matter." Whoever would have Ihought 
 of such a sequel to such an exhibition ! Both his con- 
 duct, and the manner of relating it, show that his mind 
 was under the influence of a most singular excitement. 
 
 lie proceeds: "So when I had declared what was upon 
 me, and cleared myself, I came out of the town in peace; 
 about a mile to the Shepherds, And there I went to 
 them, and took my shoes, and gave them some money. 
 And the fire of the Lord was so in my feet, and all over 
 me, that I did not matter to put. my shoes on any more, 
 and was at a stand whether I should or no, till I felt free^ 
 dom from the Lord.*' 
 
 Here was another rexclalion to wear his shoes again? 
 And the heal that was produced in his feet, and all over 
 liim, by this singular proceeding — while every boy in the 
 streets, could have told him the cause of it — he supposed 
 to be the Fire of ihc Lord — So thoroughly was his mind 
 carried away with this notion of ea;/?-ao;-(//nor)y divine in- 
 fluence. 
 
 That he was sincere, I never doubted. But I. think — 
 and in this, I shall not be alone — that he was mistuken in 
 regard to these supposed Revelations. He was evidently 
 carried away with the flashes of imagination, while sober 
 judgment, appears to have exercised no controul over bis 
 feelings. 
 
 But this is not all, for he says in the subsequent part of 
 his story, "But as I went down the town, There run like 
 a channel of blood down the streets', and the market 
 
 « 
 
2-28 
 
 rnocBEDiNcs and pnixtiPLEs oi' 
 
 place v, as like a pool of blood. This 1 saw as 1 went 
 through it crj'ing Wo to the bloody city of Lichfield.;' 
 And now the Friends arc required to believe all tbe^ 
 special revelations, and tliiii viMon of Blood, and all the con- 
 duct conuecLcu with thcni,asbeing Ihercsult of immediate, 
 divine iniluence; and the terrors of the disowning powers 
 of the Society, are held up over them to extinguish every 
 doubt upon the subject! How, I ask, in the present en- 
 lightened age, can the intelligent members of thc Society 
 submit to these things, or hold up their heads among 
 their well informed neighbours! 
 
 It was after G. F. had washed his feet in a ditch, and 
 put on his shoes, that he began to consider, why he 
 should go and cry against that city, and call it that bloody 
 city, for he does not seem to have thought of the inquiry 
 before. He now recollected diat much blood had beeii 
 shed there in the civil wars, but a short time before this 
 — "yet" says he, "that could not be charged upon the 
 town?" Many of the actors in those scenes of blood were 
 no doubt still ahve. He docs not tell us why, but he re- 
 leases the town from all blood-guiltiness on that account, 
 though it had occurred but a few years before, and for 
 any thing that we know — some of the blood might have 
 been still visible, in some of their houses. 
 
 It was after this, as we are informed, that G. F. 
 "came to see that there was 1000 martyrs in Dioclesians 
 time was martyred in Lichfield. And so 1 must go in my 
 stockings through the channel of their blood, and come 
 into the pool of their ])lood in their market place. So I 
 might raise up the blood of those martyrs that had been 
 shed, and lay cold in their streets which had been shed 
 above 1000 years before." 
 
 But admitting the story of martyrdom to be true — how 
 was that blood to be charged upon the town, when the 
 blood which had been shed only a few years, could not* 
 As G. F. has not explained this mystery, I confess I do 
 not see how any one else can. 
 
THE SOCIErV OF FRIKNDS. 
 
 229 
 
 G. F. SAys the persecution under Dioclesian u as "al)Ovc 
 1U4)0 yearb" before his visit to Lichfield. Dioclesian re- 
 signed the Empire in the year 305.* And G. Foxjs visit 
 to Lichticld was in 1G51. It was no great matter, to be 
 sure, to mistake the date of the tenth Persecution, by a 
 few hundred years. But now as to the certainty of the 
 liiclitield Martyrdom. 
 
 George Richardson, refers to Camden— to Dr. John- 
 son's Dictionary, and to Aytlett Sammcs. But'after re- 
 turning my acknowledgments to him, for the light he has 
 shed upon the subject, from "the Antiquities of Ancient 
 Britain'"' by A. Sammes, I must still confess that my 
 doubts of the truth of the story rvre not at all removed. 
 And howeverG. R. and the Friends, who I dai-e say depend 
 more upon G. Fox's revelations in the case, than on the 
 evidence of History, may look down with contempt upon 
 my ignorance, I am not ashamed of the com.pany in 
 which I am found, in regard to this matter. 
 
 Eusebius who gave an account of the Dioclesian per- 
 secution, both at Rome, an«4 in distant countries, "and 
 whose means of information exceeded those of all other 
 historians whose works are now extant, is entirely silent 
 upon this important matter. And I conceive it to be al- 
 together unreasonable to suppose that the murder of one 
 thousand christians in a single town, should not be ex- 
 tensively known, and receive a place in history, while 
 the death of single individuals, and those in some cases 
 obscure persons, should be so" carefully pfeserved. I 
 refer to Euscbius's History, as one written not very long 
 ^aftcr the persecution in question, by a man of extensive 
 information. 
 
 Neither Moshcim, Milncr, nor Jones, three able writers 
 of Ecclesiastical History, has ventured to record theX>ich- 
 field !&Jartyrdom, as an historical fact, -or even to nnmi- 
 
 *8ec Miliicr'b (Church History, in one Vol. Edinburdi 6(1.183.3. 
 i>.201. • ' ' 
 
230 
 
 PnOCETIDINGfi AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 it. Nor is this all. The celebrated John Fox, who 
 flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth, compilQd a 
 "Universal History of Christian Martyrdom," in which 
 his biographer says he was engaged, "with prodigious 
 pains, and constant study — eleven years." This work 
 was written about a hundred years before G. Fox went 
 barefoot through Lichfield. And yet it takes no notice 
 of this wonderful martyrdom. E. Blomfield wrote a 
 "History of the Martyrs, or an authentic narrative of the 
 SuflTcrings of the Church of Christ in every part of the 
 world." It forms two quarto volumes, one of G52, and 
 the other of 544 pages. Yet no mention is made of the 
 event in question. I could mention other historians of ac- 
 knowledged mci it, who, as it would seem, were not will- 
 ing to risk their reputation, by giving it a place in their 
 respective histories. 
 
 While therefore G. Richardson r.nd other Friends, will 
 regard the truth of the story of the martyrdom, as an 
 evidence of the certainty of G. Fox's revelations in the 
 case, I shall take the liberty of entertaining doubts in re- 
 gard to the thousand martyrs, regarding it as a mere Ro- 
 man legend, which found its way into the w^ritings of 
 some men, whose credulity Avas greater than the sound- 
 ness of their judgment. In reference to the conduct of 
 George Fox, entirely independent of the truth or false- 
 hood of the story — I believe it to have been a striking 
 case of delusion, and a practical comment on his notion of 
 Revelation. 
 
 Near the close of his defence of G. F., the writer of 
 Brief Remarks, inquires: "But what will the world gain 
 — what will any individual gain— if these dessentients 
 should succeed in destroying Quakerism!" pp. 15, IG. 
 
 In reply to this inquiry, I will ask, what of Quaker- 
 ism have I ever attempted to destroy, but manifest cor- 
 ruptions? If these corruptions constitute the very essence 
 of Quakerism, which I am almost persuaded now to be- 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 231 
 
 licve — lot it be destroyed, and Uic sooner the better for the 
 Friends themselves, und for the world at large. It is true, 
 that there is nothing valuable in Quakerism, that was 
 not in Christianity long before Quakerism existed. But 
 there are many things in lUc latter that never were, and 
 never will be in the former. The pica, the appeal, the 
 earnest expostulation of George Richardson, is not for 
 Chiistianity— but for Quake. '-m — and for tliose gross 
 eiroi s, or forms of expression, if he plensc, which are not 
 only totally incomputiblc with Chiistianity but totally 
 subversive of it. And what can he or the Friends-) gain by 
 defending, and retaining those corruptions, in the bosom 
 of Society? As respects the Society, it must be fatal to 
 its character, if not to existence — and as relates to individ- 
 uals — may God have mercy upon them! 
 
 G. R. says: "The working of this subtle spirit which 
 has got abroad; this old accuser of the Brethren — has been 
 very insiduous; it has been at work for many years — but 
 durst not avow its real object and character. It pretend- 
 ed it was attacking Hicksism, but it was easy to sec, long 
 ago, that genuine Quakerism was meant. It is now throw- 
 ing off the mask, and showing itself in its real colours." 
 ib. p. 16. 
 
 Now I think, in all candour, that the mask is pretty 
 fully thrown olF here. The many j/ear*-, and the larguage, 
 necessaiily carry us back, not only through the heat of 
 the controversy about the doctrines of Eliiis Ilicks, but to 
 the very rise of that cojitroversy. G. R. saw long ago 
 ihvitgtnuinc Qi/ft/ctmm was meant by those who called the 
 trines of E. Hicks in question. I can honestly say that 
 I was not aware of the fact at the time. But I am con- 
 vinced of it now. And I freely acknowledge that it is so. 
 And I do most earnestly wish that George Richardson 
 may convince the whole body of Friends, as fully as 1 am 
 convinced, that instead of Hicksism — instead of any new 
 tiling that wp werp then contending against, it waiJ no 
 
232 
 
 rniNciPLijs ,\:vi> ruocEEDiscs ok 
 
 othiiv than gominc Qiiakr.ris77i. His Mrguments, I tlniik, 
 arc conclusive on this point, mnchas he hasAiiled to prove 
 that G. Fox, Margaret Foil, and the others mentioned in 
 the Appcixl, were divinely inspired, Vv'hcn they wrote the 
 monstrous things contained in tl)e extracts from the MS. 
 Journal. 
 
 To complete !iis object G. R. undertakes a formal de- 
 fence of Isaac Pennington's Incitation, Penn's Sandy 
 Foundation Shaken, and Barclay's Vehiculum Dei. For 
 a further notice of these pieces, I refer the reader to the 
 following Chapter. But for the present, I only say, that 
 the open, uiiqualified vindication of these parts of the 
 Writings above named, is an open and direct vindication 
 of the doctrines of Elias Hicks. 
 
 The passage from I. P. which I shall give hereafter, re- 
 presents Jesus, as the garment of Christ, and distinguishes 
 between him that came, and the body in which he came; 
 between the outward vessel, and the inward life. And' 
 makes this strong declaration: "This we certainly know, 
 and can never call the bodily garment Christ, but that 
 which appeared and dwelt in the body." That is, the 
 inward life, as distinguished from the outward vessel. I 
 stated in the vvork to which G. Richardson referred, 
 that the whole passage did convey the doctrines of E. H. 
 on the point in question. This he does not pretend to 
 deny. And he undertakes to vindicate the doctrine. 
 That it was called Hicksism, every intelligent member of 
 the Society to which that epithet was applied, will fully 
 prove. That it is genuine Quakerism, has been proved 
 by George Richardson, George Jones, and many other 
 Friends. 
 
 G. Richardson gives a reason why George Jones pub- 
 lished this extract from Pennington, in one of Jiis Stock- 
 port Tracts. He says that an extract from Pennington's 
 Incitation "was previously published and widely circulat- 
 ed by some Desscntients at Bristol, with the design ap- 
 
TU13 SOCIETS' OP FIIIENDS. 
 
 233 
 
 p;ircntly of bringing the writings of I. P. and other early 
 Friends, into contempt, which induced a friend at Man- 
 cliester, to print it more at length, with a view of allow- 
 ing the writer to ex])lain liis own views more fiill^ ." p. 
 17. 
 
 But George Jones did not even intimate that tlic ad- 
 ditional passages which he selected, changed the view 
 which would he given hj that publisiied at Bristol. The 
 more extended extract was given not as a change, but to 
 confirm the sentiments contained in the smaller extract. In 
 G. Jones' selection I. P. declares that they "hold forth no 
 other thing for Christ, hnt him who then appeared, and was 
 made manifest in flesh." Tract p. 2. Take tills along 
 with the distinction which was so positively made between 
 Christ, and the body in which he came, the outward ves- 
 sel and the inv/ard life,[and it amounts to as positive a de- 
 nial as could well have been made — of Jesus of Nazareth 
 — to be the Christ. It exclusively applies the charac- 
 ter of Christ to the inward Life, w^hich is supposed to be 
 in every individual, as well as in Jesus. 
 
 G. R. says I have not made an appeal to Scripture, in 
 objection to the passage from I. P. — If this had been so I 
 might have replied that this was done in the former con- 
 troversy — and it might have been hoped that now, the 
 mere yhd of its being proved to be a revival of the doc- 
 trine ofE. H. would have been sufficient to insure its re- 
 jection on the part of those called the Orthodox. In this 
 however I find myself mistaken. Without even pretend- 
 ing to deny that it was the doctrine of E. II. (which it 
 would be in vain now to attempt) it is openly defended 
 as genuine Quakerism. This Tract of G. Richardson's 
 has been reprinted in America; large numbers have been 
 sent to the western country, and no doubt to other parts of 
 the U. S., and the clerk of Ohio Yearly Meeting, during 
 the late Session of that body,wasseen industriously hand- 
 ing it out. 
 
 •2E 
 
234 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 But Uial their distinclion between the character of 
 Clirist, and the bodily garment, may not go without a di- 
 rect reply, I may remark that the Apostle says: "It was 
 CAm/ that f//a/, Yea rather that is risen again." Now 
 it is evident that both tlic death and resurrection are ap- 
 plied to that which I. P. calls the bodily garment, which 
 he declared they never could call Christ. Again the 
 Angel said to Mary "Therefore that Holy thing which 
 •hall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" — 
 Peter said that he, the Son of man — was "Christ, the Sou 
 of the living God." And after the Ascension the same 
 inspired Apostle said: "Therefore let all the house of 
 Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same 
 Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ." But 
 of this I shall have occasion to speak again hereafter. 
 
 G. R. when he comes to defend the Sandy Foundation 
 Shaken, shows that he w-as conscious he had a difliculi 
 cause in hand. lie admits that W. P. "some times ex- 
 pressed himself in such a manner as was open to misap- 
 prehension on the part of his hearers or readers. This 
 has been the origin of many of the charges and accusa- 
 tions which have been brought against liinr, and there 
 cannot be £i doubt but that in reference to some instances, 
 had he been aware of this danger at the time, he would 
 have been more guarded in his language." Brief Ileniarkii 
 p. 17.. 
 
 It happens however that though W. Penn was fully eip- 
 prised of this danger, by being imprisoned the very same 
 year in which he wrote the Sandy Foundation Shaken — 
 though the points in controversy were incessantly agitat- 
 ed, yet five years afterwards, in his Reason against Hail- 
 ing, he repeats some of the worst parts of the Sandy Foun- 
 dation Shaken. Nor is this all, he never rccanlcd his pub- 
 lished sentiments. And more than all tliiSi The. Friends 
 after his death, embodied the Sandy Foundation in hia 
 sckclcd woikfi. The Sandy Foundation was printed iu 
 
rni: socir/rv of fhienus. 
 
 235 
 
 JGGJS, and in IG71 hf: ullcrly dmipd the ouivmrfl pt rson that 
 yiijfrred lo be properly ihc Son of (Jod. And when hia works 
 were puhlished in fol. in 172G, this shocking declaration 
 w;is inserted, and it stands there uncorrected to tlie pre 
 sent day. 
 
 In regard to Barclay's Vchiculum Dei — a Latin term, 
 which moans the vehicle of God, there could scarcely he 
 conceived a notion, that when carried ont, would more 
 completely pervert the Gos.pel oF Christ. The reader 
 will find it among the quotations in the next Chapter.— 
 But it is a most rcmarkahle piece of consistency in 
 George Richardson, after defending the Letters contain- 
 ed in the Appeal, and the wildest enthusiasm to be found 
 in G. Fox's MS. Journal — and virtually asserting that by 
 tlie attack which was made upon Hicksism, genuine Qua- 
 kerism was the real object assailed — he goes on to defend 
 I. P's. Incltation, W. P's. Sandy Foundation, and R. B's. 
 Vcliiculum Dei. Admit these to be correct, or any one 
 of them, and Hicksism is completely recognized, 
 
 It ought not to be over looked, that when G. Richard- 
 son affected to doubt whether G. Fox used tlie drjinite ar- 
 ticle the, in his Letter to O. Cromwell, S. Tuke very fully 
 admits that he did use it\ He says: "The question which 
 arises upon this letter is, Did George Fox, in using the 
 term, 'The Son of God,' intend to assert that he was 
 Christ?" riea, p. 4. He knew that the attempt that G. 
 R. had made to induce a belief that it was written a Son, 
 could not bear examination. To resort to such a trifling 
 pretence, gives no credit to the cause that could be no 
 better defended. For as the copy from which the fac 
 simile was taken, was verified by G. Fox's own hand, 
 every body might see that there is no room (or a vague 
 story, of another copy, where, or by whom made, even 
 G. R. himself has not ventured to tell. 
 
 But I blame both those writers, for endeavouring to 
 lower down the dilTerencc in the use of the article, in (h© 
 
236 
 
 rROCEEDIi\(;.S VNl) PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 case before us, as they have done. I have not the least 
 doubt, that as G. F. used the article the, ajiid two such 
 prominent ministers as S. T. and G. R. have defended 
 him — many of the friends will be weak enough to think, 
 that it made little dilFcrcnce whether the one or the other 
 articles were used. 
 
 S. T. after admiting that G. F. did use the definite 
 article, endeavours to bring him off by supposing he "only 
 designed to speak of himself as as one of ihc Sons of God." 
 Plea, p. 5. But the very natural question arise — If he 
 intended this, why did he not say so? If such liberty as 
 this is to be taken, wc never can bo sure of the meaning 
 of any man. But how docs it happen that the doctors 
 disagree in the case? G.Richardson amends the letter 
 making it read a Son, S. Tuke don't seem to like this, 
 and would have it one of the Sons, and Thomas Ell wood, 
 who had the whole case before him, with the Widow, 
 and the cliildren to explain any matter of doubt — slipped 
 silently over the passage, and said nothing of the sonship 
 at all. And as he adopted neither of the modern amen, 
 datioas, wc may take it for granted that neither of them 
 was the true reading of the Letter. And that T. E, saw 
 noway of getting over it, but by leaving it out altogeth- 
 er. Thus these three corrccters of the text, set each oth- 
 ers amendations aside, while the Letter, risen, as it were 
 from the dead, speaks out for itself, and tells the world 
 what.Gcorgc Fox did soy, and any man of common sense 
 can tell what the language means. His ignorance then 
 is Ji is only possible defence. And I am willing that he 
 should have the full benefit of this plea: and 1 am quite 
 aware that it will go very far, in covering some features 
 of the charge. But that which comes under the head of 
 <^f/ws/o?i it wdll not touch. In fact, it brings this out in 
 more bold relief, lie claimed such wisdom — such author- 
 ity — such revelation for what he said, that now to excuse 
 him fiom Blasphemy, by sheer ignorance, is to stamp him 
 with most caiful delnsinii. 
 
TIIK SOCIETV or FKIKNDS. 
 
 And as it turns out, tiie delusion docs not rest upon ;i 
 single mode of cxpi'cssion : m the following chapter will 
 show. 
 
 Sanmel Take in p. 9 of his Pica, has the following 
 very ingenious remark; "But we are willing and anxious 
 thai the examination of the charge should not- be confined to 
 the consideration of the documents referred to, or to any other 
 papers in u-hich ambiguous expressions may be found.'''' 
 
 This was no doubt regarded as a very bright idea. It 
 suggests a most convenient mode of disposing of a difficult 
 case. It is no more nor less than to pass as quickly as 
 possible from the documents imnnediately in hand — and 
 from every other paper of a similar character, and to make 
 out from other papers, a selection of passages that vv^ould 
 look as well as possible upon paper. S. T. accordingly 
 takes up but two of the letters noticed in the Appeal, and 
 passes £ill the rest over in silence. And for these two he 
 makes the most miserable apologies. .And then he goes 
 off to other matters, foreign to the case in hand, to make 
 out G. F. and his friends to be incapable of entertaining 
 the sentiments most plainly expressed in their own writ- 
 ings. By such a process as this who, I ask, might not be 
 cleared from any charge whatever? What man would 
 ever be convicted of a crime, if the advocate were allow- 
 ed to leave the evidence immediately relating to the case, 
 and take up such transactions as had never been called 
 in question ? Does S. T. suppose, that with the dexterity 
 of a lawyer, he is to be allowed to slide off from the docu- 
 ments, referred to, in a spcciiic case; and not only from 
 these, but from all other papers of a similar character? Facts 
 arc stubborn things; and so are documents. But release him 
 from being confined to the consideration of these — and 
 from every thing else of a similar character — release him, 
 in fact, from the case immediately in hand, and he can 
 easily show himself to be 
 
 "An excellent painter who makes it his care 
 
 "To draw men as they ought to be, not as Ihey are." 
 
238 
 
 PKOCEEDlNOS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 But ^vith bis Fancy Pieces, I wish to liavo notliing to do. 
 And though lie is so willing and anxious not to be confin- 
 ed to the comidcration of the documents referred to, or to 
 any other papers in which tlierc arc what he calls ambig- 
 uous expressions, 1 feel myself under no obligations to in- 
 dulge him in these wishes. And I call upon him to take 
 up the zoAo/c of the o'oci/mrn ifs, contained in the Appeal, 
 and reconcile them with sound doctrine. He has totally 
 failed with those he has taken in hand, and the great body 
 of them lies untouched. And in the mean time, I will of- 
 fer for his consideration, a.f'^w passages, out.of the printed 
 works of the Early Friends. 
 
 Let it be remembered that it is not about i\\c good things 
 that were said by the Early Friends, that we are now con- 
 tending. I insist that they said some things that were 
 highly objectionable — and that they were mislaken'\r\ some 
 of their claims to revelation. And I contend that no amount 
 of good that could. be selected from their writings, should 
 ever give impunity to one single error, to be lodged with 
 that good, or to be recommended as truth. In proving the 
 existence of errors, we must take them as they are. 
 
CllAPTEll. X. 
 
 Having shown that the Brief Remarks, and Plea for 
 George Fox and Early Friends, do not touch a large pro- 
 portion of the documents referred to in the Appeal; and 
 that so far from proving the correctness of those which arc 
 particularly noticed, the writers of these two pamphlets 
 have estahlished the fact, that the letters are not only 
 highly ohjectionable — but that they are to be ascribed to 
 the same causes which produced the delusion of James 
 Nayler and his company — and not only so, but that the 
 essential principles of Quakerism and Ilicksism are iden* 
 tical — I shall now present the reader with a few quota- 
 tions from the printed works of Early Fiiends. 
 
 George Fox. "All languages are to me no moi e than 
 dust, who was before languages were, and am come'd before 
 languages were, and am redeemed out of languages into 
 the power where men shall agree; but this is a whip and 
 a rod to all such who have degenerated through tlie pride, 
 ajid ambition from their natural tongue, and languages, 
 and all languages on earth is but natural, and makes none 
 divine, but that which makes divine is the Word, which 
 was before languages, and tongues were." Preface to 
 the Battledore. 
 
 Here G.' F. asserts his own pre-existence before lan- 
 guages were — in almost exactly the same terms that he 
 declares the pre-existence of the Eternal Word. 
 
 "Again, thou makest a great pudder that any one should 
 witness thai he is equal wilh God.'''' Great Mystery, p. G7. 
 
 "lie that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus from 
 the dead is ecjual with God." Saul's Errand to Damah- 
 tus, p. 8. 
 
TUB SOCIETY OF FUIENDS. 
 
 23a 
 
 '•Pr. Tliou (Alexander Ross,) sayest, It is liorrid blas- 
 pliemy to say the Scripture is not the Word of God, and 
 to say that the soul is a part of God. Answ. The Scrip- 
 tures are the words of God in Exodus, and the /our Books 
 of the Revelations, but Christ is the Word in whom they 
 end; and it is not horrid Blasphemy to say that the Soule is 
 part of God, for it came out of him, and that which came 
 out of him, is of him, and re joiceth in him." Great Mys- 
 tery, p. 273. 
 
 "Moreover the Lord God let me see (when I was 
 brought up into his image, in righteousness and holiness, 
 and into the Paradise of God) the state, how Adam was 
 made a living soul; and also the Stature of Christ, the 
 Mystery, that had been hid from ages and generations: 
 which things are hard to be uttered; and cannot be borne 
 by many. For of all the Sects in Christendom (so called) 
 that I discoursed withal, I found none that could bear to 
 be told, that any should come to Adam's Perfection, into 
 that Image of God, and righteousness, and holiness, that 
 Adam was in before he fell; to be so clear and pure with- 
 out sin, as he was. Therefore, how should they be able 
 to bear, being told, that ayiy should grow up to the measure 
 of the Stature of the fulness of Christ, when they cannot 
 bear to hear, that any shall come whilst upon earth, into 
 the same Power and Spirit, that the Prophets and Apos- 
 tles were in? Though it be a certain truth, that none 
 can understand their wi'itings aright, without the same 
 Spirit by wliich they were written." G. Fox's Journal, 
 2d ed. part 1, pp. 59, 60. 
 
 As already intimated, the ignorance of George Fox, 
 must be the apology, if any apology can be offered, for 
 the language used in these quotations. But what can we 
 think of the claims to extraordinary revelation, set up for 
 such a man, both by himself, and others down to the pre- 
 sent day ? And what will become of the cobweb excuses 
 of G. Richardson and S. Tukc? To claim equality with 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 241 
 
 God— to suppo ic that the Soul is apart of God — and that 
 he ^^should grow vp to the measure of the fulness of the Stat- 
 ure of Christ,'''' in a scnsc'v/hich so far exceeded corning to 
 "Adam's Perfection,"' and being in the same spirit and 
 power which the Prophets and v'V postlcs were in — that it 
 was not to be wondered at, that the professors of Christi- 
 anity could not bear to be told of it.' Do not these things 
 accord with his applying to himself the title of The Son of 
 God, and receiving from his intimate friends the appella- 
 tions of the Bread of Life, the Fountain of Eternal Life, 
 the Father of Eternal Fclicit}', the Second appearance of 
 him irho is blessed forever, &c. &c. ? 
 
 • The reader will please to remember that one of the of- 
 ficial charges on which I was disowned w^as, that I had 
 made an "insidious attempt to destroy the Society, and 
 George Fox's christian character and religious reputation, 
 by calling in question the soundness of his religious writ- 
 ings." This charge referred to the documents published 
 in the Appeal. But it is not in the MS. Journal alone 
 that the sentiments contained in the old letters are found. 
 They are, together with others not less revolting, in his 
 printed works. And the very existence of the Society, is 
 made to depend on the maintenance of them — not even 
 to be called in question ! ! 
 
 "The Scriptures were the prophets' words, and Christ's 
 and the Apostles' words, and what, as they spoke, they 
 enjoyed and possessed, and had it from the Lord — Then 
 what had any to do with the Scriptures, but as they came to 
 the Spirit that gave them forth. You will say Christ saith 
 this, and the Apostles say this: but what canst thou say?" 
 M. F's Tes. G. Fox's Journal, part 1, p. 3. 
 
 "These things I did not sec by the help of man, nor by 
 the liCtter, (though they are written in the I^etter), but I 
 saw them in the Light of tho Lord Jesus Christ, and by 
 his immediate Spirit and Power, as did the holy men of 
 2F 
 
212 
 
 rROCEEDtNGS AND J-RINCirLES OF 
 
 God, by whom the Holy Scnptnres weie written."' Jour- 
 nal, part 1, p, Gl. 
 
 "They [the Scriptures] arc nol- the word of God as tiio« 
 (C. AVade) hast blasphemously affirmed, but Christ is the 
 Word of God." Great Mystery, pp. 246, 217. 
 
 Yet G. Fox in a great number of places applies the 
 terms to his own communications. 
 
 Thus he says: "-The Word of the Lord God to all peo- 
 ple that follow priest Lampitt.'' Journal, part 1, p. 179.- 
 
 "And to you this is the Word of God. ib. p. 181. 
 
 "The Word of the Lord God to thee priest Tathaniy 
 who art found out of the doctrine of Christ." ib. p. 182, 
 
 "And to thee this is the Word of the Lord." ib. p. 181, 
 
 «So tl)is is the Word of the Lord God unto all." ib. 482, 
 
 **This is the Word of the Lord God to you all: go noS 
 forth to the aggravating part." ib. p. .393. 
 
 Having taken a few quotations from the published 
 works of George Fox, I shall now arrange the following 
 selections under the heads of subjects to which tliey re- 
 - late. In regard to some of the writers to whom I shall l e- 
 fei', I freely acknowledge, as I have done, again and again, 
 that they made many declarations, which, taken separate 
 eil, and purified from the errors which lie scattered among 
 them, might be regarded as excellent. But none that 
 Ibve the truth, and have a due regard for the honour ©f 
 God, or the salvation of souls, can harbour the wish to 
 adulterate, or contradict, those valuable passages, by re- 
 taining along with them, sentiments totally subversive of 
 the Gospel. I am perfectly astonished at many of the 
 Friends, from wliom 1 had hoped better things, who are 
 exerting their whole amount of influence, to prevent a 
 developement of the unsound parts of the writings of 
 Friends, and to suppress among the members, every doubt 
 ia regard to the unclouded clearness, of the views ©f ©ur 
 predecessors. The doctrines of the Gospel may be cor- 
 rupted — the cause of Christianity scandalized, by connect 
 
THE SOCIKTV or FRirNUS. 
 
 313 
 
 ing witli it (lie grossest absurdities — awakened souls may 
 drink in the deadliost poison — rather than call in question 
 the infallibility of Early Friends,and discriminate between 
 their errors and what they said well!! T/ct these Friends 
 remenibor that they that love Fatlier or Mother more than 
 Christ are not worthy of hitn. And if to offend one of 
 his little ones, is worse than for a millstone to be hung 
 about their necks, and they to be cast into the sea — how 
 dreadful must it be to recommend such sentiments, as may 
 occasion the eternal ruin of those who receive them ! 
 
 OF THE SCniPTCttES. 
 
 "Next the literal knowledge docs kill, and not make 
 alive: and the Letter may also be called Dead, because 
 it makes dead by Killing, as well as that in another sense 
 there is no life in it: But we know that the strict sense of 
 the place [2 Cor. 3. 6, 7,) to relate to the dispensation of 
 the first covenant." Penn's Works, fol. vol. '2, p. 1 44. 
 
 A certain J. Turner, having said that it was a princi- 
 ple with the Friends — "That saints were not to do duties 
 by, or from a command without, but from a command 
 within; and that the word commanded in Scripture, was 
 not a command to them, till they had a Word within 
 them" — Edward Burroughs answers: 
 
 "That is no command from God to me, what he com- 
 mands to another; neither did any of the saints which we 
 read of in Scripture act by the command which was to 
 another, not having the command to themselves." E. B. 
 Works, p. 47. 
 
 If it be said that E. B. intended private duties — it may 
 be observed tljat the objection, and of course the answer, 
 related to f/('//r.v, without any such limitation. 
 
 "Christ left nothing in writing for the rule of faith and 
 practice that we hear of; and it is not to be thought that 
 he was less faithful in his house, than Moses; and doubt- 
 
Hi 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 less, had he intended the role of his followers to have been 
 a written rule; he would have ieft it upon record with all 
 punctuality; this must be believed and that done, on 
 pain of eternal death." Penn's Select Works, vol. 1, p. 
 307. 
 
 This argument was used by Elias Hicks, borrowed, of 
 course, from W. Penn. And George Jones selected this 
 passage for one of his Manchester and Stockport Tracts. 
 The argument, howevei', is perfectly destitute of founda- 
 tion. For if the Apostles and Evangelists were inspired 
 — if they wrote the mind of Christ — if the Holy Ghost 
 spoke by them — then what they so wrote was of the same 
 force and authority as if it had been written by Christ 
 himself. Their testimony is clothed with the authority 
 of God himself. The doctrines of revealed religion are 
 left upon record zi'ith nil punctuality. And they are to be 
 believed and obeyed, on pain of eternal death. But let 
 it be observed, that the argument of W. Penn goes to de- 
 stroy the authority of the Scriptures — that they are not 
 to be regarded as coming from Jesus Christ. What tlien? 
 Is not the idea naturally suggested that the Apostles and 
 Evangelists were not authorized to write them? And this 
 fallacious argument against their authority as thfc Rule of 
 Faith and Practice, lands in a virtual denial of their obli- 
 gation. By a negative mode of reasoning he gives us to 
 suppose, that as Christ did not write them himself, we are 
 not bound to believe this and do that on pain of eternal 
 death. For if this obligation to believe and obey the 
 Scriptures, be acknowledged to exist, then the argument 
 amounts to nothing at all. But if it docs not exist, then we 
 are at liberty in regard both to Faith and Practice, to set 
 the Scriptures aside with impunity. 
 
 "Nay the Scriptures (says W. Penn) cannot be proper- 
 ly styled the revelation of the Will of God, till they are 
 first opened by him, who was found worthy to unseal the 
 Book, that Spirit of Truth that opens and none shuts; and 
 shuts and none opens." Vol. 2, p. 37, fol. 
 
Tiir. socinTV OF- fhirnds. 
 
 215 
 
 It was tlic Lion of ihe tribe of Jada, the Root of David, 
 Hie l.amb that was slain, that was spoken of in tlie Reve- 
 lations, that was found worthy to open the Book and to 
 loose the seals. But W. Fena says it vras the Spirit of 
 Truth — andthua'hc confounds the character of Christ 
 with that of the Holy Spirit. And as W. Penn declared 
 the Spirit to be the Rule of Christians, he at the same 
 time applies the terms to CJirist, whom he makes identical 
 with the Spirit; and thus, "involves the danger of a very 
 fatal heresy." 
 
 In the language. of the "Strictures on Truth Vindicat- 
 ed," W. Penn, "of course cannot regard the Scriptures as 
 *the written revelation of tlie Will of God,' " because 
 their being the revelation of his Will, is made entirely to 
 depend on a new revelation. And till that revelation Is 
 received, they cannot be properly styled a revelation of 
 the Will of God! 
 
 I have often quoted a passage from R. Barclay, declar- 
 ing that "wc do look upon them [the Scriptures] as the 
 only fit outward judge of controversies among Christians: 
 and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary to their testimo- 
 ny may therefore be rejected as false. And for our parts, 
 we are very willing that all our doctrines and practices be 
 tried by them, which we never refused nor ever shall, in 
 all controversies with our adversaries as the judge and 
 test." And most earnestly did I labour to establish this 
 rule among the Friends. But in practice it is daily tram- 
 pled under foot. 
 
 There is in it however, a clause, which is commonly 
 used at this_ time, to render it a nullity. It is — "the only 
 fit outward ^u.dgc of controversies." This unhappily opens 
 the door for individual impressions, to hold the highest 
 place, as Judge of controversies. And indeed there is 
 much reason to beHeve that this was the intention of the 
 writer, who contended for the Spirit, as the Primary Rule 
 of Faith and Practice. With such a modification, the 
 
rnocKEnrNrrs and principi.tis of 
 
 practical efTccI, of the declaration of the authority of 
 Scripture, must be greatly diminished, if not totally des- 
 troyed. 
 
 But R. B. did not stop here. After having dwelt large- 
 ly on an exaggerated view of the uncertainty of the text 
 of Scripture, he says: "I say, all these, and much more 
 which might be alleged, puts the minds even of the learn- 
 ed into injinite doubts^ samples and inextricable difficulties.'^ 
 Bare. Works, fol. p. 353. 
 
 This statement I venture boldly to contradict. For it is 
 a fact admitted by the learned, that all the various read- 
 ings of ancient copies of Holy Scripture, which have aris- 
 en from copying and re-copying, have not deprived us of 
 one single doctrinal sentiment, one single moral precept, 
 or one single historical fact. How much to be regretted 
 is it, to see such a writer as R. Barclay, falHng in with the 
 current of argument which has been relied on by the ene- 
 mies of i-evealed x-eligion! The reason is obvious — it was 
 to destroy a dependence on the Scriptures, as the Rule of 
 Faith and Practice, in order to establish the notion that 
 the Spirit himself is the Rule of Christians. And in his 
 zeal for this favourite opinion, he even subjects the Scrip- 
 tures themselves, to the test of immediate revelation. 
 "When we doubt," says he, "of the streams of any river or 
 flood, we recur to the Fountain itself, and having found it, 
 there wesist; we can go no further: because there it 
 springs out of the bowels of tlie earth, which arc inscru- 
 table. Even so the ivritings and sayings of all men we 
 iimst bring to the Word of God, I mean the Ele7-nal Word ; 
 and if they agree hereunto, we stand there; for this Word 
 always proceedcth, and doth eternally proceed from God, 
 in and by which the unsearchable counsel and will con- 
 ceived in the heart of God is revealed unto us. Works, 
 fol. p. 298. 
 
 "For I have known some of my Friends, who profess 
 the same Faith with me, faithful servants of the most High 
 
TltE SOCIETY Of IKltJNDS. 
 
 217 
 
 God, and full of the IJivinc-kiiowlcdgc of his TrnUi as it 
 was immediately and inwardly revealed to tlicm by the 
 Spirit from a true and living experience, who not on)j 
 wore ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew, but even some 
 of them could not read their own vulgar language; who 
 being pressed by the adversaries with some citations out 
 of ihe English Translation, and finding them to disagree 
 with the manifestation of Truth in ihcir hearts^ have bold- 
 ly affirmed. The Spirit, of God never said so, and that it 
 was certainly wrong, for they did not believe, that any 
 of the holy Prophets or Apostles had ever written so. — 
 Which when I on this account seriously examined, I real- 
 ly found to be Errors and Corruptions of the Translators; 
 who (as in most translations) do not so much give us the 
 genuine significations of the words, as strain them to ex- 
 press that, which coraes nearest with that opinion and no- 
 tion they have of truth." ib. p. 303. 
 
 Here it may be remarked, as we go aloiig, that R. B. 
 has not given us the corrections of the Translations, which 
 these illilerate men made by revelation. We have only 
 his opinion that the English translation was' erroneous in 
 the cases alluded to. But why did he not give the cor- 
 rection of the texts in question, that others might judge 
 of the translation as well as himself? His object was not 
 to correct particular errors in the translation, but to es- 
 tablish the rule of bringing the Scriptures themselves, to 
 the test of individual revelation. Nor is this all: for he 
 passes a sweeping censure upon the Translators, and upon 
 most translations. 
 
 And where, I ask, is this discredit of the Scriptures, 
 and this latitude of bringing them to the test of immedi- 
 ate revelation to end? 
 
 This is in the celebrated Apology — a Standard work, 
 reprinted, and circulated in various parts of the world, 
 by the Yearly Meetings themselves. 
 
 "Shall we think that the literal text, in the very trans- 
 
248 
 
 PRINCIPLES AND PROCEEDINGS OF 
 
 cripts he so talks for, is any other than lie calls it as to its 
 most ancient translation, a corrupt stream, a Lesbian Rule, 
 pp. 15, 16, or ani/ other than some call ii, a nose of zoax, iio 
 certain stable Ride or standard, to try nil truth by, and guide 
 throughout in tM knozcledge of the 7vill of God?^'' 
 
 "Shall we think, because J. O. thinks so strangely, 
 that «o corruptible unA corrupted a stream as the tneer Jx;t- 
 ter now is, since i/ii'atoZ and interpolated, cvLn he jxidgGil a 
 fit measure to judge the fountain by (i.e.) the Light, Word, 
 and Spirit it came from? and a fit measure to correct, and 
 authoritatively to examine and determine those originals 
 by?" S. Fisher's works p. 397. 
 
 I could quote much more of the same kind from the 
 writings of this author. Comment on such language is 
 unnecessary. 
 
 "And here thou hast much manifested thy folly and 
 weakness, who would have-the Gospel contained in a book 
 which all the books in the world cannot contain." (A. 
 Parker, Testimony of God p. 26. - ' 
 
 "He [tliat is an apponent] said the Scripture is the 
 Word. I answer [said tlie writer] that is another lie, 
 and the »Scripture is a witness against thee, it saith, God 
 is the Word, and the Word became flesh," &c. (T. Law- 
 son and J. Slee, 'Untaught Teacher, p. 11.) 
 
 "He said the Scripture was the Word of faith. I an- 
 swer that is another lie, and here thou denies Christ, who 
 was before the world was, or heresy, schism, antichrist, 
 or false prophet was." pp. 11, 12.) 
 
 "He said the Scriptures did lead into the truth. I an- 
 swer, that is another lie, and the Scriptures are witnesses 
 against thee, which saith, the Spirit of truth leads into all 
 truth; &c. (i6.) 
 
 "He said, the Scripture led into the knowledge of God, 
 and did teach man the knowledge of God. I answer, 
 that is another lie, and the key of knowledge thou here 
 denies, so thou art brutish in thy knowledge.'' ib. p. 13. 
 
THE SOCIETV OF FIIIEXDS. 
 
 2(0 
 
 '"Matthew CafBii said, the Sciipturo was the Touch- 
 stone to try spirits withall. I an<wer tliat is another He, 
 the Scripture is not the tryer of spirits, to try tlie living 
 by the dead, that I deny:" &c. {ih. p. 14.) 
 
 "Dost not thoa teach men to follow the Scripttirc liuit 
 was never given from God to thee nor them; certainly 
 they must neglect that portion of the spirit given to all, 
 enlightening all, for no man can serve two masters. Mat. 
 4, That which kills is your Teacher, because you have 
 chosen it:" (J.^ Ilumphreycs, Vision of Eternity, p. 2.) 
 
 "For tlie Devil's Foundation is the Letter; and if he 
 should deny that, it would be enough to plenetative his 
 members with a suspicious Jealousy that he were decu- 
 lating that which for many years he hath taught them by 
 his education to super-edificate or build up. Now to 
 prove the Letter his maxim, is easier for me then for him 
 in thee to pro^ve another Temple besides the Saints' 
 bodies, though presumption blusheth not at follv. The 
 Apostles argument is not particular, as to the Letter of 
 the Law; for if so, why was he so logoscvacuatc, or empty 
 of expressions as not to express it particular; but seeing 
 he did not well take the Devils Libcrtv to keep close to 
 the Letter which is expressed in general terms, viz: The 
 Letter kills: Now the Devils name in Hebrew signifies a 
 Destroyer, and 1 hope betwixt them two there's little 
 fcrcnce,viz : killing and destroying.'^ (Vision of Eterni- 
 ty, p. IL) 
 
 Tliis is plainly asserting that there is little diffcrfncc 
 between the Scriptures and the Devil! ! 
 
 This piece was published in the year 1657, and in 1708, 
 was recognized by John Whiting in his Catalogue of 
 Friends' Books, p. 81. 
 
 The passage, so often used in Friends' writings — "The 
 Letter killeth," has been, and still is, most grossly per- 
 verted, by applying it to the Scriptures; and represent- 
 ing them as producing spiritual death. The meaning of 
 
PROCEEDINGS AM) rRI.NCrPLES Or 
 
 the Apostle evidently was the Law, simply considered, 
 withrcferencc to its high ohligations — and the penalty of 
 dcatli, which it pTonoiuiccs upon the transgressor. The 
 quotation last made from that preposterous piece called 
 the Vision of Eternity, will serve to show the awful ex- 
 tent to wliich false principles may be carried. 
 
 OF Christ: the seed, and universal, saving light- 
 
 '"By this Seed, Grace and Word oiGod, and Light, where- 
 with we say, every man is Inlighined, and hath a measure of 
 it, which strives with them in order to Save them, and 
 which may by the stubhornnecs and wickedness of man's 
 Will be quenched, bruised, wounded, pressed-down, slain and 
 -cnicijicd, wc understand not the proper Essence and A''ature 
 of Go J precisely taken; which is not Divisible into parts and 
 measures, as being a must Pure, Simple Being, void of all 
 Composition or Division, and therefore can neither be re- 
 sisted, hurt, wounded, crucified or slain by all the Eflcrts 
 and Strength of men. But we understand a Spiritual, 
 Heavenly and Invisible Principle, in which God, as Father, 
 Son and Sjjirit dwells: a measure of whioh Divine and 
 Glorious Life is in all men, as a Seed, which of its own na- 
 ture draws, invites and inclines to God. And this we call 
 Vehiculum Dei, or the Spiritual body of Christ, the fesh aiul 
 blood of Christ, which came down from Heaven, of which 
 all the Saints do feed, and are thereby nourished unto 
 Eternal Life." Barclay's Works, p. 333. 
 
 "As this Seed is received in the heart, and suffered to 
 bring forth its natural and proper Effect, Christ comes to be 
 formed and raised; of which the Scripture makes so much 
 mention, calling it the New man ; Christ within, the Hope 
 of Glory. This is that Christ within, which we are heard 
 so much to speak and declare of; every where preaching 
 him up, and exhorting People to believe in the Light and 
 obey it, that they may come to know Christ in them to de- 
 liver them from all si/i." ib. p. 334. 
 
TIIR SOriETV OF I niEND3. 
 
 251 
 
 "I <io freely Atilrni, that 1 believe, Man fell, and was 
 degenerated botli as to Soul and Bodj: and I understand 
 the tirst Adam, (or Earthly Man) to Comprehend both. 
 But that there was something in Adam, which was no part 
 of his Soul and Body, nor yei Constitutive of his being a 
 Man (in my Judgment) which could not degenerate, and 
 which was in Adam by the Full Reduced to a Seed, and 
 could never have hecn Raised in him again to his Com- 
 fort, but by a New V'isitation of Life, which from Chris! 
 by the Promise was Administred unto him, and is to all 
 Men in a Day.*' ib. pp. 761-"i. 
 
 That there is much confusion and co)Uradietion in Bar- 
 clay's notions of the Vehiculum Dei, will be apparent to 
 all tliose who have time and opportunity to trace out the 
 various passages in his writings which relate to tliis sub- 
 ject. In some places he makes it the purchase of Christ's 
 death, but in the last quotation it is undoubtedly repre- 
 sented as something that was in Adam before he fell, and 
 which, by the Fall was reduced to the condition of a seed. 
 But even in this, he falls into a palpable absurdity, in re-i 
 presenting it not only as a spiritual, heavenly, invisible 
 principle, but as a "divine and glorious Life," — in all men 
 as a seed, which of its own nature draws, invites, and in- 
 clines to God — and yet that this seed could never have 
 been raised in Adam ag.iin to his comfort, but "by a nc>t 
 visitation of Life. 
 
 In speaking of man in the Fall — p. 7G4, he says: "In 
 whom albeit there remained a Seed of Righteousness, 
 yet no other ways, than as a JValced Seed, in barren 
 ground, in virtue of which he can do nothing, until visited 
 by a New Visitation, which he receives by virtue of 
 Christ as Mediator." 
 
 So then, it is not the Seed that is purchased but a JSlew 
 Visitation to the Seed. And though the Seed k a spirit- 
 ual, heavenly, invisible principle, in which God as Father 
 Son, and Spirit dwells — in which "God and Christ arc as 
 ^Trapped up" (pp. 333, 334)— though it is supposed, to bs 
 
232 
 
 PROCEEIHNCS VNU PKINCiriyES OP 
 
 a divine and glorious Life — and by its own nature to 
 draw, invite and incline men to God — yet it is but a 
 A\ilccd Seed in barren ground in virtue of which man can 
 do nothing, until visited by a New Visitation! 
 
 Tiicsc are some of the incongruities which arise from 
 attempts to modify the doctrines of the Scriptures by a 
 speculative philosophy. But the mischief does not end 
 here. For Barclay says that this Seed is the "Spiritual 
 body of Christ, the flesh and blood of Christ, whu-h came 
 <lown from Heaven, of which all the Saints do feed." 
 
 But Jesus Christ declared, "The Bread of God, is he 
 wliich comcth down from heaven, and giveth life to the 
 world." "I am the Bread of life."' "For I came down 
 from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of 
 him that sent mc." "I am the bread of life. This is (he 
 bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may 
 eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread whicli 
 came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he 
 shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my 
 flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." "Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
 of man, and drink his bloott^ ye have no life in you. Who 
 so cateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal 
 life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my Flesh 
 is meat indeed, and my blood drink indeed." *S£c. 
 
 Nothing can be more clear to my mind,, than that the 
 Lord Jesus was here speaking of himself personally-. His 
 coming down from Heaven asserts his divine character, 
 as the Son of God. The Jlesk which he says he would 
 give for the life of the world, was literally the body that 
 was wounded on the cross. For if an invisible principle, 
 constituted the flesh that was given for the life of the 
 world — then the actual flesh of Jesus, was not the flesh 
 that was given for the life of the world. 
 
 This is exactly the doctrine of Ellas Hicks. 
 
 Bufifc was the actual flesh of the Lord Jesus, and not a 
 mere invisible principle that was given for the life of the 
 
TIIR SOCIirrV of FRIEMn.S. 
 
 253 
 
 world. And as he was lilerally crucified — his body bro- 
 ken, and his blood shed as the sacrifice foe our sins — so to 
 bcheve in him as the Saviour — to look by faith, to tiuit 
 atoning sacrifi<:e, is figuratively to eat his flesh, and drink 
 his blood. It is an act of Faith — and it has direct re- 
 ference to that one-oflcring which he made to God for us, 
 when he oHcred up himself. To change this plain and 
 simple doctrine so clearly taught in the Scriptures — and 
 represent the flesh and blood of Christ — which he gave 
 for the life of the world, as a mere inward principle — a 
 universal and saving Light — is to deny the person of the 
 Lord Jesus — to set aside his sufferings and death, as the 
 alone sacrifice iov sins — and thus "to involve the danger of 
 a deadly heresj ." 
 
 It is not the question here, whether Barclay intended 
 this or not — nor does the inquiry arise in this place, 
 whether he declares the Orthodox faith in other parts of 
 his writings. 
 
 I am speaking o{ particular passages. If he was sound 
 In the faith, his works should be corrected^ and nothing be 
 suffered to remain in them, contrary to the intention of 
 the writer, or dangerous to the reader. If he was really 
 unsound — his works should be rejected entire. In either 
 case there can be no valid plea for arresting the inquiry; 
 and recommending the work with all its imperfections. 
 
 *'As this Seed" says he "is received in the heart.'' — 
 But how rrcr/rcf/, if it be in all men, already? But waiv- 
 ing this objection, we will follow R. B. a little further in 
 his explanation. He says: "As this Seed is received in 
 the heart, and suffered to bring forth its natural and pro- 
 per effect, Christ comes to be formed and raised, of which 
 the Scriptures make so much mention, calling it the New 
 Man, Christ within, the Hope of Glory. This is that 
 Christ within, which we are heard so much to speak and 
 declare of; every where preacliing him up, and exhorting 
 the people to believe in the Light, and obo}- it, that they 
 
PROOEEDJNOS AND PRINCIPI-ES OF 
 
 may come to know Clu i.-l in lliciii, to deliver them fvom 
 all sin." 
 
 Now I would ask the reader, what relation this univer- 
 sal saving Light — this invisible principle, has to Jesus of 
 Ntizareth? And if tiiis is that Christ a.'///i«/i wliicli the 
 Early Friends preached up — how can it be identical with 
 the Christ that was crucilictl at Jerusalem? The more 
 we examine the suijjecl, the more we sliall sec its utter 
 inconsistency with tiie doctrine preached by the Apos- 
 tles and Evangelists — "That Jesus is the Christ, the 8on 
 of God, and that believing we might have life through his 
 name."' 
 
 1 am quite aware that Barclay in his Apology, written 
 in 1075, says: "that we understand not this Divine Prin- 
 ciple to be any part of man's nature, nor yet to be any 
 Relicks of any good which Adam lost by the Fall.'' 
 Works, fol. p. 337. Yet in the Apology Vindicated, writ- 
 ten in 1G79, he clearly states it, as already shown, to be 
 something that was in Adam, which could not degenerate, 
 but which by the Fall was reduced to a seed. 
 
 And here it may not bo improper to observe, that with- 
 in the year past, I have found a work of Samuel Fisher's, 
 published in the year 16Gl,inthe character of a Revela- 
 tion. He calls it ''Some Certain Hidden, or Vailed Spirit- 
 ual Verities Revealed,*' *fec. It was in answer to certain 
 Queries propounded to him, George Fox, Edward Bur- 
 roughs, and John Pcrrot. This was before either Penn or 
 Barclay had joined the -Society ; and stands as acknowl- 
 edged authority, as to the views of Friends. W. Penn 
 refers to this piece, and endeavours to explain the views 
 of George Fox on the basis laid down by S. Fisher. 
 
 The 3rd Query was: "Whether are the Spirit of God, 
 the Spirit of Man, and the Spirit of the Devil, three dis- 
 tinct Spirits?"' To this question Fisher answers injlie af- 
 firmative, that tlicy were three distinct Spirits. 
 
 The queries then demand aniong other things, whether 
 
THE SOCIETY Or FKIENfit:. 
 
 tiie .Spirit of Man, be distinct from tlic l)otly when expired? 
 Whether is there a soul in man distinct from the afore- 
 said Spirit, «kc. &c. 
 
 Fisher answers very plainly, "That man (as God at 
 first made him) was a creature consistent of these three, 
 namely, Body, Soul, and Spirit," "Each of which, though 
 concurrent with the rest, to the complete making up of 
 that one composition er creature called man (as God at 
 first made him,) are yet distinct in themselves, and separa- 
 ble the one from the other." P. 11. 
 
 In describing what these three constituent parts of man 
 are, he says of the Spirit of man, (the reader will take no- 
 tice that this is distinguished from the Spirit of God.) 
 "As to the Spirit of man, which is the best, highest, and 
 most noble of the three aforesaid, which concurs to the 
 constituting of 7?ian, in his primitive perfection, it is that 
 Breath of life* which God breathed into his soul, after he 
 had formed him (as to his body) of the dust of the earth, 
 whereby he came to be a living soul;" p. 13: with more 
 to the same effect, which for brevity sake, I omit. "This" 
 says he, "is that noble, royal, righteous, holy, seed, which 
 while man was at first born, made, created, and planted af- 
 ter the nature and image of, he was said to be planted a 
 noble vine, wholly a right seed," &c. <fec. p. 14. He 
 calls it "the seed of the kingdom," "the royal seed, that 
 right seed, that holy seed," «&c. p. 15. He says "it is nat- 
 ural, i. e. pertaining to the very nature of that man which 
 God first created" — and "supernatural, as in reference to 
 man in the fall, who is of the Devil's marring." p. 16. 
 
 He comes at last to the winding up of this curious theo- 
 ry. '/At the dissolution of the composition, or whole man, 
 which consists of tlic three aforesaid, each from the other, 
 
 *TJie term applies to other creatures as well as man. "And all 
 flesh died that moved upon the earth, both offowl and of cattle, and 
 of beast, and of every creeping thinjj that creepeth upjn the earth, 
 and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that 
 was in the dry land, died. Gen. viiT 21, 2'2. 
 
256 
 
 PIIOCJ3EDINUS AND PRliNClPLES OF 
 
 tlion the body returns to the dust from whence it came; 
 and the said spirit returns up to God that gave it; and 
 that .■?o?</ together with it, that hath stood in the counsel of 
 it: while /A«< sow' which the body dies from, while they 
 both lived together in sin, dies both from it and from God 
 that gave it, forever; and is left «a/cc(/, and divested, botli 
 of its own bocly^ and its own spirit also, and lies in separa- 
 tion, not only ft-om both these, but also from God, and his 
 good Spirit, tormented among all evil spirits forever.'" pp. 
 18, 19. 
 
 As he begun with distinguishing the Spirit of God, and 
 the spirit of man — so he brings out this distinction in the 
 conclusion. But mark the absurdity of the notion. He 
 seems to have not the least idea of the Scripture doctrine 
 of the Resurrection of the Dead, One third of each in- 
 dividual he gives to the dust, and there he leaves it, with- 
 out regarding it as a seed, sown in dishonour, to be raised 
 in glory. Two-thirds of each good man, and only two- 
 thirds, he sends to heaven. But of every sinner — he 
 consigns one-third to the dust — one-third to God, and one- 
 third to the Devil! Now, (passing over the monstrous 
 absurdity of this division of every individual) I ask, how 
 are we to suppose the spirit of inan, is to be happy in heav- 
 en, while its soul is tormented in hell? Or how can the 
 soul be tormented in hell, while 27s spirit is happy in heav- 
 en? Or how can the future state of the wicked be said to 
 be either happy or miserable ? 
 
 Of all the extravagant visions of imagination run wild, I 
 have never met with any thing more preposterous than 
 this. And yet, William Penn, in his works, refers to this 
 very piece, in explanation of George Fox's calling the soul 
 apart of God. 
 
 This, then, is the true version of Barclay's Vehiculum 
 Dei — Something that was in Adam before he fell, which 
 could not degenerate, and which by the fall was reduced to 
 a seed — a Universal Saving Light — which being received 
 
THE SOCIETY OF riUEM)S. 
 
 257 
 
 and suiTci e'l to proikice its natural etR ct — Christ comes to 
 be formed — that Christ witliin of wliich the Friends were 
 heard to speak so much. But such a Christ as had no re- 
 hition to Jesus of Nazareth ! 
 
 'We can readily perceive how it should be said, that it is 
 not of the proper nature and essence of God precisely ta- 
 ken, being supposed to be the spirit of man. We can 
 account for its being reckoned a Universal Light — that is, 
 pertaining to a// men: for 'the same reason. But it is 
 equally obvious, that if by this we are to be saved — if the 
 spirit of man is a saving, as well as universal light — if by 
 this, Christ comes to be formed — born, brought forth, rais- 
 ed in us — if this is that Christ within, the hope of glory, 
 which was the peculiar doctrine of Early Friends, it is an- 
 other gospel from that which was preached by the'^Apos- 
 tles. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and remis5ion of 
 sins through his Name, are no necessary parts of the sys- 
 tem. The doctrine of atonement is laid aside. The spi- 
 rit of man becomes the Saviour — the Inward Light, ano- 
 ther term for the same thing, is the Supreme Rule of be- 
 lief and action — and this also is the ground oi Justification. 
 For Barclay makes justification to consist ia having this 
 Christ, formed, born, raised, &c. in us. 
 
 That he does acknowledge the Lord Jesus, his sufTer- 
 ings, death, resurrection, ascension, and mediation,! well 
 know. That we could select from his writings declara- 
 tions going to all the points of the Christian FaiUi, I am 
 not disposed to deny. But my astonishment is, that such 
 a mass of error should be so thoroughly incorporated with 
 so much Truth. And not less do I admire that such an 
 incongruous mass should pass so long as correct, among 
 the Friends, many of whom are both pious and intelligent. 
 I wonder that such a man as Barclay should have been so 
 bewildered. I wonder that his successors should not have 
 detected the error — and last, but not least, I admire that 
 I myself did not sooner discover the inconsistency which 
 2H 
 
258 
 
 PROCBETONGS AND rRINCIPLES OF 
 
 there is between this gystem, and the simple plain doc- 
 trines preached by the Apostles. 
 
 I do not think that this notion originated M'ith G. Fox: 
 for in endeavouring to adopt it, he made so great a blun- 
 der, according to W. P., as to take the send for Fisher's 
 spirit of man — which was one and the same with Barclay's 
 Vchiculum Dei, or Universal Saving Light. And indeed 
 they were both so completely identified with the mnriy 
 that it is notstrarege that George Fox should mistake the 
 one for the other. But this whole theory evitkintly arose 
 after the delusion had taken place with G. Fox, the Fell' 
 family, and with Nailer and his company. For Fisher's 
 Revelation was in 1661, the Fell letters in 165Q, G. F's^ 
 letter to O. C. in 1654, Nailer's ajfifair in 1656, A. Curtis's 
 letter In 1660, and the Battledore the same year. Thomas 
 Lower's letter, though w^-itten 11 years after Fisher's- 
 Revelation, seems to have no connection whatever witlr 
 it» If it was not a direct, uii(jualified,ascription of Messi- 
 ahship to G. F., I can form no idea of \t hat was intendeds 
 
 Elias Hicks, in one of his sermons, said : " 'If we walk 
 in the Light as he is-in the Light, we have fellowship one 
 with another; and, as in our translation, 'the blood of Jesus 
 Christ his son cleanseth from all sin.' What kind of 
 Blood ? Has he any such blood as we ha\ e ; any su<:h flesh ? 
 No, he has no such blood nor never has had. The immor- 
 tal soul has not such blood. The blood is the life of the 
 animal, and so it was the life of Jesus Christ the Son^ 
 The light is the life which the apostle declared was in him; 
 it is the light which cleanses us from all unrighteousness." 
 Pha. Ser. p. 260, 
 
 Here we have material parts of Fisher's and Barclay's 
 notion of the Universal Saving Light, the Spirit of 'man, 
 and life of the soul — the Jtcsh and blood of Christ. 
 
 E. H. says: "So it is with this Christ, this light within^ 
 Because "it is a manifestation of the Spirit of God, and this 
 manifestation is given to us to profit withal. And it wouLl 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 
 
 950 
 
 be better for all professors to keep it under that name; 
 because when we mention Christ, men's minds arc turned 
 outward, so that sometimes wc are almost afraid to name 
 the name of Christ, as it leads them to the contemplation 
 of an outward body, a visible object." Quaker, vol. 2, p, 
 267. 
 
 "For tKe true Saviour was actually hid from their eyes, 
 they could only see the garment in which he dwelt." Qua- 
 ker, vol. 3, p. 217. 
 
 "What is the Blood of Jesus Christ? Is it material? 
 Certainly not, for that must perish." Quaker, vol. 3, p. 
 255. 
 
 "Now this must be experienced; this Son of God in our 
 souls must take the rule, it must be exalted above all in 
 us, and every thing must be subject to it.", ib.. 3, vol p, 
 243. 
 
 "But dont believe that I mean that outward Christ that 
 walked about the streets of Jerusalem, but that divine 
 power, that Christ that travelled with Israel in the wilder-f 
 ness." ib. vol, 3, p. 104. 
 
 "We see that this Jlcsh and blood never could have been 
 in a strict sense, the Son of God." &c. Pha. Ser. p. 251. 
 
 Such were the views entertained by E. Hicks, of Jesus 
 Christ, hisjlcsh and blood, and of the Inward Light. 
 
 Isaac Pennington, in the extract selected by George 
 Jones, and defended by George Richardson, says: "Now 
 the Scriptures do expressly distinguish between Christ and 
 the garment he wore; between him that came, and the body 
 in which he came, between the substance which was veiled, 
 and the vail which vailed it. 'Lo! I come; a body hast 
 thou prepared me.' There is plainly he anfl the body in 
 which he came. There was the outward vessel and the 
 inward lift'. This we certainly know, and can never call 
 the bodily garment Christ, but that which appeared and 
 dwelt in the body." Pennington's Works, vol. 3, p. 61. 
 
 E. Hicks evidently borrowed the ideas of I. P. for he 
 
230 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PUINCIPLES OF 
 
 uses the very term ^armert/, as Pennington docs, to desig- 
 nate the perso}i of Christ. But we find 1. P. using vai'ious 
 forms of expression, to define what he understood to be 
 the Christ, as distinguished from tlae bodilij gaj-mcnt, the 
 outward vessel, the veil, &c. And beyond all contradiction, 
 it Avas the inward life, and this alone, that he regarded as 
 the Christ. 
 
 William Penn, agrees exactly with 1. P. in distsnguish- 
 ing between Christ and the outward person. In his 
 Apology, speaking of an opponent, he says: 
 
 "First, He takes up an whole cho.pter in his endeavors 
 to prove that we deny the Lord that bought us,thoug]i very 
 falsely and equally unsuccessful. 
 
 ^^Bccnusc we deny that Person (the Son of God) that died 
 at Jerusalem to be our Redeemer. 
 
 "AVhich most horrid imputation has been answered more 
 (I believe) than a thousand times, by dcelaring that he that 
 laid down his life, and suffered his body to be crucified by 
 the Jews without the gates of Jerusalem,is Christ fJw only 
 Son of the Most High God: But that the outwetrd Person 
 which suffered, was properly the Son of God, we utterly 
 DENY, and it is a perfect contradiction to their own prin- 
 ciples; 'A body hast thou prepared me,' said the Son, 
 then tlie Son was not the body, though the body was the 
 Son's."' Penn's Works, fol. vol. 2, p. 65. 
 
 Here it will be seen that W. Penn is as positive in 
 denying the Lord Jesus to be the Son of God, as E. H. 
 ever was, in his most objectionable declarations. I know 
 of no passage in E. H's sermons, from beginning to end, 
 that conveys the idea in question more distinctly, or in 
 more positive* terms. He makes tlie same distinction 
 which I. Pennington made, and which was made by E. 
 Hicks and his friends, 
 
 I know that it is contended by some of the advocates 
 of Early Friends, that W. Penn's declaration, only goes 
 to the denial that the Body, and the body alone was the 
 
THK SOrir.TY OF FRir.NDS. 
 
 201 
 
 Son of God. lUit why inlghl not the sanie apology be 
 j>i:idc for E. Hicks? itc said expressly "we see that this 
 Jlenh and blood never could be, in a strict sense the Son of 
 God." But docs not every one perceive that this denies 
 the miraculous conception? But W. V, goes still further 
 than E. II. did. He does not confine his denial to the 
 mere psh and hlood, but takes in the whole Person: in- 
 cluding in it the capacity o( suffering. 
 
 But it has been said, that the word properly shelters 
 W. P. Then why not allow E. II. to be sheltered under 
 the terms, in a strict sense? The cover is quite as broad 
 in the latter, as in the former case. But neither of them 
 can be allowed — for they strike alike at a historical fact 
 of Fundcimental importance. Grant this single position, 
 that the outward person that suffered, was not strictly and 
 properly the Son of God, and a flat and downright con- 
 tradiction is given to the testimony of the Apostles and 
 Eva,ngelists — of the Angel from heaven, and of God the 
 Father, himself. The Evangelist John said These are 
 written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life 
 through his name. And when he had asked his disciples 
 ■"Whom say men that I, the Son of man am?" he address- 
 ed Ihe question to them. "But whom say yc that I am." 
 And Peter answered, "Thouartthe Christ, the Son of the 
 living God." The Angel said to Mary — in reference to 
 the- miraculous conception: ^'■Therefore that Holy thing 
 that shall be born of ihce, shall be called the Son of God.''' 
 And the voice which came from heaven declared, both 
 at his Baptism, and at his Transfiguration: "This is my be- 
 loved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
 
 It should not be overlooked that W. Penn, in the fore- 
 part of the sentence, makes Christ -and the only Son of the 
 most High God, synonimous terms. They are botli used, and 
 applied to the same object. And in denying the title of 
 the Son, to the outward person that suffered, he denied 
 
262 
 
 PRINCIPLES A.?fD PROCEEOINGS OP 
 
 tlial of Christ also. For it was Christ that died — We 
 were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. The 
 proplicts spoke of the Sufferings of Christ and the glory 
 that should follow. Christ also hath suffered for our sins." 
 But, "Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jrsns is the 
 Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and 
 and the Son." 
 
 If it should be said thai this was a mere metrpht/sical spec- 
 ulation in W. P. improperly endeavouring to defend the 
 Sonship — I answer, and why was it not so with Elias 
 Hicks also? It matters not how the error originated. It 
 is contrary to the truth of the Gospel, and totally sub- 
 versive of <he Faith once delivered to the Saints. Let 
 no man spoil 3 0U llirougli philosophy, and vain deceit, af- 
 ter tlie traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world 
 and not after Christ, for in him dwelleth all the fulness 
 of the God head-bodily.'' 
 
 The denial of the Lord Jesus, is but the counter part, 
 of the mystical character of Christ, which so often accurs 
 in the writing, of early Friends. 
 
 HuMPiiREV WooLuicii. "And this is your fallen estate, 
 saith the Lord God, which know not Christ in you the 
 hope of glory. Even the same that was before the world 
 w^as, one with the Father, and filleth Heaven and Earth, 
 and w^as never seen with any carnal eye, nor his voice 
 heard by any carnal car." A. Declaration <fec. p. 13, 1659. 
 
 "And therein have ye imagined a God above the clouds 
 and afar off, but know not tiic Christ who is the express 
 image of the Father's person, to reveal the Father in 
 you; even he who is born of the Spirit and is Spirit, and 
 the only begotten of the Spirit, the glory of him, I say, 
 you are changing in your vain imaginations mto the glory 
 of a corruptible man." "And you are speaking of a 
 Christ, some of you, 0/ Jive foot long, and asking how he 
 can dwell in a man, and calling it blasphemy to say, that 
 Christ which suffenMl at Jerusalem, of five fool long, can 
 
THE SOCIETV OF FRIENDS. 
 
 263 
 
 he in a man ; tluis you arc in your iniaginalion?, and there- 
 in have set up a carnal Clirist in your carnal minds, l)ut 
 to this day are altogetlier ignorant as Philip was." ?6. p. 
 1-2. 
 
 The same writer, publislied a paniplikt entitled 'This 
 is written in singleness of heart,' &c. In the title page 
 the author says: "Written from one who have been in the 
 pit, Death, Grave and Hell; But am come from far, and 
 am sit down with Abraham, Isaac,' and Jacob, in tlie 
 heavenly places." &c. 
 
 In that, pamphlet the writer asks this question : 
 "Whether Christ were not the same before the world 
 or Virgin Alary was, as he was in the days of the Jews, 
 and his body the same which descended with that which 
 ascended? and whether any other body did ascend into 
 Heaven, but the body wliicii is' spiritual, and the only be- 
 gotten of the Spirit, and was never seen witli any carnal 
 eye?" p. 8. 
 
 That Jesus was strictly, and properly the Son of God, 
 and in reference to the misaculous conception, is true, if 
 Christianity itself is true. And he that would deny the 
 Sonship of the Lord Jesus, would make God "a liar, be- 
 cause he believeth not the record that God gave of his 
 Son." It was evidently in reference to the Sonship, that 
 the Son of man, was said to have come down from heaven. 
 Here the ascension of the Lord Jesus is virtually denied, 
 on the same ground on which he was contemptuously cal- 
 led "a Christ five foot long."' 
 
 John Humphreys. "What saist thou to a Scripture 
 weapon. Call no man master; and. Thou shall not wor- 
 ship the likeness of any thing in heaven, or the earth be- 
 neath; but man is a likeness: o-g-o, he that worship man 
 breaks God's command. By the way; the likeness of any 
 thing in Heaven neither; but one question, JIow do you 
 escape the violating of this moral (as you call it) command 
 when you pretend to worship Chrisi, and say he is in 
 
2oA PillXClPIiES AND PKOCEEDIXaS OF 
 
 Heaven with a humane body ? Certainly a humane body 
 is a likeness: certainly you arc worse then the Papal 
 (.'hurch, who allow tlie Picture of Christ, and maintain a 
 company of poor men to make them;for a poor trade is 
 held up by thcin." Vision of Eternity, p. 8. 
 
 "Now concerning thy human bodied Christ, did not God 
 make all things-by Christ, and was not he a perfect Christ 
 from the beginning, or before (as to particulars) and was 
 a perfect Christ, and Lamb slain from the beginning of 
 world? then surely that humane body was not him.'" ib. 
 p. 17. 
 
 "Thou in answer to my 6 query saist, that Christ is an- 
 other gess spirit then the saints, or not the same; but 
 whether thou meanest not so in quality or quantity, or 
 neither I know not; but this I know, .They are kings and 
 priests on earth, and Christ is no more. 2. I say. That 
 there is no ditTerence in, or of him that sanctifieth or he 
 that is sanctified; read Ileb. 2, 11, 12. For they arc all 
 one saith the text, which comprehends both quality and 
 quantity.''' ib. pp. IT, 18. 
 
 "Christ shall direct the way of the perfect; or God in 
 Flesh shall direct the way to the perfect, as in lleb. for 
 he directs all to perfection thats past the Creator." ib. 
 
 It will be seen that the radical error exhibited in the 
 foregoing extracts, (of which a much larger collection 
 might be made) relates not only to the character of C/im^ 
 but to that of the Holy Spirit also. And the poisonous 
 quality of this error extends throughout the whole body 
 of doctrine. I shall give a fezv examples, and on a ft vj 
 other points of doctrines. 
 
 ATONEMENT, SANCTIFICATION, JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 In quoting from R. Barclay and W. Penn, I give them 
 full credit for saying many things on the subjects before 
 us, which had there been nothing of a contrary nature. 
 
Tllfi SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 265 
 
 tilight liavc riinkcd them high among christian writers. 
 But as they committed errors of a most dangerous charac- 
 ter, we ought not to forbear to put their readers on their 
 guard, lest they receive deadly poison^ while they suppose 
 they arc only taking wholesome food, from tlie hands of 
 their "dear fore-fathers." 
 
 Robert Barclay. This so highly esteemed writer, 
 places the proposition on Justification, immediately after 
 that on the Universal and Saving Light. It begins in 
 these words: "As many as resist not this Light j but receive 
 the same, it becomes in them a holy, pure, and spiritual 
 birth, bringing forth holiness, righteousness, purity, and 
 all those blessed fruits, which are acceptable to God; by 
 which holy birth, to v^ii: Jesus Christ, formed within us, 
 and working his works in us, as we are sanctified, so are 
 we Jj/s/?^ec? in the sight of God, according to the Apos- 
 tle's words; But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but 
 ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus," and by 
 the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6. IL Therefore it is not 
 by our works wrought in our will, nor yet by good icor'ks, 
 considered as of themselves; but by CAm<, who is both 
 the Gift and the Giver, and the Cause producing the effects 
 in us: who, as he hath reconciled us, while we were ene- 
 mies; doth also in his wisdom jotc us and Justify us after 
 this manner, as saith the same Apostle elsewhere: Accord- 
 ing to his Mercy he hath saved us, by the washing of re- 
 generation and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Tit. -3. 
 5." Apology, Prop. vii. 
 
 And here it may be observed, that his notion of the 
 Vehiculum Dei, lies at the foundation of his doctrine of 
 Justification. It is this Universal Saving Light — this 
 Spiritual Invisible Principle, this something that was in 
 Adam — not of the proper nature and essence of God, pre- 
 cisely taken — which being received, becomes a II0I3', Pure, 
 and Spiritual Birth, which birth, we are told, is Jesus Christ 
 formed within us. So then, it is this Invisible Principle,* 
 21 
 
266 
 
 rROCEEDINGS AKD PRIi^ClPLES OF 
 
 that becomes Jtsifs CAn.?^ williin us! He does not make 
 the knowledge of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity 
 necessary to this result. This Christ within, the hope of 
 glory, is not that same Jesus Christ whom the Jews cruci- 
 fied — who bore our sins in his own body on the tree — 
 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through 
 Faith in his blood — to. whom all the Prophets gave witness^ 
 that through his Name, whosoever believeth in him shall 
 receive remission of sins. No; it is a Christ formed of an 
 Invisible Principle — and this, as it would seem, without 
 ever hearing of the name of Christ, or having any refer- 
 ence to him who died for us. Thus it is evident, that by 
 following a speculative philosophj, instead of the testimo- 
 ny of Evangelists and Apostles, he stumbled at the very 
 thrcshhold of his subject, and merged the character of ou? 
 Holy Redeemer, into a mere Invisible Principle':! 
 
 And then, instead of setting out, as the Apostles did, 
 with Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, he goes to rcorks, not indeed in our owit 
 wiils, as he says — nor considered in themselves — but 
 wrought by "this Christ within." By these u-orks we arc 
 said to be S&iictified — and "as we arc Sanctified so we are 
 Justified in the sight of God." 
 
 As this exposition is wrong in the ground work — if> 
 taking the strange theory of the Vdiiculum Dei, or Uni- 
 versal Saving Light, instead of the simple and plain doc- 
 trine oi Failh in our Lord Jesus Christ, who died upon the 
 Cross, a Sacrifice for our Sins, and ever lives to make in- 
 tercession for us — which Faith is the- work of the Spirit, 
 in the use of the Word — So the structure which he raises 
 on that false foundation cannot standt 
 
 I wish^the reader distinctly to understand, that I believe 
 it is the Spirit that reproves the world — It is the Spirit 
 that quickens. The Spirit /ts/i^es of Christ, and glorifies 
 him, in pointing the awakened sinner to him, and inspir- 
 ing a living Faith in him. We are strengthened ■ hy the 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 2C7 
 
 Spirit, in our Claris tiixn course. lie liclps our infirmities, 
 and when the adoption is obtained, bears witness witli 
 our spirits, that we arc the children of Cod — and power- 
 fully sheds the love of God ahroad in our hearts: the ear- 
 nest of the promised inheritance, the foretaste of the joys 
 of heaven. 
 
 But the Lord Jesus, is emphatically our Redeemer. As 
 we have all sinned and come short o£the glory of God, 
 we are under the curse of the broken Law, and thereby 
 are obnoxious to the wrath of God, and vengeance of eter- 
 nal fire. Nor is this all: there is attached to us, as the 
 consequence of sin, a pollution, totally incompatible with 
 the purity and holiness of God. And besides this, we are 
 under the dominion, and in the servitude" of the devil. We 
 may consider the condition of the sinner, in a three fold 
 point of view. L Guilty and condemned. 2. In pollu- 
 tion and corruption ; and thus totally unfit for heaven. 3. 
 An alien from God and servant of the Devil. This whole 
 character must be changed, in order to experience Re- 
 demption. In that Redemption which comes by Jesus 
 Christ, Justification stands opposed to the first part of our 
 ruin: Sandif cation, to the' second: and Adoption io the 
 third. 
 
 I do not mean to say, that these three parts of our re- 
 demption, are carried on to completion, in the order in 
 which I have mentioned them. Nor would I be under- 
 stood, that snnctif cation, has respect only to the pollution 
 ofp«5< sins: for it embraces the present temper and dis- 
 position of the mind. 
 
 The Love of God, is the %ource from which the whole 
 means of our redemption proceeded. God so loved the 
 world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
 believeth in Ilim should not perish, but have 6verlasting 
 life. The Spirit is the Powerful Agent, by whom those 
 means are elTcctually appliiul to us. And it is by hi§ pre- 
 sent help and energy, immediately operating upon the 
 
G68 
 
 rROCEEPlNOS AND TRINCIPLES OF 
 
 heart, that the temper and inclination to sin are subdued, 
 and the defiling habits and love of sin destroyed. 
 
 Vv'^hcn, therefore, the deep sense of the sinl'ulness of sin 
 is produced, and Repentance experienced — it is the office 
 of the Spirit, by whom the work was begun, to fix the 
 Faith on Jesus Christ, as the sacrifice for our sins, and the 
 Advocate with the Father for us: as said the Apostle: "In 
 whom we have redemption through his blood, even the 
 forgiveness of sins." And this remission and Justification, 
 we receive through Faith. "Therefore, being justified 
 by Faith,, we have peace with God, through our Lord Je- 
 sus Christ; by whom we have access, by Faith, into this 
 grace (or favour) wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of 
 the glory of God.^' Without shedding of blood there is 
 no remission — and the remission of our sins, is not by the 
 shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, but of the Lamb 
 of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. And its efficacy is ap-- 
 plied by Faith in his Name. "Believe in the Lord Jesus 
 and thou shalt be saved."' 
 
 And as the awful demerit of sin, and the riches of the 
 Love of God, are both set forth in the amazing price that 
 was paid for our redemption — that the justice of God 
 might be maintained, and mercy extended to the trans- 
 gressor — that God might be declared to be Just, and the 
 Justifier of him that believes in jesus — so the obligations 
 of gratitude and love, as well as the assurance of redeem- 
 ing mercy, are set forth in the strongest point of view, in 
 the plan of redemption. We are not redeemed with cor- 
 ruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious 
 blood of Christ. We are bound not to live unto ourselves, 
 but unto him that died for us, and ever liveth to make in- 
 tercession for us. 
 
 Thus the remission of our sins, is the direct effect of the 
 death and intercession of Jesus Christ for us — we coming 
 on thp ground of Faith and Repentance. 
 
 The pollution of sins is washed away, bv the Blood of 
 
tfit; sobiKTV of rninNns. 
 
 209 
 
 Christ. Thus the Saints in heaven, arc said to have wash- 
 ed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the 
 Lamb. Almost all things, said the Apostle, are by the 
 Law purged with Blood — And if the blood of bulls and of 
 goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, 
 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh — how much more 
 shall the blood oi Christy who through the Eternal Spirit, 
 offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience 
 from dead works to serve the living God? 
 
 At the same time, as the Spirit is the immediate agent, 
 in applying the testimony of the Word — and the efficacy 
 -of the blood of Christ, (by Faith on our part), both in our 
 Justification and Sanctification, so likewise He changes 
 the sinful temper of our minds, and produces the fruits of 
 obedience, and sheds abroad in the heart the Love of God. 
 
 Here is an important change of condition and charac- 
 ter, and along with it is the Adoption. And because we 
 are sons, God sends forth the Spirit of his Son into our 
 hearts, crying Abba, Father, the Spirit itself bearing wit- 
 ness with our spirits, that we are the children of God. 
 And if children, then hdrsy heirs of God and joint heirs 
 with Jesus Christ. 
 
 "Thus being made free from sin, and become servants 
 to God, we have oiir fruit unto holiness, and the end ever- 
 lasting Life." 
 
 Here I might say something of the formal Profession of 
 allegience to our rightful Sovereign, in passing from un- 
 der the Powers of Darkness, into the kingdom of the dear 
 Son of God. But this would lead to other points of doc- 
 trine, which for the present I shall pass over. 
 
 But I do enter my solemn protest, against Barclay's 
 doctrine of the Vehiculum Dei, both as it respects the 
 character of Christ, and the doctrine of Justification. It 
 is totally at vai-iance with the facts of Gospel History, 
 and the plan of Redemption, as laid down in the Holy 
 Scriptures. To consider an Invisible Principle, as the bndy^ 
 
270 
 
 PRINCIPLES AND PROCEEDINOS OF- 
 
 fiesh^ and blood of Christ, is virtually to deny that body 
 th'at was broken, and that blood that was shed upon the 
 cross, as //ic Sacrifice for ourSins: and to regard that Invisi- 
 ble Principle, as forming Christ in us — is virtually to de- 
 ny the Lord Jesus, our Crucified, Risen, and Ever Living 
 and Glorified Redeemer — who dwells in the hearts of be- 
 lievers — by Faith. And to suppose that by the effect of 
 that inward principle, working works of holiness in us, 
 and forming "this Christ within," we are Sanctified, and 
 so Justified, is to dispense, at once, with the whole doctrine 
 of atonement, which formed so striking a feature of the 
 previous figurative dispensation, and which stands out so 
 prominently in the death of the Lord Jesus for us — who 
 bore our sins in his own body on the tree — and died for 
 our sins, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God. It 
 entirely subverts the doctrine of Justification by Faith, 
 and substitutes that of Works, though the Apostle declares 
 that by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified — 
 and if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead 
 in vain. 
 
 It is to no purpose that other parts of Barclay's works, 
 may recognize the doctrine of Faith in Christ. If he has 
 expressed clear and Scriptural views — retain them — but 
 free them from every mixture of error. Reject every 
 sentence, every line, and every word, that is not conform- 
 able to the Truth, as it is in Jesus. 
 
 But so long as this Vehicuhim Dei, this Universal, Sav- 
 ing Light — thissced in Barren ground — this Glorious liife, 
 though not of the proper nature and essence of God pre- 
 cisely taken, is retained as the Foundation of the System, 
 so long as it is convertible into the character of Jesus 
 Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and made the Primary Rule 
 of Faith and Practice: error — incurable and deadly er- 
 ror, may be expected to prevail in the Society holding 
 such a system. 
 
 William Penn. Few men have ever written with more 
 
The society of friends. 
 
 271 
 
 incongruity than W. Pcnn. Some of his sentiments are 
 so excellent, that we are carried into admiration of the; 
 powers of his mind, and the beauty of his illustratiorts. 
 While others are so excessively erroneous, as not only 
 to call in question the soundness of his principles, but to 
 give rise to astonishment, that things so contradictory, 
 and irreconcileable to each other, should ha_ve emanated 
 from the same mind, without any evidence of recantation, 
 or change of opinion. 
 
 I believe the Friends, both coJlectivcl3",and as individual 
 writers, have acted on the principle, never to retract any 
 doctrinal sentiment once published. There may be ex- 
 ceptions, but I do not recollect any. The cause is easily 
 explained. With their peculiar views of Revelation, it 
 would be mortifying to themselves to acknowledge error, 
 for this would, at once, confess delusion. In addition to 
 this^ opponents would not fail to use it as an argument, 
 if not against the doctrine, at least against the claims to 
 revelation. But by the course pursued', consequences in- 
 calculably more dangerous and more disgraceful have 
 followed. The principles of the iiociety have become 
 confused, beyond any example whatever. The most 
 deadly heresies are mixed up with undeniable truths. 
 And the grossest absurdities, and even blasphemies, are 
 retained and defended, as having been dictated by In- 
 spiration. Treatise has been added to Treatise, and of- 
 ficial declaration to official declaration, without being un- 
 derstood to repeal, or extinguish any thing that had gone 
 before. From Whiting's Catalogue, and the knowledge 
 we have bf works published since that Catalogue was 
 made out, the writings of Friends, were they all collected, 
 would amount to some hundreds of Volumes. By these 
 writings you may attack or defend almost every doctrine 
 of Christianity — or every heresy that has ever disturbed 
 the peace of the Church. I have said almost every doc- 
 trine — for I believe wc could not defend the Ordinances, 
 
272 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND rRINCIPLES OF 
 
 find perhaps a few other Christian doctrines, by the wii" 
 tings of Friends.. But I beheve n// -heresies might be 
 bath resisted and defended by them. 
 
 It has often been said that W. Penn, in his Sandy Foun- 
 dation Shaken, was exposing the errors of his opponents, 
 in the objectionable terms which they used. But if so, 
 he should have shown the error of the terms, in contrast 
 with the doctrine to which they were applied. But in- 
 stead of this, he denies the doctrine of satisfaction,* or' 
 as he represents it, the payment of the debt by another, 
 and places our acceptance as the mere forgiveness of our 
 sins. This-notion sets the doctrine of a Sacrijice entirely 
 aside. For the atoning Sacrifices under the Law, and 
 even from Abel, all pointed to the one great offering, 
 which was made by the Lord Jesus, when he offered lip 
 himself. In all those atoning sacrifices, the Jife of the 
 victim, was taken, instead of that of the transgressor, who 
 stood exposed to the penalties of the violated Law. This 
 is the simple, obvious nature of a sacrifice-. It is the suf- 
 fering of the innocent victinj, for the exemption of the 
 transgressor. But the whole range of W. P's. arguments 
 is directed against this doctrine. In opposition to it, he 
 insists upon mere mercy, pardon, and forgiveness. 
 
 He calls it the "Vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction;" by 
 which I presume he means the common doctrine. 
 
 After quoting Neh. 9, 16, 17, he says: "Can the hon- 
 est hearted reader conceive that God should thus be mer- 
 cifully qualified whilst executing the rigor of the LaW 
 transgressed, or not acquitting without the debt be paid 
 him by another? I suppose not." Peun's Works, fol. vol. 
 1, p. 255. 
 
 After quoting Isa. 55,7; he says: "Come, let the un- 
 prejudiced judge, if this Scripture doctrine, is not very 
 
 *Other doctrines of Fundamental importance might be mentioned; 
 but they are omitted for the present, for the sake of brevity. 
 
Tllli SOCIETY OF FHIENUS. 
 
 273 
 
 Vcmotc from saying his Nature cannot forgive sin, there- 
 fore let Christ pay him full satisfaction, or he will certain 
 ly be avenged; which is the substance of that strange 
 opinion.'' 'ib. 
 
 Agciin.in the same page, after quoting Jer. 31, 31. 33, 
 34, he sa^'s; "Here is God's mere Grace asserted against 
 ihc pretended J^eccssity of a Satisfaction, to procure his Re- 
 mission; Ajid this Paul acknowledgeth to be the dispen- 
 sation of the Gospel in his Sth chap, to the Hebrews: So 
 that this New Doctrine, doth noj; only contradict the na- 
 ture and design of the second covenant, but seems, in short, 
 to discharge God both of his Mercy and Omnipotence." ib. 
 
 And again, after quoting Mic. 7. 18, and making some 
 comments upon it, he says: "So that if the Satisfactioiiists 
 should ask the question, who is a God like unto ours that 
 cannot pardon iniquity nor pass by transgression, but re- 
 taineth his anger until somebody make him satisfaction? 
 I answer. Many amongst the harsh and severe rulers of 
 the nations." ib. p. 256. 
 
 I have often been astonished at the argumcmts of W. 
 P., on account of the sophistry of his reasoning, and the 
 little regard whiclihe frequently paid to the most obvious 
 facts. The Sth chapter of Heb. to which he refers, be- 
 gins with a direct reference to the Priesthood of the Lord 
 Jesus. And in the last verse but one of the previous chap- 
 ter, in speaking of his priestly'pffice, he says: "For this he 
 did onec, rvhcii he offered t(p himself." Here is the ground 
 of the remission of which the Apostle speaks. And in the 
 next chapter, he returns to the same subject again; and 
 carries it through the remainder of that, and a great part 
 of the tenth chapter. He shows that the sacrifices of the 
 legal dispensation pointed to the death of Jesus Christ, 
 as a Sacrifice for sin — that- by his orvn blood he entered 
 into the Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption 
 for us — that it is this that purges our conscience from 
 dead works to serve the living God — that the force of the 
 2K 
 
PROCEEblNOS XJii) PRINCII*LES OP 
 
 Testament depended on the ih.alk of the Testator — thnt 
 almost all things are by the Law purged with blood, and 
 without shedding of blood jhcrt: ?^ no remission. And as if 
 to guard against a mystical construction of this great doc- 
 trine, he clearly shows that this shedding of blood was not 
 to take place often — but ONCE. "So Christ M-as once of- 
 fered to bear the sins of many." — "For by one offering he 
 hath forever perfected them that are sanctified." 
 
 Here is the ground, .-md only ground of the free mercy 
 of God to sinful man. It is really astonishing that W. P., 
 with these clear testimonies before his eyes, should argue 
 as he did in his Sandy Foundation Shaken. 
 
 The arguments drawn from the passages quoted from the 
 Prophets, arc equally fallacious. For the doctrine of Sa- 
 crifice was one of the most prominent features of the Dis- 
 pensation under which the Prophets wrote. And all the 
 Promises of God, under that Dispensation, had an undeni- 
 able reference to the principles embodied in the Law, 
 and the provision which God had made for the remission 
 of sin. Does anj' one suppose that the promises which 
 were held out to penitent sinners, were to be enjoyed on 
 any other condition than those which God himself had 
 laid down in his Word? Did he intend to lay the Law 
 aside, and abolish sacrifices before the coming of Christ? 
 Certainly not. The Law was in full force. The sacrifi- 
 ces were to be duly observed. And those sacrifices point- 
 ed to the sufferings of Christ. 
 
 Thus all the promises of God, centre in Him, of whom 
 Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write. 
 
 Had W. P. been willing tosee,hc might have seen in the 
 53d chapter of Isaiah, (the next but one to that to which 
 he referred), the Christian doctrine of Satisfaction most 
 distinctly stated. "But he was wounded for our trans- 
 gressionS; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastise- 
 ment of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we 
 are healed. AH we like sheep have go nc astray: we have 
 
THE SOCIETY Or FRIENDS. 
 
 275 
 
 turned every one to his own way; awl the Lord hath laid 
 on him the iniquity of us all." Read the whole chapter: 
 as strikingly setting fort-h the vicarious and satisfactory 
 nature of tlie sufferings of the Son of God. 
 
 The whole Treatise is one consolidated mass of error. 
 But I will q"uote a few more passages, as illustrative of the 
 manner in wiiich this most important subject is treated. 
 Under the head of "The Absurdities that unavoidably 
 follow the comparison of this doctrine [of Satisfaction] 
 with the sense of Scripture,'' he says: 
 
 "1. That God is gracious to forgive, and yet tis impos- 
 sible for him, unless the debt be fully satisfied. 2. That 
 the finite and impotent creature [by which Jesus Christ is 
 plainly intended] is more capable of extending mercy and 
 forgiveness than the Infinite and Omnipotent Creator. 3. 
 That God so loved the world he gave his only son to save 
 it; and yet that God stood off in high displeasure, and 
 Christ gave himself to God as a complete satisfaction to 
 his offended Justice; with many more such like gross con^ 
 sequences that might be draw^n." Vol. 1, p. 25*. 
 
 Whatever may be said of the term impos:dbilily in ro- 
 spect to God's pardoning sinners in any other way: and 
 while the perfect freedom of Deity, to do any thing not 
 inconsistent with his nature, must be maintained: the ne- 
 cessity for tlie plan of salvation may be fairly drawn from 
 the fact of its adoption. Tiiere is a perfect fitness in the 
 Will of God ; as there Ls a perfect harmony in all his Attri-, 
 butes. But it is clear that the arguments of W. P. were 
 not directed to the question of the abstract possibility or 
 impossibility of the thing — but to the doctrine itself. 
 
 If it be said that he was writing against a rigid satisfac- 
 tion, I would ask: If the doctrine of Satisfaction be admit- 
 ted at all, what can it be short of a rigid or complete Sat- 
 isfaction? A satisfaction not complQte, is a contradiction 
 in terms. But it was the doctrine on the broad ground 
 against which he was contending. 
 
rKOCEEDIN(»S AND PRINCiri.ES OF 
 
 Among the "Consequences, Irreligious and Irrational," 
 as he calls them, he says: "That it was unworthy of God 
 to Pardon, but not to inflict punisliment on the innocent, 
 or require satisfaction where there M'as nothing due." *•* * 
 "It no way renders man beholding, or in the least oblig- 
 ed to God, since by their doctrine, he would not have 
 abated us, nor did he Christ the last farthing, so that the 
 acknowledgments are peculiarly the Son's, which destroys 
 the whole current of Scripture Testimony, for his good 
 will towards men. — O the infamous portraiture (his doc- 
 trine draws of Infinite Goodness: Is this your Retribution, 
 O injurious Satisfactionists?" ib. p. 258. And in conclu- 
 sion he says: "But many more are th§ gross absurdities 
 and Blasphemies, that are the genuine fruits of this so 
 confidently believed doctrine of Satisftiction." 
 
 How shockingly irreverent is this strain of argument, 
 as well as subversive of the whole scope of Scripture tes- 
 timony ! 
 
 The Plan of Redemption originated in the Perfect 
 Wisdom, the Abounding Love, and Amazing Goodness of 
 God. "God so loved the world that he gave his only be- 
 gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
 perish, but have everlasting life." "He was made a little 
 lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that he 
 by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." 
 *'Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through 
 Faith in his Blood — To declare his righteousness for the 
 remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of 
 God ; to declare I say as this time his righteousness, that 
 he might be Just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in 
 Jesus." 
 
 The Sandy Foundation Shaken, so far as my informa- 
 tion extends, is universally admired by Deists and Unita- 
 rians. It was printed by the latter class of persons in 
 England, and circulated, as the best Tract in their collect 
 lion. 
 
THE SOOIETV OF FRIEXDS. 
 
 2T7 
 
 Tho author of that piece, on another occasion express- 
 ed himself in u manner as dllJcrcnt fiom the foregoing 
 passages, as language could well be. But in the passage to 
 whicli I allude, he discovers a remarkable misapprehen- 
 sion of terms. He introduces it by saying: "In short, Jus- 
 tification consists o[ two parts, or hath a two fold conside- 
 ration, viz. Justificalion from the g^ff/// of sin, and J?/s/i//cc'- 
 tion from i\\cpower andpollulion of sin." Works, fol. voK 
 2, page 868. Now I would ask what ideas a man 
 could have of Justification, to apply that term to the potv- 
 cr ov pollution of sin? If Justification could, hy s.x\y possi- 
 . bility, be applied in the case of the powrr of sin, it would 
 amount to Antinomianism: or Justification in the practice, 
 and under the power of sin. I do not suppose the writ<u- 
 intended this; but used the term for Sanclification and 
 Obedience. With this correction, I will give the passage 
 to which I have alluded : 
 
 "The first part of Justification," says he, "we do reve- 
 rently and humbly acknowledge, is only for the sake of 
 the Death and Sufferings of Christ. Nothing we can do, 
 though by the operation of the Holy Spirit, being able to 
 cancel old debts, and wipe out old scores. It is the pow- 
 er and eflicacy of that propitiatory offering, upon Faith 
 and Repentance, that Justifies us from the sins that arc 
 past: and it is the Power of Christ's Spirit in our hearts, 
 that purifies, and makes us acceptable to God." ib. Here 
 ■we have the doctrine concisely stated. And I give it as 
 a total refutation of the deistical arguments of the Safidy 
 Foundation Shaken. 
 
 But I ask if it is not passing strange, that both doctrines 
 should come from the same man, and without any ac- 
 knowledged recantation ? And is- it not a continuation 
 of the paradox, that his friends, after his death, should pre- 
 serve the Sandy Foundation Shaken, as well as tl>e other? 
 And it is more surprising still, that the Society, after wit- 
 nessing the use which has been made of that work, to 
 
978 
 
 PnOCEEDINGS AND miNCIPLES OP 
 
 serve the cause of Unitariunism, and even of open Deism, 
 should insist on recognizing it, as in strict accordance with 
 Holy Scripture — and alfcctionatcly recommend it, along 
 with the rest of the writings of early Friends, to the fre- 
 quent and serious perusal of Friends generally, and espe- 
 cially to the youth. 
 
 Another passage from W. Penn, and I have done. In 
 his Christian Quaker, he says: "And as at any time diso- 
 bedient men have hearkened to the still voice of the 
 Word, that messenger of God in the heart, to be affected 
 and convinced by it, as it brings reproof for sin, ^which is 
 but a Fatherly chastisement; so upon true brokenness of 
 soul, and contrition of Spirit, the very same principle and 
 Word of Life in man, lias Mediated and Jltoncd, and God 
 has been Propitious, lifting up the light of his countenance, 
 and replenishing such humble penitents with divine con- 
 solations. So that still the same Christ, Word-God, who 
 has lighted all men, is by sin grieved and burdened, and 
 bears the iniquities of such as sin, and reject his benefits. 
 But as any hear his knocks and let him into their hearts, 
 he first wounds, and then heals; afterwards he Atones, Me- 
 diates, and Rc-instates man in the holy image he is fallen 
 from by sin. Behold this is the state of restitution !" 
 Works, fol. vol. 1, p. 574. 
 
 Here we have the character of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 reduced to a mere Principle in Man. And then this Prin- 
 ciple is said to Atone, Mediate, and Re-instate man, &c. A 
 greater perversion of the doctrine of Atonement could 
 scarcely be conceived. But it should not be overlooked, 
 that he takes the sinner here, from his first convictions, 
 through the several stages of his change, to the state of 
 restitution. Yet Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, with 
 reference to his Incarnation, Sufferings and Death, as a 
 real sacrifice for our sins, is entirely left out. And the 
 only atonrmeni here mentioned, is that of a Principle in 
 man! 
 
THE SOCIETV OF FItlKMlS. 
 
 279 
 
 If we lake the Scripture doctrine of the dealli of Christ 
 upon the Cross — we know that this occurred hut once — 
 death liath no more dominion over him. It is onh offering, 
 and that offered but once. For by one offering he hath per- 
 fected forever them that arc sanctified. And again: 
 "■Now, once, in the end of the world hatli he appeared to 
 put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself." "He was once 
 olfercd to bear the sins of many.'' Then there is no room 
 left for the sacrifice of i\ Principle. 
 
 But this supposed slaying of an inward Principle, on 
 this hypothesis, must have taken place often, even innume- 
 rable times since the foundation of the world. But the 
 true sacrifice was offered but once. 
 
 But, no man was ever yet justified in the s-ight of God, 
 by the Sacrifice of a goodprinciplc in himself. 
 
 But on the other hand, if this doctrine of mysticism be- 
 taken, and the eflicacy of an inward sacrifice, and an in- 
 ward atonement he acknowledged, then there is no place 
 left for the actual death of the Lord Jesus — except, (as 
 William Penn elsewhere places it), in the character of a 
 martyrdom. But a mere martyrdom can have uo neces- 
 sary connection with our salvation. 
 
 OF GOD. 
 
 We have already seen that George Fox contended for 
 equably xoilh God. W. Penn in his apology for him, vol. 
 2, p. 433, says: "he{G. F.] understood no more by Equal- 
 ity, than unity." And that "he observes no niceties of. 
 expression." If this be true, 'G. F. could not have used, 
 cither the words which man's wisdom teaches, or which 
 the Holy Ghost teaches. For neither the one nor the 
 other, ever dictated such an application of terms. That 
 G. F. was extremely ignorant of language, is no doubt 
 true, yet this fact cannot satisfactorily explain his using 
 such language again and again: and this at intervals of 
 several years. 
 
PROCEEUINCS AiNl) PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 But he was-not the only Friend that advocated the' 
 same opinion. 
 
 Francis JIowgilIj, was a prominent minister, and not 
 particularly chargeable with lack of education. In a 
 piece entitled Darkness and Ignorance Expelled, p. 21, he 
 says: 
 
 "And the first thing that thy dark mind stumbles at 
 is, that some have said Thai they that have the Spirit of 
 God, arc Equal with God. 
 
 "He that hath the Spirit of God, is in that which is 
 equal, as God is equal: and his ways cejual. And he that 
 is joined to the Lord is one Spirit, there is unity, and the 
 unity stands in Equality itself. 
 
 "He that is born from above, is The Son of God, and he 
 said I and my Father arc one.'' Here F. II. puts every 
 regenerate man, into- the same character as Jesus Christ, 
 The Son of God. But to proceed — "And when the Son 
 is revealed and speaks, the Father speaks in him, and 
 dwells in him, and he in the Father. In that which is 
 equal, in Equality itself; there is equality in nature, 
 though not in stature. Go learn what these things mean, 
 the understanding and learned will know what I say, and 
 tliis is neither damnable nor blasphemous; but on the con- 
 trary it is saving and precious to them that believe. 
 
 "And thou concludes, Though they be glorified in hea- 
 ven, yet are they not equal with God. 
 
 "Here thou blasphemes; The Son is glorified with the 
 Father in the same glory he had with him before the 
 world began ; the glory is in purity, equality, immortality 
 and eternity." 
 
 Such language as this is perfectly horrible. The char- 
 acter of The Son is claimed and repeated, and the mons- 
 trous notion of Equality with God defended by arguments. 
 Here it is clear that unity, in any sort of allowable sense, 
 was not intended, for he says the unity stands in Equality 
 itself. And as for the equality in nature but not in stat- 
 
THE SOCIETY OF I'liiraDS. 
 
 '281 
 
 ure — il, makes the matter no better — for the nature oi' 
 God is Infinite — all his attributes are infinite. Omnipo- 
 tence, Omniscience, Self-Existence, are among the Attri- 
 butes which are inseparable from his nature. And how 
 are there to be different statures in these? IIow is one 
 infinity to be less than another? 
 
 Whatever might be intended, it is with the language 
 that we are particularly concerned. And there can be no 
 danger in saying that the terms arc blasphemous, and the 
 arguments perfectly absurd. 
 
 John Humpiiryes. "Jo/- all things visible and invisible 
 arc God in a Lump, but otherwise properly called his sons 
 oridcms." "Nature orders its motions so, as to previate 
 itself into its former Egrediention, or going forth in the 
 visible, its incipation and original being itself. God could 
 not come forth in any thing but himself, seeing himsClf 
 was all things." Vision of Eternity, p. 19. 
 
 This is plainly the ancient Heathen Pantheism, which 
 is the root and ground of modern Atheism. 
 
 In my Vindication, Repository, Vol. 5, No. 10, after 
 speaking on the obligation of coming directly to the 
 Scriptures as the Rule of Faith and Practice, 1 said: "In 
 regard to the writings of our own members. I believe 
 they contain many excellent sentiments, examples, and 
 testimonies, in accordance with the Scriptures. But I 
 also believe they have some imperfections, which ought to 
 be distinguished from what they said well. And this dis- 
 crimination would be made, if with minds enlightened by 
 the Holy Spirit, we brought them to the test of Holy 
 Scripture." 
 
 And after making a large allowance for the circum- 
 2L 
 
382 PROCEKDIXGS A.VD PKINCirLES dy 
 
 ftiinces in which the Early Friesds wrote, I added : '"An^ 
 xvhen the weakness or mistakes of eminent men, arc at- 
 tempted to be included along zrilh tnn'h, or to be set up aa 
 fundamental principles, the necessity for such a discriniii*- 
 ation becomes a subject of very serious consideration/' 
 
 This gave great offence to the leading Censervativcs* 
 Much censure was cast upon me in conversation. In the 
 mean time, an Article appeared in the Friend, Vol. 9, No.- 
 22, under the head of Standards of Doctrine. The ob- 
 ject of the writer was to prove, that from the different 
 constructions given to the Scriptures, the writings of 
 the Early Friends, and noi the Scriptures, were to be the 
 Standard of doctrine for us. This article in the Friend^. 
 Ibriefly Reviewed in the Repository, Vol. 5, No. 25. But 
 to meet the objections which had been made to the sen- 
 tinaents contained in my Vindication, published in the 
 19th and 20th numbers of the Repository,- 1 published, ir> 
 the 23rd number, an Article under the head of E. Bates's 
 Vindication Reviewed. In that piece I said: 
 
 "In reference to the writings of our Early Friends^ 
 it ought to be remembered, that the general recomraerr- 
 dations of those writings, necessarily include the whole of 
 them." * * * The "sincerity [of our fore-fathers] is prov- 
 ed by their many and deep sufferings. But these suffer- 
 ings do not prove their infallibility, or the correctness of 
 all their writings. Their piety and acceptance with Go d 
 are not questions at all to be agito.ted by me, and it is 
 equally far from me topass a censure upon their writings, 
 in a general and summary way. But I am bound for 
 truth's sake, to say, that some parts of their writings, can- 
 not bear the test of Holy Scripture."' 
 
 In the same article I had noticed the Address to the 
 Members of Ohio and Indiana Y. M. which I had writ- 
 ten; and in which I had stated the Doctrine of the Resur- 
 rection, in the language of Scripture. And I raentioacd 
 that when I presented this Address to the Meeting for 
 
TinG SOCIETY OF FRrE.*US. 
 
 28S 
 
 Sutferlngs for its approval, it was 'decidedly opposed — a 
 rommitt'je was appointed to endeavour to modify it — and 
 the modilicatron proposed was, to take out the passages 
 of Scripture on this subject, and supply their places with 
 quotations from the writings of Friends — all which state- 
 ments, I have fully proved to be true: and for the proof 1 
 refer the reader to my Refutation of the Document of the 
 Meeting for Sufferings. 
 
 That Meeting, as already noticed, issued a document 
 against nie, without previous notice, and when I was ab- 
 sent in England, and without ever to this day furnishing 
 me with a copy of it. It was read^and approved in the 
 Yearly Meeting — directed to be forwarded to all the 
 Meetiusjs for SufFerings in the world — and sent down to 
 Short Creek Monthly Meeting for my disownment. 
 
 In that Document they say, the "allegations" I had 
 made in regard to the Address, v/ere "disingenuous and 
 untrue" — "that the doctrinal treatises of the early writers 
 of the Society, who wcrcinsrumcntal in the Lord's hand 
 in gathering us to be a seperate people, arc in strict accor- 
 dance with the Holy Scriptures, and contain a clear exposi- 
 tion of the true christian divinity. Hence we view with 
 deep concern and disapprobation, the attempts which ar« 
 made in the publication before us, to lessen the christian 
 reputation of our worthy forefathers in religious pro- 
 fession, and to discredit their approved writings." 
 
 The Yearly Meeting of London, in its Epistle ofCoun-- 
 sel of 1835, which was adopted by the Y. M. of Ohio, and 
 sent down to iis members — said: "Whilst thus alluding to 
 our predecessors in religious profession, we would ear- 
 nestly but affectionately recommend to our dear friends 
 generally, but especially to those in early Wk, the frequent 
 and serious perusal of their writings; replete as they are 
 with instructive evidence of the sufficiency of that founda- 
 tion on which it was their concern to biiild, and eminent- 
 ly calculated, as we believe they arc, to impress the mind 
 
284 
 
 PROCEEPINOS AND PRINCirLKS OF 
 
 with .1 deep sense of the importance of tlie cxperimentnl 
 work of religion on the heart." 
 
 W'ith the history of the Appeal, the reader is ah eady 
 made acquainted. And the foregoing collection of Ex- 
 tracts from published writings, will show what shockingly 
 unsound things they contain. The determination of the 
 Conservatives seems to be, to maintain the writings as 
 sound. The Friend of 8 mo. 5, 1837, contains an angry 
 article on lihe principles of primitive Friends; in which 
 the writer says: "What superior advantages do those of 
 this day possess, who seem to wish the Society to take 
 their commentaries as its creed, instead of the doctrines of 
 Fox and Penn, and the masterly Apology of Barclay ?" 
 Here the doctrines of Fox, and Penn, and the Apology of 
 Barclay are claimed as the Creed of the Society. But he 
 is totally mistaken in supposing that /, for one wish, my 
 commentaries taken for a Creed. I wish the Icxl o( Scrip- 
 ture to be accepted as it was by the Primitive Believers. 
 But we have seen what doctrines are contained in the 
 writings of Fox and Penn, and the masterly Apology of 
 Barclay. 
 
 The same writer goes on to say: "Do persons of this 
 character come forward to tell us that the truth is not to 
 be found in the excellent writings of Fox, Barclay, or 
 Penn ?" No. But we say that there are errors of a most 
 dangerous character in them, which are conveyed with the 
 greater effect, by the truths with which they are connect- 
 ed. The true or plausible parts of the writings — like 
 water, or like food, become the vehicle by which the 
 poison is communicated. 
 
 The writer proceeds: "And where is it [that is the 
 truth] to be found?" — [if not in the writings of Fox, Bar- 
 clay or Penn] I answer — In the Scriptures, which the 
 writer did not seem to have thought of. 
 
 But the excellence of the writings of Early Friends is 
 the theme of conversation and of declamation. It is 
 
THE SOCIP.TY OF FRIENDS, 
 
 285 
 
 poured out in their Periodicals — it meets us in the official 
 documents of Superior meetings, claiming to be ownrdhy 
 the great Head of the Church — and it forms the subject 
 of sermons, delivered under the high profession of immedi- 
 ate Inspiration. But after the exhibition has been made 
 of what they contain — the presumption ofdeckiring them 
 sound — under pretension of revelation, may be seen by 
 the weakest capacit}'. The younger part oftlic Society 
 will be ashamed of holding such things in this enlightened 
 day; and many an older Friend, will feel sick at the very- 
 heart, when he thinks of what they have been contending 
 for, and what is now, b}' themselves, made identical with 
 Quakerism, before the world. And they will lament tiie 
 day, when they undertook to defend corruption and error, 
 and to retain it in the bosom of Society — or to place 
 Quakerism in open and avowed opposition to Primitive 
 Christianity — as is done in the case of the Ordinances, 
 and other points of Christian doctrine. 
 
 I know that there are many specious reasonings, by 
 which some persons are induced to think, that by a 
 little management, in not pushing the reformation too fast, 
 it would ultimately prevail; and that the errors for which 
 Conservative Friends so earnestly contend, w^ould, of them- 
 selves, sink into oblivion and be forgotten. 
 
 I would remind these Friends, that the experience of 
 nearly two hundred years, proves the total fallacy of all 
 this fond expectation. But a few years ago, upwards of 
 Thirty Thousand of our fellow members, were led away 
 by the very errors in question. Nor is this all — but by 
 the official acts of the Yearly Meetings, both of London 
 and Ohio, the same things have been completely recog- 
 nized, as essential to Quakerism. Error is not of a nature 
 to die of itself, in the present state of the world. Two 
 hundred years more might roll over, and if the Society 
 lasted so long, the same things would be as tenaciously 
 held as they are now: while no man could culculate the 
 extent of the mischief which might ensue. 
 
386 
 
 PRINCIPLES AND PROCKEmNGS OF 
 
 When God is pleased to raise up reformers, he does 
 not send them to sew pillows under arm-holes, or to cry 
 *'peace, peace, when there is no peace;"* or to holdout 
 the idea that corruption and error arc not to be exposed — 
 or when they arc discovered, to apologise for thcni, and 
 turn against such as, under a deep sense of duty, have 
 been endeavouring to cleanse the camp. What reforma- 
 tion wotild Luther and his fellow Reformers, have effect- 
 ed, if they had not exposed the corruptions of the church of 
 Rome? Or how would they have sustained the cause, if 
 they had shrunk from the frowns of the Conservatives of 
 that day; and to keep peace with them, had recognized 
 the authority of the Traditions, in which the corraptions 
 in question were entrenched? 
 
 Not only the Reformers, but the Apostles also, exposed 
 corruptions^ both among t!ic Jews and the Gentiles, and 
 in the Churches. Nor did they suppress or modify the 
 tloctrines of the gospel, to avoid opposition. "If I yet 
 please men," said the Apostle Paail, "I am not the servant 
 «f Christ." 
 
 But -when we reflect on the Sovereignty and Majesty 
 of God, and his utter abhorrence of evil ; with his poreer 
 and loill to destroy it; how can we dare to tamper with it, 
 as if it might be tolerated in the Church, or were too for- 
 midable to be openly assailed! The example of Achan, 
 is a solemn warning in regard to concca/ef/ forbidden things. 
 Here an individual, by stcallh, introduced the accursed 
 thing into the Camp; a.nd buried it in his own tent- 
 Though the body of the people knew nothing of the trans- 
 action, they could not stand before their enemies, in con- 
 sequence of the concealed transgression, and God caused 
 the offence to be searched out: and an example was 
 made, both of the accursed thing, and of him that intro- 
 duced it. Surely this was written for our sakes, as well 
 as for those who were the immediate witnesses of it. And 
 if such was the displeasure of (iod in this case — what 
 
TiiK ftocnn'Y or i uil'xds. 
 
 would have been the chaslisenienl, if the rulers and peo- 
 ple had forbidden the search — and when the accursed 
 thing was brought to light, they hod excused tlic trans- 
 gression, and insisted on retaining the forlndden things! 
 
 My very soul is grieved for my former fiiends, when I 
 retlect on the position in which they stand; and sometimes 
 I tremble for the consequences which they may draw upon 
 themselves. The language is clear — "His Fan is in his 
 hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor; and gather 
 the wheat into the garner — but the chaff he will burn with 
 unquenchable fire." The chalT — the chaff must burn — 
 and if they keep it in their bosoms — they cannot shield it 
 from the flames — but must expose themselves to the dan- 
 ger of devouring fire. I beg them for the sake of them- 
 selves, for the sake of the objects of their affection- — for 
 the honour, the love, and the fear of God, not to strive 
 with the Almighty — nor attempt to defend or retain that 
 which he has appointed to destruction. 
 
 In conclusion, it is proper briefly to remark, that I hav^ 
 shown that the proceedings of the Friends against me, 
 were unfair, dishonourable, and in violation of their own 
 rules of Discipline. I have proven that these extraordin- 
 ary transactions, were on account of my holding, with 
 uncompromising firmness, doctrines, in regard both to 
 Faith and practice, which are most clearly recorded in 
 the Holy Scriptui-es. 
 
 I have made it appear, by the most humiliating evi- 
 dence, that the Founder of the Society, and several of his 
 intimate friends, were under delusion in some of their 
 highest claims to immediate revelation; and that they 
 used forms of expressions, atdiffcrent times and on various 
 occasions, which no persons could have used, w ho had 
 clear views of christian doctrine, and a just estimate of 
 themselves. This remark will apply to printed works, as 
 well as to authenticated manuscripts. And the christian 
 world is now a witness, that those objectionable writings 
 
288 
 
 rilOCEEDINGS Ai\D rilliVCirLES OF 
 
 are defended by the Sociely. The Friends have made it a 
 disovvnable oHence to call, even the worst of those writ- 
 ings, in question. Tiiey have officially declared the Doc- 
 trinal Treatises of the Early Friends, (which include all 
 the works from which the foregoing Extracts arc taken,) 
 in strict accordance with the Holy Scriptures. And 
 they have earnestly recommended those writings, without 
 distinction, to the frequent and serious perusal of their 
 members. Their ministers, under the profession of divine 
 influence, carry out this recommendation, and endeavour 
 to stop inquiry, and remove every doubt, of the unclouded 
 clearness o( the testimony of the Early Friends. In con- 
 versation, the same general course is pursued, and the 
 highest censure is parsed on those who point out the errors 
 contained in the writings of Early Friends. 
 
 As respects the proceedings of the Society against my- 
 self — the detales which I have given were necessary, in 
 order to present a history of the case; Avhich cannotfa.il 
 to be interesting both to the Christian public, and to such 
 of the members of the Society of Friends, as are not will- 
 ing to be ignorcuil of ti ansactions, for which they must be 
 responsible. As to the mere personal character — of these 
 proceedings, they are now past. A gracious God, who 
 saw my afflictions, and knew the cause of my sufferings^ 
 interposed his Hand to sustain me, so that when my ene- 
 mies came upon me, they stumbled and fell. 
 
 In the day of battle, he taught my hands to war and my 
 fingers to fight — and though I have had to stand, almost 
 alone — though the powers of the Society, throughout the 
 length and breadth of it, have been combined against me 
 — on every position they have taken, they have been de- 
 feated. The champions who have come forward, with 
 confidence to the onset, have been confounded, and have 
 shrunk from a fair and honourable discussion of positions 
 which they had chosen themselves; and thushave given the 
 strongest evidence, ihaXtheyknew the truth was on my side. 
 
THE SOCllITY or rillENDS. 
 
 389 
 
 In Llic. dispensations of God, these tilings Jiave been 
 made to work together for good. They have given me a 
 place in tlie hearts of the pious of all denominations. They 
 have proven that iny opponents were in error — and given 
 additional confirmation of the importance of the princi- 
 ples for which 1 have contended. And in the abundant 
 evidence which has h^en afforded, of the unfailing care 
 o-f the Shepherd and Bishop of Souls, my Faith and con- 
 solation have been increased. 
 
 Let not ray former friends, then grieve for me, but for 
 themselves. Nor let them suppose that I shall indulge 
 the feelings of malice or resentment against those who 
 have done me wi ong. Like Joseph's brethren, they in- 
 tended it for evil, but God has turned it to good — a good 
 which thnj themselves may participate in, to the lasting 
 benefit of themselves and their children. 
 
 In regard to the writings of the Early Friends, every 
 enlightened christian, w ho will be at the pains of an im- 
 partial examination, must see that there* are errors in 
 them, which are in their character, totally subversive of 
 the christian Faith. And while I have fully admitted 
 that there are many members of the Society, who love 
 sound doctrine and desire to hold it — Christian charily 
 must suggest the inquiry — whether it is possible, for per- 
 sons to be clear in their views of christian doctrine, and 
 duly sensible of the high obligations of revealed truth — 
 and fully alive to the danger of error in Faith and Prac- 
 tice — and at the same time to defend the highly objec- 
 tionable tilings contained in the writings of the Early 
 Friends — or wish to retain them, embodied in those writ- 
 ings, without any caution to the ignorant or unsuspecting 
 readers? I say Christian charity must suggest the doubt 
 of the clearness of the views of such Friends, if not of the 
 soundness of their principles. For we can hardly conceive, 
 that persons believing those parts of the writings of the 
 Friends to be really dangerous^ could consent to their be- 
 2M 
 
290 
 
 PK0CEEDING5 AND PRINCirUis OF 
 
 ing blinded with sound doctrine, and rccomtncndctf, with- 
 out the least caution, or discrimination. Wc arc sure 
 that no person of sound mind, could recommend the igno- 
 rant and unsuspecting, to go into an enclosure, with ex- 
 aggerated representation? of the' flowers and fruits to be 
 found there, if they knew there were in that very place, 
 the most ferocious beasts of prey, and the most insiduous, 
 and venomous reptiles. No man, not mentally or morally 
 deranged, would recommend to his friends, and even to 
 his own children, a dish, in which he knew there was 
 deadly poison — and when the fact was disclosed — be an- 
 gry with the informer — contradict the statement — and en- 
 deavour to remove every apprehension of danger, from 
 the minds of those, who had taken an alarm. The neces- 
 sary inference from these considerations is, that the 
 Friends who defend the ol)jectionable parts of the writings 
 of the Early Quakers, or who wish noma^rk to be set upon 
 them as errors — or endeavour to persuade the members 
 of the Society, lhat there are no c?fin^fro?/s sentiments in 
 those writings, must be themselves, according to their 
 own representations, substantially satisfied with those 
 passages which have been brought into question. If they 
 admit that the foi-m of expression is not exactly the best 
 that might have been used — they must, at the same time 
 conclude that if they are taken in their obvious meaning, 
 no serious danger is to be apprehended. And as there 
 has been a practical demonstration, within the last fifteen 
 years, that this obvious meaning has been-, and still may 
 be taken — there connot be at heart, any serious objec- 
 tion to such results. It is more charitable to suppose, 
 thai they believe the doctrines in question, cither as ab- 
 solutely right, or at least as not hurtful — than to suppose 
 they see the passages in their real character, and at the 
 same time directly recommend them — or give them a 
 place, and a character, to exert their whole malignant 
 influence, without suspicion of tlie danger. 
 
THE SOCIKTV OF FRIENDS. 
 
 291 
 
 A very large amount of (.he passages to which I alhidc, 
 convey the very same sentiments, for which E, JI. and 
 his friends wore condcriined. This v. ill hold, both in the 
 affirmalivC) and negative parts of the system commonly de- 
 nominated Ilicksism— but now proven to be original 
 Quakerism. The recession of the Orthodox, from hold- 
 ing the sound parts only, of the writings of the Early 
 Friends, and tlie recognition, and defence of those parts 
 which express the doctrines hold by Elias Hicks, is a 
 complete acknowledgement of those very doctrines as es^ 
 sontial to Quakerism. 
 
 I do not say that the Society called Hicksitcs, is re- 
 sponsible for all that is contained in the writings of their 
 predecessors. There are sentiments in tlije Manuscript 
 Journal of George Fox, and in some of the foregoing Ex- 
 tracts, and others which miglit be made, which I am not 
 aware they ever defended, or held — but for "which the Or- 
 thodox are now completely committed. If then the Qua- 
 kerism for which the Orthodox, (so called) now plead, is 
 not identical with what is called Ilicksism, one point of 
 difference is to be found in the grossest parts of those 
 writings, for which the Orthodox contend. 
 
 Another point of difference may be in the hostile atti- 
 tude assumed by the latter, against the Practices of the 
 Apostles and Apostolic Church, in regard to, the use of 
 the Ordinances. The Hicksites have merely disused the 
 Ordinances — the Orthodox have made the use of them a 
 ground of disownment. In this the Hicksitcs have the 
 fairest claims to the character of the Early Quakers. 
 
 Perhaps, I might here mention another point of differ- 
 ence. The Orthodox regard singing as highly offensive, 
 and not to be allowed. From The Quaker. Vol. m. p. 
 265, it' appears that a female repeated a hymn in the 
 public meeting in Mountpleasant, during the Hicks- 
 itcs' Yearly Meeting, 1828. The reporter docs not 
 inform us to what /?/»?rit was sung — but we are very sure 
 
992 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCI^LUS OF 
 
 that there was a /i'j?c— natural or artificial. And Itovc 
 again they have the nearest resemblance to the Early 
 Friends. George Fox once sung so loud as to drown the 
 music of a fiddle, (G- F. Jour. P. 1. p. 201.) and James 
 Lancaster, as G. F. informs us, (Jour. P. 1. p-. 4G5) sung 
 "with a melodious sound" through the streets of Johnston, 
 while /ic preached to the people as they went along. 
 
 In short, if the two Societies do not now occupy pre- 
 cisely the same ground, it must be admitted that the Or- 
 thodox have made some innovntiojis of the usages of their 
 forefathers — and that, on the other hand, thry now come 
 forward to defend passages in their old writings, which 
 •are too monstrous to be tolerated for a single moment: 
 and for many of which the Ilicksites do not appear to be 
 committed. 
 
 The Friends cannot therefore complain ofbeing identified 
 •with the Hick^ites. Objections might be raiscdonthe other 
 side, to which some of the milder features of original 
 Quakerism seem to belong: if Quakerism is not to be sub- 
 jected to the absolute authority of Holy Scripture, as 
 the Rule of Faith and Practice. Those among the Ortho- 
 dox who cannot reconcile themselves to this character, 
 must take the necessary means to disclaim the public Acts 
 ofthe Society, and to distinguish themselves from those 
 who defend the objectionable parts of the writings of 
 their fore-fathers — or who would have them retained, 
 without a censure fixed upon their literal and obvious 
 meaning, 
 
 I am fully convinced that the passages is question, have 
 had a deeply injurious effect — in leading many from the 
 Faith once delivered to the Saints — and in blunting the 
 religious feelings, and diminishing the perceptions of di- 
 vine truth, of many who still profess sound doctrines. - The 
 present state of the Society is conclusive proof of the cor- 
 rectness of this opinion. A deep and radical unsound- 
 ness is withering the branches of the Society, and causing 
 
TIIK SOCiETV 01' FUIENDS. 
 
 203 
 
 the trunk to decay' — and tlic end is neitiicr doubtiLil nor 
 perhaps very distant. 
 
 I can sec no possible remedy for the present state of 
 things, but a breaking up of the whole system of delusion. 
 The writings of the Early Friends must no longer be ta- 
 ken as the Standard of doctrines. The errors contained 
 in them must be freely admitted as such, and a mark set 
 upon them as a warning to the ignorant. Unfounded pre- 
 tensions to revelation mast be abandoned. The Holy 
 Scriptures must be accepted as the Rule of Faith and 
 Practice, and their authority practically submitted to. 
 The ordinances must be received. Devotion must become 
 more lively, fervent, and practical — In private, in families, 
 and in meetings. There must be more prayer, more 
 g-o£pc/ preaching — and the praise o{ God must not only be 
 tolerated, but become a part of public and private devo- 
 tion. The regulations of the. ministry must be new mod- 
 deled, and more effectual care be taken, to prevent igno- 
 rance, or unsoundness from bckig covered with the profes- 
 sion of divine Inspiration. Make these changes, and the 
 Society of Friends will have lost its present character, 
 and would certainly deserve another name. 
 
 To accomplish such an object, demands a truly Mission- 
 ary Zeal. Those who arc in fatal errors, are not to be 
 left to themselves. The whole business of spreading the 
 Gospel of life and salvation, proceeds on a principle of 
 JLove. It is this that arms the missionary with courage 
 and- patience, to meet the dangers and endure the suffer- 
 ings attendant on his labours. It is this that demands the 
 efforts now making, to release the Inhal)itants of India, 
 of Africa, of Greenland, and the Islands of the Pacific 
 Ocean, from the errors in which they arc involved. And 
 are the Friends less to be regarded as objects of Christian 
 love? I earnestly invite the believers in the Lord Jesus, 
 of every denomination, to unite their prr;j/fr5, and their 
 christian labours, for the iielpof this class of their tr llow 
 
294 
 
 PROCEEniNOS AND PRINCIPLES OP 
 
 men. Let the Friends, as llicy pass the worshipping fam- 
 ilies, or worshipping congregations of their pious neigh- 
 bours, hear the fervent prayer, ascending to the Father of 
 Mercies for their recovery from every delusion — and for 
 their final eternal salvation. Let them meet the serious 
 expostulation, in the conversation of those with whom they 
 converse. Let them see the expression of christian solici- 
 tude in every face,till they are made willing to let go every 
 error, and to receive the truth, as it was preached by the 
 Lord Jesus and his Apostles — till instead of being the Ad- 
 vocates of the errors of their predecessors, they may be 
 the possessors, and zealous defenders, of the Faith once 
 delivered to the Saints. 
 
 Great efforts ha.ve recently been made by Conservative 
 Friends, to regulate the consciences and abridge the lib- 
 erties of their more liberal members. Barriers are raised 
 around them as high as possible, to keep them from infor- 
 mation which might result in conviction. But they can- 
 not be defended from the moral influence of the christian 
 public, informed of the circumstances of the case, and 
 stimulated by the love of God, to do them good. The 
 prayers of the Churches of Christ, and the public and pri- 
 vate testimony to the truth, which may' arise around the 
 Friends, like the sound of the Trumpets of the host which 
 surrounded the walls of Jericho — will give the sure pre- 
 sage, that when the united voices of Christians, through 
 all their tribes and divisions, shall be raised — the walls 
 - which have been built up broad and high, will tremble to 
 their very foundation, and the boasted towers lie prostrate 
 in the dust. 
 
 God will carry on his own work. Corruption and er- 
 ror must be exposed and purged away. The Kingdom of 
 the Redeemer will be extended in the earth. Believers 
 will still more and more unite in carrying on the work. 
 And angels look down from heaven with joy, on the in- 
 creasing glories of Messiah's Reign. 
 
THE S0(JI1;TY OI" FUICVOs. 
 
 295 
 
 rURTHEU FACTS AND REFLECTIOjNS RELATING TO BAPTISM. 
 
 The Examination of Proceedings and Principles, in- 
 volved in llie case before us, would be iuTcompletc, with- 
 out a notice of a few other facts. 
 
 While the Society was pressing on its private and pub- 
 lic measures against me, several articles appeared in the 
 Friend, (a sort of semi-official paper published in Phila- 
 delphia), evidently intended to prepare the Society for its 
 final action upon me. While 1 had a periodical in my 
 hands, the conductors of the Friend most carefully avoid- 
 ed coming into open controversy with me, though I re- 
 viewed, with freedom, several articles wliich they had 
 published. After the Repository had been discontinued, 
 they inserted in the Friend, the Chapter on Baptism, from 
 a work which I had published twelve years ago, and of 
 which I had secured the copy-right. That work had pas- 
 sed through several editions, and was extensively -circulat- 
 ed. Notwithstanding these circumstances, they thrust it 
 gratuitously into their columns, without consulting me, 
 and after they knew my sentiments on that subject had 
 changed. 
 
 I considered such a freedom with my privileges, 
 and evidently intended to bear upon me, while the whole 
 machinery of the Society was in operation, to crush, and 
 to render me odious, ;is a departure from the rules of 
 propriety. They should have respected personal rights. 
 And if they wanted to say any thing on the subject of 
 Baptism, they should have drawn upon their ozi-n resources, 
 if they had any. 
 
 I wrote a letter to the Conductors, complaining of this 
 pro.ceeding, but olfering to be satisfied, if they would al- 
 low me to Review my own Chapter, which they had so 
 officiously given to their readers, and give me the further 
 opportunity, of replying to any article which thry might 
 ]iublish, in opposition to tbc Review. The editor replied 
 to my letter, justified what th6y had done; refusing either 
 to allow me the liberty of the proposed Review, or to 
 pubHsh the letter in which the request was made. 
 
 The reason for this proceeding is obvious. They were 
 not desirous that tlieir readers should be led into a fair 
 examination of the question. It was not the doctrines of 
 Jesus Christ and his Apostles — but the peculiar vinos of 
 Friends, that they wished to establish. And they were 
 
200 
 
 PUOCliEI/INUS AKU PHINCU'LES OF 
 
 not willing to meet a Scriptural discussion of the sub- 
 ject. It was not Chrislianilif, hut Quakerism, for which 
 they were concerned: and tins was to be maintained by 
 the arguments oh one iie/e only. I say this, because there 
 could not possibly be a case, in M'hich there would be a 
 stronger claim to the admission of the other side of the 
 question. • 
 
 When my disownmcnt was effected, the two subjects of 
 the Avritings of Friends,- and the doctrine of Baptism, 
 were chosen as themes of preaching and conversation, hav- 
 ing a direct and sjiecial bearing upon me: in order to en- 
 list the sectarian prejudices of those, who might have some 
 remainiTig favourable impressions concerning me. I was 
 stigmatized as the greatest enem}' the Society ever had; 
 and the members were charged to have no intercourse 
 with me. Those who attended my meetings were threat- 
 ened with disownmcnt. And particular pains M^crc taken, 
 to induce the pious of other denominations, to regard me 
 at an unworthy and dangerous person. The cruel design 
 appeared to be formed, to make me an outcast from all re- 
 ligious society!' And this was done by ministers and other 
 prominent members, and clothed in the garb of "religious 
 concern.-' 
 
 In this state of things, the Yearly Meeting of Ohio 
 came on, the beginning of the 9th month, this year. 
 
 Joseph John-Gurney, well known as a highly esteemed 
 writer, and a prominent minister among the Friends in 
 England, landed in Philadelphia, on a religious visit to 
 the United States, a few days before the commencement 
 of the Yearly Meeting in Ohio. 
 
 And here, I feel bound to pay a just-tribute of respect, 
 to this estimable individual. Asa writer, he stands in 
 the very first rank, in the Society of Friends. And al- 
 though, on some points of doctrine, he has followed Bar- 
 clay and Penn, rather than Saint Paul and his Inspired 
 cotemporaries, yet on doctrines of Fundamental import- 
 ance, and on m.any subordinate branches, he has made a 
 wide departure from the mystical parts of the writings of 
 the Early Friends. His published works may be regard- 
 ed as making large and rapid strides, towards an Evan- 
 ge-lical Reformation in the Society. On the conclusive 
 Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity, especially in reference to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 
 and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 297 
 
 the Atonement, and of Justification by Faith, the Resur-, 
 rectionofthe Dead and the Day of General Judgment at 
 tlie End of the V/orld, tiie Duty of Prayer, and tlie Moral 
 ObHgation of the Sabbath, the writings of Joseph John 
 Gurney present a striking coalrasi w ith a large portion of 
 the accredited writings of the Early Friends. And they 
 form a prominent feature of the present excited state of 
 the Society. Nor is the individual of whom I am speak- 
 ing, less remarkable for amiable private character. His 
 urbanity of manners, his christian charity towards other 
 professors, his humanity and benevolence, secure him 
 esteem wherever he is known. 
 
 Immediately after landing in Philadelphia, he came 
 directly to Mountpleasant, to attend the Yearly. Meeting 
 there. And (I would say) was unhappily drawn into the 
 prevailing current. On First day morning, at the com- 
 mencement of the Yearly Meeting, he preached, among 
 other things, on the clearness of the views of the Early 
 Friends, and on the doctrine of Baptism, which, he said, 
 had recently been agitated among them. On this latter 
 subject^ he seemed particularly solicitous to lay aside the 
 outward Ordinance. To effect this object, he raised the 
 question, whether the gift of the Spirit is continued in this 
 day or not: saying: "That is the question.'' 
 
 It did not, however, seem to have occurred to him, that 
 as the gift of the Spirit, did not conflict with the adminis- 
 tration of Water Baptism, in the days of the Apostles, so 
 neither could it norc. He could not have chosen premises 
 more completely inapplicable to his purpose, or foreign 
 from his conclusion, if he had taken the whole range of 
 Christian doclrine. 
 
 To prove that the gift of the Spirit is continued, he re- 
 ferred to the testimony of the Apostle Peter on the Day 
 of Pentecost, and showed that being filled with the Holy 
 Ghost, his testimony on that occasion was the testimony 
 of the Spirit. But in quoting that testimony, he passed 
 over the whole of the fore part of Peter's answer to the 
 converts: "Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins;" and 
 began at these words: "For the Promise is to you and 
 to 3'our children, and to them that are afar off, even as 
 many as the Lord our God shall call." Why was this 
 garbling of the language of the Holy Ghost? Why -was 
 the body of ths answer left out — the "very conditions on 
 2N 
 
298 
 
 mocEECiXGS Ayv) rRixcrrLEs of 
 
 xvhich the ;jrom25c rested? Plainlj because, the word 
 of Inspiration, it commanded, "repent and be baptized, 
 every one of jou, in the name of Jcsiis Christ, for the re- 
 mission of sins." lie kncv it was impossible to explain 
 away this positive command — or to admit tiic authority of 
 the Apostle in one part of the sentence, and deny it in the 
 otheri There was no way to get along with the viczis of 
 Friends, but to garble the text; and to leave out that, on 
 which the concluding clause, absolutely depended. 
 
 Every impartial reader must see at once, that no assu- 
 rance was given to the three thousand, that ihcy should re- 
 ceive the Holj- Ghost, without Repentance and Baptism. 
 If he intended to prove that this gift is continued without 
 these conditions, he selected a text directly against him- 
 self. It is the text, and the arguments which arc to be 
 legitimately drawn from it, with which we are now imme- 
 diately concerned. Bat that text, undivided, proves at 
 once, the divine authority of water ba.ptism. And if the 
 perpetuity of the doctrine embraced in one part of the 
 sentence, be insisted on-^thc perpetuity of the former, 
 and that on which the latter depended, must be granted 
 also. l( the promise then held out to the three thousand, 
 be claimed as descending to us — it must be on the same 
 grounds, and with the same clearly expressed qualifica- 
 tions. 
 
 He also quoted Eph. 4. 5: "Ona Lord, one Ffvith, one 
 Baptism 5" applying the passage to the Baptism of the 
 Spirit. To this construction and inference there are 
 several insuperable objections. 
 
 The term baptism, without something in the context, or 
 in the nature of the subject to which it is applied, to turn 
 it from its natural import, literally means an outward act. 
 
 But there is nothing in the context, nor in the nature 
 of the subject, to turn the word from its natural and literal 
 meaning. 
 
 Therefore the literal meaning is to be taken* 
 Again: The Apostle spoke Oi fads, and in the present 
 tense. He did noi, say. Though there are various baptisms, 
 there is but one really necessary. And if he had, it 
 would have been proper that he should have told which 
 it was that was necessary. But from the construction of 
 the passage, if the word necessary, or'any other qualifying 
 term be applied to baptism, it must also be understood as 
 applied to the other objects mentioned in the text. As 
 
TUE SOCIETY Or FSIE.N'DS. 
 
 293 
 
 if he should have snid, there is only one Lord, one Faith, 
 
 one Baptism, one God and Father of all — necessary 
 
 innplying that, in point of fact, there was a plurality of all 
 these — but only one of each was essential. The absurdity 
 of such a perversion of the text, must be apparent to all. 
 
 The Apostles then made a simple and plain declaration, 
 positively true in point of fact. In the literal meaning of 
 t.ie term, tliere was emphatically one baptism., which was 
 practiced in the Church; carefully distinguished from 
 the washing of the Jews, and from the baptism of John; 
 (Acts 19, 1-5) and equal!)' guarded from every perversion, 
 which might arise from attaching any thing to it, from 
 the personal character of the individuals by whom it was 
 administered, (see 1, Cor. i). If therefore, the term be 
 here taken in its figurative, as well as literal meaning, 
 instead of proving that the baptism of the Spirit was the 
 one baptism — it would prove that both this, and the Bap' 
 tism of Persecution or Suffering, had ceased. 
 
 For the outward baptism being in practice at the time, 
 if there was but one, in any and in every sense of the word, 
 that must be the one. And as the Apostle had himself, 
 recently enforced outward baptism, on some of the very 
 persons to whom he then wrote, the Friends must prove 
 that it had been laid aside, before they can possibly get 
 over recognizing this, as the one baptism. But this is im- 
 posible for them to do. They must then give up. the fig- 
 urative meanings of the word, or the text will, in their 
 very teeth, prove that the baptism of the Spirit and the 
 baptism of Suffering, had both ceased at the time the 
 Apostle wrote the Epistle to the Ephcsiaus, 
 
 But I take it in its literal meaning; and thus am free 
 from drawing any such conclusions. It was plainly the 
 common Christian baptism, by which they had all been 
 formally united to the one visible Bodj'-r-the Church, and 
 had all professed the one comnjon Faith in the one Lord, 
 of which the Apostle was speaking. Take the test, sim* 
 pie and literally as it stands, and all is clear and har- 
 monious. Give it the construction for which the Friends 
 contend, and the whole passage is thrown into confusion — 
 and after all, their object is totally defeated. 
 
 He quoted, 1 Cor. 12, 13. "For by one spirit, are we all 
 baptized into one body," &c. But it would be perfectly 
 preposterous, to carry out this figurative use of the|t"erm, 
 to any other result, as applied to us, than was intended, a* 
 
300 
 
 PRINCIPLES ANO PUOCEEDISKS OF 
 
 applied to them. But it had no such meaning or effect 
 with the (.'orinthians, as to produce the disuse of water 
 Baptism- Let J. J. G. and the Friends, show that the 
 passage was so understood by the early christians, or so 
 intended by the Apostle, if they wish' to draw from it 
 any such conclusion, as to us. But while it remains.an ac- 
 knowledged historical fad, that water baptism, was then, 
 and continued in successive ages to be, practiced, the dis- 
 use of baptism can no more be infertcd from it for «s,than 
 it was for them. 
 
 The passage contains a beautiful figurative use of the 
 term, to show the spiritual, as well as formal relation in 
 which they stood. And this figure derived all its beauty, 
 and all its force, from the well known ceremony to which 
 it alluded. 
 
 In the evening ho introduced the subject of Baptism bv 
 a reference to the commission, recorded in Matt» :28, 19, 
 20, (Sec. And he denied that it had "any refci-encc what' 
 ever to a mere outvraid ceremony." 
 
 The reasons which he gave for this bold assertion, were, 
 That our Lord had used the term in a spiritual sense; as 
 when he spoke of the cup which he should drink of, and 
 the Baptism, with which he should be baptized — and 
 when he told them that they should be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost, &,c. 
 
 In regard to the Cup, and the Baptism spoken of to the 
 sons of Zebedee, it will appear by what immediately pre- 
 cedes it, Matt. 20, 18, 19: that he was speaking o[ persecu- 
 tion. "The Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief 
 priest, and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him 
 to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles, to mock, 
 and to scourge, and to crucify him." And so far as his 
 disciples v^ere to partake of this baptism, they were to be 
 the baptized, and not the baptizers. To suppose that this 
 was the ba,ptism intended in the commission, would be to 
 change the whole character of thg Gospel; and represent 
 the Apostles as sent out into the world, to baptize the na- 
 tions with blood, instead of wcter. 
 
 On the baptism of the Holy Ghost, he admitted that it 
 was not strictly the work of man ; but that man was em- 
 powered to perform it« 
 
 This is assertion without proof. Let J= J. G. or any 
 other Friend, show if they can, that man was either em- 
 powered lo baptize with God, (for the Holy Ghost is God, 
 
miE SOCIETY OK FUIENWS. 
 
 301 
 
 and J. J. G. fully admits It), or let theiii prove hy plain 
 Scripture, that any man ever did administer this baptism. 
 By the coticiirrent testimonies of the Prophet Joel and 
 the Apostle Peter, it is God that pours out the Spirit. 
 And it is the Risen and Glorified Redeemer, to whom this 
 office belongs. And John, his fore-runner, ma'ces it pe- 
 culiar to him — and a conclusive evidence of his Sonship. 
 To suppose that this office of the Son of God, is delegated 
 to men, is as preposterous as to suppose his character of 
 Deity is also delegated. In fact, the arguments made use 
 of by the Friends, will just as soon prove the one as the 
 other. 
 
 - Job Scott, in wdiose track J. J. G followed in this par- 
 ticular, said that man, as man, could not baptize with the 
 Holy Ghost — neither could he, merely as man, preach the 
 Gospel. The proposition, he said, was just as true, that 
 no man could preiich the Gospel, as that no man could 
 baptize Avith the Holy Ghost. Merely as man he could 
 do neither. But by divine assistance he could, and did, 
 do both. 
 
 The fallacy of this mode of reasoning will be readily 
 seen, by comparing it with an argument formed on pre- 
 cisely the same principles, from an illustration 1 once 
 heard from another friend, in his preaching. He said 
 that "man, as man, could no more preach the Gospel than 
 he could create a world." 
 
 Take then the two propositions and form an argument 
 from each. 
 
 Man as man, can no more preach the Gospel than he 
 can baptize with the Holy Ghost. 
 
 But he is empowered to preach the Gospel. 
 
 Therefore he can baptize wit'.i the Holy Ghost. 
 
 This is just the substance of Job Scott's argument — and 
 the idea which others after him seem to intend to convey. 
 But without taking the trouble, to show the departure 
 fi'om the rules of reasoning, which there is in the structure 
 of the argument, 1 will give another constructed exactly 
 like it. 
 
 Man, as man, can no more preach the Gospel than he 
 
 can create a world. 
 But he is empowered to preach the Gospel. 
 Therefore he can creg.te a world. 
 
 The conclusion is just as logical in the one case as in 
 the other: and both arc cq^ually unwarranted by Scripture 
 And by reason. 
 
^02 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 
 
 The disciples clearly understood the commission to re- 
 late to Water Baptism — for so they carried it into effect. 
 But the Friends are driven to suppose, that they were ac- 
 tually empowered, as well as commissioned, to baptize 
 with the Holy Ghost — and yet, notwithstanding this ex- 
 traordinary endowment — were totally mistaken, and fell 
 into the unaccountable error, of baptizing with Water, in- 
 stead of the Svtril ! 
 
 On the day of Pentecost, it was the Risen Saviour that 
 shed forth the f^pirit, or in other words, administered the 
 Baptism of the Holy Ghost. In the case of Cornelius and 
 his household, Feter said that "Got/ gave unto them, the 
 like gifts, as he did unto us in the beginning." In the 
 case of the Samaritans, the Apostles Peter and John pray- 
 ed, that they might receive the iloly Ghost. These, and 
 other testimonies which might be mentioned, are conclu- 
 sive, that it is the Son, in his charatter as God, that sheds 
 .on us, the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The idea of Baptizing by preaching, is strictly a Qua- 
 ker doctrine. But if Peter did not baptize the three thou- 
 sand by preaching, (which it is very clear that he did not, 
 for they were neither baptized with water nor by the 
 Spirit, when they inquired. What shall we do?) the 
 Friends might quietly give up the pretension of doing it. 
 And as there is no such a term in the New Testament, as 
 a Baptizing ministry, because there was nothing to which 
 such a term could apply, the Friends can have no occasion 
 to invent such an epithet, unless they have also invented 
 a ministry which the Apostles had not. But as it is prov- 
 ed that the baptism which they could administer by 
 preaching, could not be that of the Spirit — it could only 
 be the baptism of suffering, in some of its modifications. 
 
 But to return to J. J. G"s. second meeting. In ex- 
 pounding the Commission, he seemed to have totally for- 
 gotten the favorite doctrine of the Friends, that there is 
 o?te baptism. For, whether he intended it ornot, he 
 certainly treated the subject, as embracing three distinct 
 and separate baptisms. He first undertook to explain what 
 it was, to be baptized into the name of the Father, And 
 this he did at some considerable length. And then he in- 
 vited the meeting, to "Come and be Baptized into the 
 Name of the Father." He next. proceeded to explain the 
 Baptism into the name of the Son; and here he introduc- 
 ed the doctrine of the Atonement, and of Faith in a cru- 
 
THE SOCIETV OF FRIENDS. 
 
 303 
 
 ciried Saviour. And then he invited his hearers, to "Come 
 and be Baptized into the name of the Son." After this, 
 he proceeded to explain what it was (o be ba2)tized into 
 the name of the Spirit, and went into the description of 
 his office in our Conversion, V'aith, and Sanctilication: 
 and called upon the congregation, to "Come and be Bap- 
 tized into the name of the Spirit." From tlie very ground 
 on which he set out, the idea was clearly conveyed, that 
 he considered himself, as the boptizcr'mto these three bap- 
 tims. 
 
 On the following Fifth day, he preached another Ser- 
 mon, in which lie said: "The only water baptism which 
 is necessary, underthe glorious gospel dispensation, is the 
 baptism tvifh tears.'''' 
 
 It is deeply affecting to see such efforts, to lay waste the 
 plain and undeniable doctrines of Jesus Christ and his 
 Apostles, and the clearly established order of the Church; 
 and to substitute for them, almost any wild or crude opin- 
 ion, that imagination can suggest. 
 
 In the meeting on First day morning, 9 mo. 3rd, J. J. 
 Gurney said, while speaking on the leading doctrines of 
 Christianity, that the Early Friends "a/rto^s maintained 
 a clear testimony to these doctrines." And in the even- 
 ing of the same day, he said, that "by a measure of the 
 same Spirit, by which the Apostles were inspired, (though 
 asmaller measure than the Apostles had), they w^ere en- 
 able to maintain a clear, unclouded testimony to those 
 doctrines*" Being present at these meetings, and know- 
 ing the pains which the Friends had taken, to enlist the 
 prejudices of their own members, and the feelings of the 
 community at large, in reference to the two subjects above 
 mentioned — and to give them a direct bearing on the 
 position which 1 now occupy, before the members of that 
 Society, and the Christian world — 1 felt myself called 
 upon, publicly to meet, both the statements which he had 
 made, and the doctrines he had dcliv-crcd, on these two 
 points. 
 
 Accordingly I wrote to him the next day: expressing 
 my surprise and regret at many of his remarks; the obvi- 
 ous tendency of which w as, in my apprehension, to pre- 
 vent a truly christian reformation in the Society of 
 Friends. But I called his attention more particularly to 
 the two subjects above mentioned. In reference to these, 
 I said: 
 
304 
 
 PliOCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 "The first is, the view which thou presented, in both 
 meetings, of the writings of the Early Members of the 
 Society of Friends. I understood thee to say, that they 
 ahvnijx maintained a. clear testimony to the great doctrines 
 of Christianity — and that they were enabled to maintain 
 n. clear, unclontied testimony to those doctrines. Thou 
 hast said in reply to Truth Vindicated, (I quote merely 
 from memory), that error is never more dangerous than 
 wdien mixed with undeniable truths — that it resembles 
 poison mixed with wholesome food,-which has occasioned 
 the death of many an unsuspecting individual. And we 
 may readily perceive the dangerof recommending, as safe 
 and excellent, a dish containing deadly poison; however 
 abundant or fair in appearance, the food itself may be. I 
 therefore invite thee to a public examination of the sub- 
 ject. And I offer to prove, that though the writings of 
 the Early Mrmbcrs of t!ie Society of Friends, may contain 
 many excellent examples and sentiments, (which I have 
 always most freely admitted and maintained), there are 
 in them sentiments or forms of expression, which are cal- 
 culated to lay waste the authority of the Holy. Scriptures, 
 and to subvert the most important doctrines of Christiani- 
 ty. The subject is one of incalculable importance. The 
 passages to which I allude, have produced, and are still 
 producing, the most unhappy consequences. And the 
 more they are directly or indirectly recommended, the 
 more those consequences may be increased. 1 therefore 
 call upon thee, for the sake of the Faith once delivered 
 to the saints — for the regard which we are bound to have 
 for the honour of God, and the salvation of souls, to meet 
 a public examination of the subject, which thou hast 
 gratuitously brought to the notice of two, large and mix- 
 ed assemblies. And I pledge myself, either to show, that 
 there are, in those writings, sentiments of a highly objec- 
 tionable and dangerous character- — or publicly to retract 
 every thing that I have said in the way of calling them in 
 question. 
 
 "The second subject, to which I wish to call thy atten- 
 tioe, is that of Baptism. The Society of Friends has now 
 made it a matter o( (li.fownmenf, for its members to receive 
 Water Baptism. And from the manner in which thou 
 introduced the subject, into both the sermons to which I 
 have already alluded, I must regard thee as thoroughly 
 uniting in these views of the Society. You have taken a 
 
TllE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 305 
 
 po-jltion, in relation to the apostolic Church, which ho 
 other Society ever dared to take. You now occuj>y, not 
 the ground of dt fence, but of alldck. You are bearing a 
 testimony against the practice. — and exercising tlic injlu- 
 cnce of the ministry, vaxiS. tlie disoucing povitr of tljc Society 
 for its suppression. In such u state of things, the best 
 interest of the Society, and the cause of Truth, demand a 
 fair and impartial examination of the subject. 
 
 "From tlie peculiar circumstances in which I stand, and 
 from the ground taken by the Society of Friends, my 
 place, in reference to this doctrine, is that of Defence. — 
 But if thou should think that this would atford me any 
 peculiar advantages, I will waive them for the sake of an 
 investigation. 1 do therefore call upon thee, for a public 
 examination of the doclriiKj of Baptism, taking the Holy 
 Scriptures as the Rule of Decision: cind .otiering thee 
 the choice, either of the offensive or defensive position.* 
 In eitiier case, I will undertake to prove, that Water 
 Baptism wa?, introduced by the Apostles into the Chris- 
 tian Church — that this was done in their apostolic office: — 
 in the name of Jesus Christ, and under the immediate in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit — and that their authority is 
 conclusive. 
 
 "I am aware of thy superior talents and acquirements, 
 and of the advantages which thou hast, in the advice and 
 aid of a large number of thy friends, yet I a'm not thereby 
 in the least intimidated. My object is the maintenance 
 of the Truth, and of this only. Relying solely on the 
 Word of God, and the present help of his blessed Spirit, I 
 am willing to march directly to tiie subject. And I ask 
 thee, my honoured friend, to meet mc there, that, if pos- 
 sible, we may be brought to unite harmoniously in pro- 
 moting a revival of "Primitive Christianity." 
 
 "It is due to thee to know, that some of the sentiments 
 contained in thy published writings, have given offence to 
 many prominent members of the Society, as not in accord- 
 ance with the writings of Early Friends. And further, 
 that a report has been circulated in this country, that 
 thou hast made some acknowledgments, which have given 
 satisfaction. Both the Society, and the Christian public 
 should know, whether there is any foundation for this re- 
 
 *That is, -either to aliack the doctrines which I hold, or to defend 
 that which is hsld by himself and llie Friends. 
 
 20 
 
30G 
 
 rnOCEEDINGS AND PRINCirLES OF 
 
 port or not. And that the inquiry may not be left in a 
 vague and indefinite way, I take the liberty of asking, if 
 thou hast ever retracted thy sentiments, as contained in 
 thy Essays on Cliristianity, thy Portable Evidences, and 
 other works — 1. On the conclusive authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 2. On the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Di- 
 vinity of Jesus Christ, and the Personality of the Holy 
 Spirit. 3. On the Resurrection of the Body, and the 
 Day of Judgment. 4. On the doctrine of Justification. 
 5. On Prayer. G. On the Moral Obligation of the Sab- 
 bath. 
 
 "An early reply to these inquiries is respectfully re- 
 quested. In regard to the invitation to discuss the two 
 subjectsof the writings of Friends, and the doctrine of 
 Baptism, it will be necessary to give me information by 
 eight o'clock to-morrow morning, whether it is accepted 
 or not, that the necessary preliminary arrangements may 
 be mutually agreed upon. 
 
 I am with much esteem thy friend, 
 
 E. BATES." 
 To this letter, he returned the following answer. 
 
 ^'■Mounlpleasant, 9 mo., 4th 1837. 
 
 Elisiia Bates: 
 
 Dear friex\d — The views which I was led to express 
 in the discourse to which thy letter alludes, are those 
 which we once held in common, both as it regards funda- 
 mental doctrine, and as it respects the distinguishing re- 
 ligious principles of Friends. No change whatever that 
 I am aware of has taken place in my opinions, and most 
 heartily do I regret and deplore the change which has 
 taken place in thee, and which has been the means of 
 separating thee from a body of Christians, to which thou 
 wast, at one time, so firmly attached. 
 
 "If I stated any thing yesterday at variencc from the 
 acknowledged principles of that body — principles which I 
 hold to be true and scriptural — I am of course amenable 
 to the Society, but I must entirely decline entering into 
 any discussion on the subjects which were. adverted toby 
 me in ministry, witli any other persons. 
 
 With much love to thyself and thy family 
 
 1 am thy friend and well-wisher, 
 
 J. J. GURNEY. 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 
 
 307 
 
 "P. S. The Report mentioned by tlice respecting my 
 writings, is whoUy without foundation — no concession of 
 the kind alluded to having either been made or asked for. 
 
 "I hope to be able to call upon thee and thy children 
 before I leave this place." 
 
 To this I immediately replied in another letter, regret- 
 ting his conclusion to decline the proposed discussion — and 
 giving him to understand that I ^considered the usage of 
 the Early Friends, and of distinguished theologians of the 
 present day, in this country at least, was against him, in 
 shrinking, (in all the circumstances of the case), from the 
 discussion. I told him that the whole manner in which 
 he had treated the subjects in question, "had a most obvi- 
 ous allusion to me. * * * When, therefore, tliou, as the 
 champion for the views of the Society, hast immediately 
 taken hold on the two subjects, of Baptism and tlic Writ- 
 ings of Friends, and brought them prominently to the 
 notice of the Christian public, and in a way directly to 
 bear upon me, thou must not be surprised that 1 should 
 promptly call thee to a public examination of the posi- 
 tions thou hast advanced. It would have been an act of 
 cowardice on my part, unworthy of the cause for which I 
 have suffered so much, and for which I am bound to con- 
 tend, if I had not called for investigation." 
 
 And after some free remarks on the position in which 
 he had placed himself, I informed him that I should deliv- 
 er a Lecture on Baptism, in the Presbyterian Meeting 
 House, the next Fifth day, at 3 o'clock: in which I should 
 show, that the Early Friends did not, always, maintain a 
 CLEAR, UNCLOUDED testimony to the great doctrines of 
 Christianity. And as I should probably use both his 
 name and his sentiments with freedom, I respectfully in- 
 vited him to attend: informing him that if he should wish 
 to be heard, I would most readily enter into arrangements 
 with him for that purpose. To this letter no reply was 
 given. 
 
 Now I ask, if the inferrence to be drawn from these 
 facts is not fair, that the Friends, and especially those 
 who have thrown themselves into collision with me, do 
 know that they cannot stand the test of fair and Scriptu- 
 ral examination? I have said enough to prove the utter 
 inconsistency of the high character of the writings of the 
 Early Friends. And facts arc daily proving that their 
 
308 
 
 rROCEElHNGS VND PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 most distinguished advocates are perfectly aware, that the 
 ground on which they stand is hollow. 
 
 On the other suhject, I do not liesitate to sa) , that the 
 present leaders of the Society, know, that Water Baptism 
 wu.; t;mght and enforced by the Apostles — that it harmon- 
 ized \fith the highest spirituality the Church, or an}' 
 monihL;i:3 of it ever enjoyed upon earth — that it was not 
 laid asido by the Apostles, nor by their cotemporaries or 
 immediate successors. The official agents of the Society, 
 after two wcelis consideration of the question, have de- 
 clared tliat we need not go any further back, for the prin- 
 ciple of tlie Friciids, than to the rise of the Society. They 
 liave admitted th;;,i; the censure passed upon me in the 
 case, applied no Ic^ss to all the Apostles, and to the whole 
 Christian Church, than to me. And one of them acknow- 
 ledged, that if the Apostle Paul, could now be transferred 
 into the Society, just as he was in his life time, they would 
 disoicn HI ji! ! 
 
 I have no doubt, that many of the Friends, will lay the 
 responsibility of these things, on the individuals themselves. 
 But if a body of men is responsible for its official agents, 
 imless their transactions are officially disclaimed — then 
 the Society of Friends is fully responsible for these tilings. 
 
 In addition to this, it is proved in the very face of the 
 champions of the Society, that they are out of the doc- 
 trine and practice of the Apostles, and by necessary con- 
 sequence, they are out of the doctrine of Jrsii.t Christ. 
 
 How fearful then is an open and continued rebellion 
 against him, of whom it was said. Let all the angels of 
 God worship Ilim! And who declared: "Ye are my 
 friends, if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you.*' Now 
 if the Friends should determine, to hold the doctrine of 
 George Fox and his cotemporaries, rather than those of 
 the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, how dreadful will be the 
 consequences! And the more they depreciate the things 
 in question, and represent them as liille— or unimportant, 
 the more they must necessarily condemn themselves: first 
 for so characterizing institutions, which were appointed by 
 the Lord, and so solemnly taught and enforced by his 
 Apostles — and secondly, for refusing a service, which they 
 themselves represent as so very easy to be performed. 
 
 "Having tasted the terrors of the Lord we persuade 
 men."' I beseech my former friends, to lay down the 
 pride of opinion — to let go the prejudice of education^to 
 
THE SOCIETY OF FRIENUS. 
 
 309 
 
 disregard the frowns of Conscrvalivc Frieiul;*, and the 
 scorn and contempt of the unconverted — and to he bap- 
 tized, as was the great A])ost!e of tlie Gentiles, and as 
 were the many thousands of behevcrs, who gladly receiv- 
 ed the words of the inspired ministers of Jesus Christ. 
 
 1 reverently thank God, and magnify his mercy and 
 goodness, for the light he has been pleased to shed "upon 
 my own mind — for the support he has given me under the 
 pressure ofj^eculiar trials — and for the consolations of the 
 Gospel, with which, again and again, he has replenished 
 my soul. 
 
 The humble hope — the blessed assurance^ which he has 
 given me, of his redeeming Love, through Jesus Christ, is 
 more to me than all the world. The afflictions of the pre- 
 sent time, which are but for a moment, are not worthy to 
 be compared -\vith the glory which shall be revealed. 
 
 But tins is not all: for the same Good Hand has been 
 at work, in other hearts as well as mine. And some of 
 these have been made not only my companions in tribula- 
 tion — but also in the consolations of the Gospel. Trac- 
 ing his Providence in wider circles of his works, I have 
 found brethren and sisters in Christ, when I had expect- 
 ed to feel as a stranger and a pilgrim in the earth. 
 
 The Church universal, is now widely spread: the living 
 members of it, are experiencing increasing degrees of the 
 Unity of the Spirit. Many are running to and fro,, and 
 knowledge is increasing. Though iniquity still abounds, 
 many are turning from darkness to light, and from the 
 powerofsatan to God. The Gospel is penetrating into 
 regions where the name of Christ was never heard. And 
 every thing around us, bears testimony to the progress of a 
 work of God. 
 
 But there is no part of the human family, for which I 
 feel a more intense solicitude, than 1 do for the Society of 
 Friends. My prayers are not only for those who, in va- 
 rious degrees, unite with me on the points Avhich have 
 been brought into discussion — but for those also, who have 
 been my opposers and persecutors. I earnestly desire 
 that the eyes of the blind may be opened, and the ears of 
 the deaf unstopped; that the lame may leap as an hart, 
 and the tongue of the dumb sing. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 As an apology for the lack of methodical arrangement, 
 and grammatical accuracy, in the foregoing Examination, 
 &c. it may be proper to state, that it has been chiefly 
 written, as the successive portions have gone into the prin- 
 ter's hands. 
 
 In the beginning, I intended to publish sundry letters 
 and papers, which are in my possession, as having an im- 
 mediate relation to the case in hand, and accordingly 
 made some reference to them, in the fore part of the work. 
 But as they would considerably increase the size and ex- 
 pense of the book, they are omitted. Enough has been 
 given, to shew the nature of the controversy which has 
 been forced upon me, the extent of the combination which 
 was formed by the Friends, the unfairness of their pro- 
 ceedings, and the unsoundness of the doctrines for which 
 they are contending. The difficulty has not been for the 
 want of materials, but to give the most important of them, 
 in the smallest compass. In attempting this, I have left 
 out a large amount of evidence, of the unkindness, unfair- 
 ness, and unsoundness of the Friends, and I may have in- 
 serted some things, which might have been spared. 
 
 I ask no more than a reasonable allowance, for the pe- 
 culiar difficulties of the situation, in which I have been 
 placed. And this, I am sure, the enlightened and pious 
 part of the community will readily grant. 
 
 I had entertained some idea, of appending to this "Ex- 
 amination," a Review of the "Doctrines of Friends." But 
 on more mature reflection, I have concluded to decline it. 
 A close Review of that work, would require a volume of 
 considerable size. And a partial correction of passages 
 with which I am dissatisfied, might be construed into an 
 approval of all, to which special objections were not 
 made. In some parts, it would require arguments to re- 
 fute error — in others, extended criticisms to distinguish 
 between a correct principle, and an incorrect modification 
 of it. 
 
 On the whole, I have concluded to refer the Christian 
 public, to the foregoing work, to the "Refutation," the 
 "Appeal," the "Letter" on Baptism, and the last ten num- 
 bers of the "Miscellaneous Repository," as a general cor- 
 rection of my former publications: leaving any further 
 work on the subjects alluded to, entirely to the Providence 
 of God. 
 
'table of 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION Pago ni 
 
 l-'orniaiion ofthe yociety vi 
 
 Its Church Grovoi-nment xi 
 
 Chapter 1 21 
 
 Hicksite controversy 22 
 Course pursued by the author 23 
 
 Proposes to visit G. Britain 25 
 
 Preaches the R(3surrection 2G 
 
 Writes an Address 27 
 
 Sets out to England 29 
 
 Returns home 31 
 Proceedinffs in London Y. M. 33 
 
 In N. E. and O. 37 
 
 Document of 1835 38 
 
 Reviewed 41 
 
 B. W. Ladd's Letter 58 
 
 Jtevievved 60 
 
 Chapter H 8" 
 
 Interview with C. O. 81 
 
 With B. W. L. 83 
 
 Proceedings against author 84 
 
 Standi rds of Doctrines 88 
 
 Friends' Library 89 
 
 E. B. writes his "Vindication 90 
 
 Second visit to England 91 
 
 Y. Meeting in London 93 
 
 G. Jones'y Tracts 94 
 
 Proceedings in England 98 
 
 Chapter 1 H . 
 Proceedings in Ohio 107 
 Document issued 108 
 Author returns home 112 
 Document thrown aside 113 
 The Refutation published 113 
 Meeting for Sufferings and 
 individuals concerned call- 
 ed to in v'estigation 114 
 
 Chapter IV 
 
 116 
 
 Grounds taken by Conserva- 
 tives 110 
 Cause for publishing Appeal 117 
 Author Baptized 118 
 Correspondence with J. Fos- 
 ter, S.Gurney,<S- G. Stacey 119 
 Document issued by jMorn- 
 ing Meeting 119 
 Proceedings upon it 121 
 Charges taken up' 122 
 Irregularities of proceedings 123 
 Letter of Resignation 125 
 
 Chapter V 133 
 Proceedings of Monthly 
 
 Meeti ng 133 
 
 Visits of the Committee 135 
 
 New Charges taken up 140 
 
 Further visits of committee 148 
 
 Chapter. VI 152 
 
 Visit of commit, continued J52 
 
 Committee's report 162 
 
 Paper of disovvnment 163 
 
 Brief Review [164 
 
 Chapter VIII 
 Defence of the Appeal • 
 
 175 
 
 Chapter IX 219 
 Same subject continued, in 
 Reply to G. R. and S. T, 
 
 Chapter X 239 
 Errors in printed works 239 
 
 Reflections on extracts, &&. 281 
 Further facts and reflections 
 
 relating to Baptism 295 
 The Friend 2i:'5 
 Joseph John Gurney 296 
 Correspondence with him 303 
 Note 311 
 
1332yG 
 
 01-20-05 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01253 8783