CHAPTER XIV.

Before the Division.

No biography of Elias Hicks could be even approximately adequate which ignored the division in the Society of Friends in 1827-1828, commonly, but erroneously, called "the separation." While his part in the trouble has been greatly exaggerated, inasmuch as he was made the storm-center of the controversy by his opponents, to consider the causes and influences which led to the difficulty, especially as they were either rightly or wrongly made to apply to Elias Hicks, is vital to a study of his life, and an appreciation of his labors.

We shall not be able to understand the matter at all, unless we can in a measure take ourselves back to the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and as far as possible appreciate the thought and life of that time. We must remember that a system of dogmatic theology, unqualified and untempered by any of the findings of modern scholarship, was the central and dominating influence in the religious world. Authority of some sort was the source of religious belief, and uniformity of doctrine the basis of religious fellowship.

The aftermath of the French Revolution appeared in a period of religious negation. Destructive, rather than constructive criticism was the ruling passion of the unchurched world. The conservative mind was burdened with apprehension, and the fear of a chaos of faith possessed the minds of the preachers, the theologians and the communicants of the so-called Orthodox Christian churches. The Unitarian uprising in New England had hopelessly divided the historic church of the Puritans, and the conservative Friends saw in every advance in thought the breaking up of what they considered the foundations of religion, and fear possessed them accordingly.

But more important than this is the fact that Friends had largely lost the historic perspective, touching their own origin. They had forgotten that their foundations were laid in a revolt against a prevalent theology, and the evil of external authority in religion. From being persecuted they had grown popular and prosperous. They therefore shrank from change in Zion, and from the opposition and ostracism which always had been the fate of those who broke with approved and established religious standards. Without doubt they honored the heroism and respected the sacrifices of the fathers as the "first spreaders of truth." But they had neither the temper nor the taste to be alike heroic, in making Quakerism a progressive spirit, rather than a final refuge of a traditional religion.

An effort was made by the opponents of Elias Hicks to make it appear that what they were pleased to call his "unsoundness in doctrine," came late in life, and somewhat suddenly. But for this claim there is little if any valid evidence. His preaching probably underwent little vital change throughout his entire ministry. Turner, the English historian, says: "But the facts remain that until near the close of his long life Hicks was in general esteem, that there is no sign anywhere in his writings of a change of opinions, or new departure in his teaching."[107]

There is unpublished correspondence which confirms the opinion of Turner. This is true touching what might be called his theological as well as his sociological notions.

In a letter written to Elias Hicks in 1805, by James Mott, Sr.,[108] reference is made to Elias having denied the absolutely saving character of the Scriptures. In this connection the letter remarks: "I conceive it is no matter how highly people value the Scriptures, provided they can only be convinced that the spirit that gave them forth is superior to them, and to be their rule and guide instead of them."

In 1806, in a sermon at Nine Partners, in Dutchess County, New York, as reported by himself, he declared that men can only by "faithful attention and adherence to the aforesaid divine principle, the light within, come to know and believe the certainty of those excellent Scripture doctrines, of the coming, life, righteous works, sufferings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ our blessed pattern; and that it is by obedience to this inward light only that we are prepared for admittance into the heavenly kingdom."[109]

It seems, however, that Stephen Grellet,[110] if we may take the authority of his biographers, Hodgson[111] and Guest,[112] as early as 1808, was fearful of the orthodoxy of Elias Hicks, and probably based his fear on extracts like the passage cited above. Whatever may be imagined to the contrary, it is pretty certain that at no time for forty years before his death did Elias Hicks preach doctrine that would have been satisfactory to the orthodox theologians of his time, although he did not always antagonize the dogmas of the churches.

If Stephen Grellet ever had any personal interview with Elias Hicks regarding his "unsoundness," the matter was ignored by the latter. In Eighth month, 1808, some months after it is claimed the discovery was made by Grellet, the two men, with other Friends, were on a religious visit in parts of New England. In a letter to his wife, dated Danby, Vt., Eighth month 26, 1808, Elias says: "Stephen Grellet, Gideon Seaman, Esther Griffin and Ann Mott we left yesterday morning at a town called Middlebury, about eighteen miles short of this place, Stephen feeling a concern to appoint a meeting among the town's people of that place." Evidently no very great barrier existed between the two men at that time.

In any event no disposition seemed to exist to inaugurate a theological controversy in the Society of Friends, or to erect a standard of fellowship other than spiritual unity, until a decade after the claimed concern of Stephen Grellet. It appears that in 1818, Phebe Willis, wife of Thomas Willis, a recorded minister of Jericho Monthly Meeting, had a written communication with Elias, touching his doctrinal "soundness," Phebe being an elder. That the opposition began in Jericho, and that it was confined to the Willis family and one other in that meeting, seems to be a fairly well attested fact. In 1829, after the division in the Society had been accomplished, Elias Hicks wrote a letter to a friend giving a short history of the beginning of the trouble in Jericho, from which we make the following extract:

"The beginning of the rupture in our yearly meeting had its rise in our particular monthly meeting, and I have full evidence before me of both its rise and progress. The first shadow of complaint against me as to my doctrines was made by Thomas Willis, a member and minister of our own preparative meeting. He manifested his first uneasiness at the close of one of our own meetings nearly in these words, between him and myself alone. 'That he apprehended that I, in my public communication, lowered down the character of Jesus and the Scriptures of truth.' My reply to him was that I had placed them both upon the very foundation they each had placed themselves, and that I dare not place them any higher or lower. At the same time the whole monthly meeting, except he and his wife, as far as I knew, were in full unity with me, both as to my ministry and otherwise, but as they were both members of the meeting of ministers and elders they made the first public disclosure of their uneasiness. Thomas had an ancient mother, likewise a minister, that lived in the house with them; they so far overcame her better judgment as to induce her to take a part with them, although she was a very amiable and useful member, and one that I had always a great esteem for, and we had been nearly united together in gospel fellowship, both in public meetings and those for discipline, for forty years and upward."[113]

The meeting, through a judicious committee, tried to quiet the fears of Thomas Willis and wife, and bring them in unity with the vastly major portion of the meeting, but without success. These Friends being persistent in their opposition, they were suspended from the meeting of ministers and elders, but were permitted to retain their membership in the Society.

---

CHAPTER XV.

First Trouble in Philadelphia.

Transferring the story of the opposition to the ministry of Elias Hicks to Philadelphia, it would appear that its first public manifestation occurred in 1819. During this year he made his fifth somewhat extended religious visit to the meetings within the bounds of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Elias was attending the monthly meeting then held in the Pine Street meeting-house, and obtained liberty to visit the women's meeting. While absent on this concern, the men's meeting did the unprecedented thing of adjourning, the breaking up of the meeting being accomplished by a few influential members. For a co-ordinate branch of a meeting for discipline to close while service was being performed in the allied branch in accord with regular procedure was considered irregular, if not unwarranted. The real inspiring cause for this conduct has been stated as follows by a contemporary writer:

"An influential member of this meeting who had abstained from the produce of slave labor came to the conclusion that this action was the result of his own will. He therefore became very sensitive and irritable touching references to the slavery question, and very bitter against the testimony of Elias Hicks. It is believed that this was one of the causes which led to the affront of Elias Hicks in the Pine Street Meeting aforesaid."[114]

It was claimed in the famous New Jersey chancery case[115] by the Orthodox Friends, that there was precedent for adjourning a meeting while a visiting minister in proper order was performing service in a co-ordinate branch of the Society. Be that as it may, the weight of evidence warrants the conclusion that the incident at Pine Street was intended as an affront to Elias Hicks. The conservative elements in Philadelphia had evidently made up their minds that the time had come to visit their displeasure upon the Long Island preacher.

The incident referred to above must have occurred in the latter part of Tenth month. Elias says in his Journal, after mentioning his arrival in Philadelphia: "We were at two of their monthly meetings and their quarterly meeting."[116] He makes no mention of the unpleasant occurrence.

There seems to have been no further appearance of trouble in the latitude of Philadelphia until Eighth month, 1822. This time opposition appeared in what was evidently an irregular gathering of part of the Meeting for Sufferings. At this meeting Jonathan Evans is reported to have said: "I understand that Elias Hicks is coming on here on his way to Baltimore Yearly Meeting. Friends know that he preaches doctrines contrary to the doctrines of our Society; that he has given uneasiness to his friends at home, and they can't stop him, and unless we can stop him here he must go on."[117] This statement was only partially true, to say the most possible for it. But a small minority of Elias' home meeting were in any way "uneasy" about him, whatever may have been the character of his preaching. It stands to reason that had there been a general and united opposition to the ministry of Elias Hicks in his monthly meeting or in the New York Yearly Meeting at any time before the "separation," he could not have performed the service involved in his religious visits. It will also appear from the foregoing that the few opponents of Elias Hicks on Long Island had evidently planned to invoke every possible and conceivable influence, at the center of Quakerism in Philadelphia, to silence this popular and well-known preacher. At what point the influence so disposed became of general effect in the polity of the Society only incidentally belongs to the purpose of this book.

Out of the unofficial body[118] above mentioned, about a dozen in number, a small and "select" committee was appointed. The object was apparently to deal with Elias for remarks said to have been made by him at New York Yearly Meeting in Fifth month of that year, and reported by Joseph Whitall.

The minute under which Elias performed the visit referred to above was granted by his monthly meeting in Seventh month, and he promptly set out on his visit with David Seaman as his traveling companion. He spent nearly three months visiting meetings in New Jersey and in Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania, reaching Baltimore the 25th of Tenth month, where he attended the Yearly Meeting. This appearance and service in Philadelphia, he states very briefly, and with no hint of the developing trouble, as follows:

"We arrived in Philadelphia in the early part of Twelfth month, and I immediately entered on the arduous concern which I had in prospect and which I was favored soon comfortably to accomplish. We visited the families composing Green Street Monthly Meeting, being in number one hundred and forty, and we also attended that monthly meeting and the monthly meeting for the Northern District. This closed my visit here, and set me at liberty to turn my face homeward."[119]

It will thus be seen that the charge of unsoundness was entered in Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings soon after Elias started on his southern visit, but the matter was held practically in suspense for four months. In the meantime Elias was waited upon by a few elders, presumably in accordance with the action of the Meeting for Sufferings held in Eighth month. This opportunity was had when the visitor passed through Philadelphia en route to Baltimore. There is reason for believing that Elias succeeded in measurably satisfying this small committee. But there was evidently an element in Philadelphia that did not propose to be satisfied.

In Twelfth month, when Elias arrived in Philadelphia from his southern trip, and began his visits among the families of Green Street Monthly Meeting, a meeting of the elders of all the monthly meetings in the city was hastily called. A deputation from the elders sought an "opportunity" with Elias, and insisted that it be private.[120] His position was that he was not accountable to them for anything he had said while traveling with a minute as a minister. Elias finally consented, out of regard to some particular Friends, to meet the elders in Green Street meeting-house, provided witnesses other than the opposing elders could be present. Among those who accompanied Elias were John Comly, Robert Moore, John Moore and John Hunt. When the meeting was held, however, the elders who opposed Elias said they could not proceed, their reason being that the gathering was not "select." In connection with this controversy letters passed between the opposing parties. One was signed by ten elders of Philadelphia, and is as follows:

"To Elias Hicks:

"Friends in Philadelphia having for a considerable time past heard of thy holding and promulgating doctrines different from and repugnant to those held by our religious society, it was cause of uneasiness and deep concern to them, as their sincere regard and engagement for the promotion of the cause of Truth made it very desirable that all the members of our religious society should move in true harmony under the leading and direction of our blessed Redeemer. Upon being informed of thy sentiments expressed by Joseph Whitall—that Jesus Christ was not the son of God until after the baptism of John and the descent of the Holy Ghost, and that he was no more than a man; that the same power that made Christ a Christian must make us Christians; and that the same power that saved Him must save us—many friends were affected therewith, and some time afterward, several Friends being together in the city on subjects relating to our religious society, they received an account from Ezra Comfort of some of thy expressions in the public general meeting immediately succeeding the Southern Quarterly Meeting lately held in the state of Delaware, which was also confirmed by his companion, Isaiah Bell, that Jesus Christ was the first man who introduced the gospel dispensation, the Jews being under the outward or ceremonial law or dispensation, it was necessary that there should be some outward miracle, as the healing of the outward infirmities of the flesh and raising the outward dead bodies in order to introduce the gospel dispensation; He had no more power given Him than man, for He was no more than man; He had nothing to do with the healing of the soul, for that belongs to God only; Elisha had the same power to raise the dead; that man being obedient to the spirit of God in him could arrive at as great, or a greater, degree of righteousness than Jesus Christ; that 'Jesus Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God; neither do I think it robbery for man to be equal with God'; then endeavored to show that by attending to that stone cut out of the mountain without hands, or the seed in man, it would make man equal with God, saying: for that stone in man was the entire God. On hearing which it appeared to Friends a subject of such great importance and of such deep welfare to the interest of our religious society as to require an extension of care, in order that if any incorrect statement had been made it should as soon as possible be rectified, or, if true, thou might be possessed of the painful concerns of Friends and their sense and judgment thereon. Two of the elders accordingly waited on thee on the evening of the day of thy arriving in the city, and although thou denied the statement, yet thy declining to meet these two elders in company with those who made it left the minds of Friends without relief. One of the elders who had called on thee repeated his visit on the next day but one, and again requested thee to see the two elders and the Friends who made the above statements which thou again declined. The elders from the different Monthly Meetings of the city were then convened and requested a private opportunity with thee, which thou also refused, yet the next day consented to meet them at a time and place of thy own fixing; but, when assembled, a mixed company being collected, the elders could not in this manner enter into business which they considered of a nature not to be investigated in any other way than in a select, private opportunity. They, therefore, considered that meeting a clear indication of thy continuing to decline to meet the elders as by them proposed. Under these circumstances, it appearing that thou art not willing to hear and disprove the charges brought against thee, we feel it a duty to declare that we cannot have religious unity with thy conduct nor with the doctrines thou art charged with promulgating.

"Signed, Twelfth month 19, 1822.

"Caleb Pierce,
"Leonard Snowden,
"Joseph Scattergood,
"S. P. Griffiths,
"T. Stewardson,
"Edward Randolph,
"Israel Maule,
"Ellis Yarnall,
"Richard Humphries,
"Thomas Wistar."

To this epistle Elias Hicks made the following reply, two days having intervened:

"To Caleb Pierce and other Friends:

"Having been charged by you with unsoundness of principle and doctrine, founded on reports spread among the people in an unfriendly manner, and contrary to the order of our Discipline, by Joseph Whitall, as charged in the letter from you dated the 19th instant, and as these charges are not literally true, being founded on his own forced and improper construction of my words, I deny them, and I do not consider myself amenable to him, nor to any other, for crimes laid to my charge as being committed in the course of the sittings of our last Yearly Meeting, as not any of my fellow-members of that meeting discovered or noticed any such thing—which I presume to be the case, as not an individual has mentioned any such things to me, but contrary thereto. Many of our most valued Friends (who had heard some of those foul reports first promulgated by a citizen of our city) acknowledged the great satisfaction they had with my services and exercise in the course of that meeting, and were fully convinced that all those reports were false; and this view is fully confirmed by a certificate granted me by the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings of which I am a member, in which they expressed their full unity with me—and which meetings were held a considerable time after our Yearly Meeting, in the course of which Joseph Whitall has presumed to charge me with unsoundness of doctrine, contrary to the sense of the Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly Meetings of which I am a member, and to whom only do I hold myself amenable for all conduct transacted within their limits. The other charges made against me by Ezra Comfort, as expressed in your letter, are in general incorrect, as is proved by the annexed certificate; and, moreover, as Ezra Comfort has departed from gospel order in not mentioning his uneasiness to me when present with me, and when I could have appealed to Friends of that meeting to justify me; therefore, I consider Ezra Comfort to have acted disorderly and contrary to the discipline, and these are the reasons which induce me to refuse a compliance with your requisitions—considering them arbitrary and contrary to the established order of our Society.

"Elias Hicks.

"Philadelphia, Twelfth month 21, 1822."

As already noted the charges in the letter of the ten elders were based on statements made by Joseph Whitall, supplemented by allegations by Ezra Comfort, as to what Elias had said in two sermons, neither of which was delivered within the bounds of Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting. The matters complained of are mostly subject to variable interpretation, and scarcely afford a basis for a religious quarrel, especially considering that the alleged statements were at the best garbled from quite lengthy discourses.

On the same day that Elias replied to the ten elders, three members of Southern Quarterly Meeting issued a signed statement regarding the charges of Ezra Comfort. It is as follows:

"We, the undersigned, being occasionally in the city of Philadelphia, when a letter was produced and handed us, signed by ten of its citizens, Elders of the Society of Friends, and directed to Elias Hicks, after perusing and deliberately considering the charges therein against him, for holding and propagating doctrines inconsistent with our religious testimonies, and more especially those said by Ezra Comfort and Isaiah Bell, to be held forth at a meeting immediately succeeding the late Southern Quarterly Meeting, and we being members of the Southern Quarter, and present at the said meeting, we are free to state, for the satisfaction of the first-mentioned Friends and all others whom it may concern, that we apprehend the charges exhibited by the two Friends named are without substantial foundation; and in order to give a clear view we think it best and proper here to transcribe the said charges exhibited and our own understanding of the several, viz., 'That Jesus Christ was the first man that introduced the Gospel Dispensation, the Jews being under the outward and ceremonial law or dispensation, it was necessary there should be some outward miracles, as healing the outward infirmities of the flesh and raising the outward dead bodies in order to introduce the gospel dispensation;' this in substance is correct. 'That he had no more power given him than man,' this sentence is incorrect; and also, 'That he had nothing to do with the healing of the soul, for that belongs to God only,' is likewise incorrect; and the next sentence, 'That Elisha also had the same power to raise the dead' should be transposed thus to give Elias's expressions. 'By the same power it was that Elisha raised the dead.' 'That man being obedient to the spirit of God in him could arrive at as great or greater degree of righteousness than Jesus Christ,' this is incorrect; 'That Jesus Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' with annexing the other part of the paragraph mentioned by the holy apostle would be correct. 'Neither do I think it robbery for man to be equal with God' is incorrect. 'Then endeavouring to show that by attending to that stone cut out of the mountain without hands or the seed in man it would make men equal with God' is incorrect; the sentence for that stone in man should stand thus: 'That this stone or seed in man had all the attributes of the divine nature that was in Christ and God.' This statement and a few necessary remarks we make without comment, save only that we were then of opinion and still are that the sentiments and doctrines held forth by our said friend, Elias Hicks, are agreeable to the opinions and doctrines held by George Fox and other worthy Friends of his time.

"Robert Moore,
"Thomas Turner,
"Joseph G. Rowland.[121]

"12 mo., 21, 1822."

First month 4, 1823, the ten elders sent a final communication to Elias Hicks, which we give in full:

"On the perusal of thy letter of the 21st of last month, it was not a little affecting to observe the same disposition still prevalent that avoided a select meeting with the elders, which meeting consistently with the station we are placed in and with the sense of duty impressive upon us, we were engaged to propose and urge to thee as a means wherein the cause of uneasiness might have been investigated, the Friends who exhibited the complaint fully examined, and the whole business placed in a clear point of view.

"On a subject of such importance the most explicit candour and ingenuousness, with a readiness to hear and give complete satisfaction ought ever to be maintained; this the Gospel teaches, and the nature of the case imperiously demanded it. As to the certificate which accompanied thy letter, made several weeks after the circumstances occurred, it is in several respects not only vague and ambiguous, but in others (though in different terms) it corroborates the statement at first made. When we take a view of the whole subject, the doctrines and sentiments which have been promulgated by thee, though under some caution while in this city, and the opinions which thou expressed in an interview between Ezra Comfort and thee, on the 19th ult., we are fully and sorrowfully confirmed in the conclusion that thou holds and art disseminating principles very different from those which are held and maintained by our religious society.

"As thou hast on thy part closed the door against the brotherly care and endeavours of the elders here for thy benefit, and for the clearing our religious profession, this matter appears of such serious magnitude, so interesting to the peace, harmony, and well-being of society, that we think it ought to claim the weighty attention of thy Friends at home."[122]

One other communication closed the epistolary part of the controversy for the time being. It was a letter issued by twenty-two members of Southern Quarterly Meeting, concerning the ministerial service of Elias Hicks, during the meetings referred to in the charge of Ezra Comfort:

"We, the subscribers, being informed that certain reports have been circulated by Ezra Comfort and Isaiah Bell that Elias Hicks had propagated unsound doctrine, at our general meeting on the day succeeding our quarterly meeting in the 11th month last, and a certificate signed by Robert Moore, Joseph Turner and Joseph G. Rowland being read contradicting said reports, the subject has claimed our weighty and deliberate attention, and it is our united judgment that the doctrines preached by our said Friend on the day alluded to were the Truths of the Gospel, and that his labours of love amongst us at our particular meetings as well as at our said quarterly meeting were united with by all our members for aught that appears.

"And we believe that the certificate signed by the three Friends above named is in substance a correct statement of facts.

"Elisha Dawson,
"William Dolby,
"Walter Mifflin,
"Daniel Bowers,
"William Levick,
"Elias Janell,
"Jacob Pennington,
"Jonathan Twibond,
"Henry Swiggitt,
"Michael Offley,
"James Brown,
"George Messeck,
"William W. Moore,
"John Cogwill,
"Samuel Price,
"Robert Kemp,
"John Turner,
"Hartfield Wright,
"David Wilson,
"Michael Lowber,
"Jacob Liventon,
"John Cowgill, Junr.

"Little Creek, 2 mo. 26th, 1823."

"I hereby certify that I was at the Southern Quarterly Meeting in the 11th month last, but owing to indisposition I did not attend the general meeting on the day succeeding, and having been present at several meetings with Elias Hicks, as well as at the Quarterly Meeting aforesaid, I can testify my entire unity with the doctrines I have heard him deliver.

"Anthony Whitely."[123]

All of these communications, both pro and con, are presented simply for what they are worth. When it comes to determining what is or is not "unsound doctrine," we are simply dealing with personal opinion, and not with matters of absolute fact. This is especially true of a religious body that had never attempted to define or limit its doctrines in a written creed.

The attempt of the Philadelphia elders to deal in a disciplinary way with Elias Hicks on the score of the manner or matter of his preaching was pronounced by his friends a usurpation of authority. It was held that the elders in question had no jurisdiction in the case, in proof of which the following paragraph in the Discipline of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was cited:

"And our advice to all our ministers is that they be frequent in reading the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and if any in the course of their ministry shall misapply or draw unsound inferences or wrong conclusions from the text, or shall misbehave themselves in point of conduct or conversation, let them be admonished in love and tenderness by the elders or overseers where they live."[124]

It is undoubtedly true that a certain amount of encouragement came to the opponents of Elias Hicks in Philadelphia from some Friends on Long Island, and from three or four residents of Jericho, but they did not at that time at least officially represent any meeting of Friends at Jericho, either real or pretended. This far in the controversy the aggressors were confined to those who at that time were considered the "weight of the meeting," and who at best represented only the so-called "select" meeting and not the Society at large. At the beginning at least the trouble was an affair of the ministers and elders. It later affected the whole Society, by the efforts of the leaders on both sides.

Incidents are not wanting to show that up to the very end of the controversy the rank and file of Friends had little vital interest in the matters involved in the trouble. It is related on good authority that two prominent members of Nine Partners Quarterly Meeting in Dutchess County, New York, husband and wife, made a compact before attending the meeting in Eighth month, 1828, feeling that the issue would reach its climax at that time. They agreed that whichever side retained control of the organization and the meeting-house would be considered by them the meeting, and receive their support. We mention this as undoubtedly representing the feeling in more than one case. The fact that it took practically a decade of excitement and manipulation, to create the antagonisms, personal and otherwise, which resulted in an open rupture, shows how little disposed the majority of Friends were to disrupt the Society.

---

CHAPTER XVI.

The Time of Unsettlement.

Between the trouble related in the last chapter and the culmination of the disturbance in the Society of Friends, in 1827-1828, there was an interval of four or five years. This period was by no means one of quiet. On the other hand it was one of confusion, in the midst of which the forces were at work, and the plans perfected which led up logically to the end.

It will be remembered that the last communication of the Philadelphia elders sent to Elias Hicks was dated First month 4, 1823. They had manifestly failed to silence the preacher from Jericho, or to greatly alarm him with their charges of heresy. Just eleven days after the epistle in question was written, the Meeting for Sufferings of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting assembled. This meeting issued a singular document,[125] said by the friends of Elias Hicks to have been intended as a sort of "Quaker Creed," but this was vigorously denied by those responsible for its existence. The statement of doctrine, which was as follows, was duly signed by Jonathan Evans, clerk, "on behalf of the meeting:"

"At a Meeting for Sufferings held in Philadelphia the 17th of the First month, 1823, an essay containing a few brief extracts from the writings of our primitive Friends on several of the doctrines of the Christian religion, which have been always held, and are most surely believed by us, being produced and read; on solid consideration they appeared so likely to be productive of benefit, if a publication thereof was made and spread among our members generally, that the committee appointed on the printing and distribution of religious books are directed to have a sufficient number of them struck off and distributed accordingly, being as follows:

"We have always believed that the Holy Scriptures were written by divine inspiration, that they are able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, for, as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, they are therefore profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. But they are not or cannot be subjected to the fallen, corrupt reason of man. We have always asserted our willingness that all our doctrines be tried by them, and admit it as a positive maxim that whatsoever any do (pretending to the Spirit) which is contrary to the Scriptures be accounted and judged a delusion of the devil.

"We receive and believe in the testimony of the Scriptures simply as it stands in the text. 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.'

"We believe in the only wise, omnipotent and everlasting God, the creator of all things in heaven and earth, and the preserver of all that he hath made, who is God over all blessed forever.

"The infinite and most wise God, who is the foundation, root and spring of all operation, hath wrought all things by his eternal Word and Son. This is that Word that was in the beginning with God and was God, by whom all things were made, and without whom was not anything made that was made. Jesus Christ is the beloved and only begotten Son of God, who, in the fulness of time, through the Holy Ghost, was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; in him we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. We believe that he was made a sacrifice for sin, who knew no sin; that he was crucified for us in the flesh, was buried and rose again the third day by the power of his Father for our justification, ascended up into heaven and now sitteth at the right hand of God.

"As then that infinite and incomprehensible Fountain of life and motion operateth in the creatures by his own eternal word and power, so no creature has access again unto him but in and by the Son according to his own blessed declaration, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.' Again, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.' Hence he is the only Mediator between God and man for having been with God from all eternity, being himself God, and also in time partaking of the nature of man; through him is the goodness and love of God conveyed to mankind, and by him again man receiveth and partaketh of these mercies.

"We acknowledge that of ourselves we are not able to do anything that is good, neither can we procure remission of sins or justification by any act of our own, but acknowledge all to be of and from his love, which is the original and fundamental cause of our acceptance. 'For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'

"We firmly believe it was necessary that Christ should come, that by his death and sufferings he might offer up himself a sacrifice to God for our sins, who his own self bear our sins in his own body on the tree; so we believe that the remission of sins which any partake of is only in and by virtue of that most satisfactory sacrifice and not otherwise. For it is by the obedience of that one that the free gift is come upon all to justification. Thus Christ by his death and sufferings hath reconciled us to God even while we are enemies; that is, he offers reconciliation to us, and we are thereby put into a capacity of being reconciled. God is willing to be reconciled unto us and ready to remit the sins that are past if we repent.

"Jesus Christ is the intercessor and advocate with the Father in heaven, appearing in the presence of God for us, being touched with a feeling of our infirmities, sufferings, and sorrows; and also by his spirit in our hearts he maketh intercession according to the will of God, crying abba, Father. He tasted death for every man, shed his blood for all men, and is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. He alone is our Redeemer and Saviour, the captain of our salvation, the promised seed, who bruises the serpent's head; the alpha and omega, the first and the last. He is our wisdom, righteousness, justification and redemption; neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we may be saved.

"As he ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things, his fulness cannot be comprehended or contained in any finite creature, but in some measure known and experienced in us, as we are prepared to receive the same, as of his fulness we have received grace for grace. He is both the word of faith and a quickening spirit in us, whereby he is the immediate cause, author, object and strength of our living faith in his name and power, and of the work of our salvation from sin and bondage of corruption.

"The Son of God cannot be divided from the least or lowest appearance of his own divine light or life in us, no more than the sun from its own light; nor is the sufficiency of his light within set up or mentioned in opposition to him, or to his fulness considered as in himself or without us; nor can any measure or degree of light received from Christ be properly called the fulness of Christ; or Christ as in fulness, nor exclude him from being our complete Saviour. And where the least degree or measure of this light and life of Christ within is sincerely waited in, followed and obeyed there is a blessed increase of light and grace known and felt; as the path of the just it shines more and more until the perfect day, and thereby a growing in grace and in the knowledge of God and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath been and is truly experienced.

"Wherefore we say that whatever Christ then did, 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 acceptance with God; but the way to come to that faith is to receive and obey the manifestation of his divine light and grace in the conscience, which leads men to believe 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 discern the Lord's body, coming and sufferings aright, and to receive any real benefit by him as our only sacrifice and mediator, according to the beloved disciple's emphatical testimony, 'If we walk in the light as he (God) is in the light we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin.'

"By the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ without us we, truly repenting and believing, as through the mercy of God, justified from the imputation of sins and transgressions that are past, as though they had never been committed; and by the mighty work of Christ within us the power, nature and habits of sin are destroyed; that as sin once reigned unto death even so now grace reigneth through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."[126]

This deliverance is almost as theological and dogmatic as the Westminster Confession. It scarcely contains a reference to the fundamental doctrine of George Fox. It is not too much to say that if it was the belief of the "primitive" Friends, there was little reason, touching points of doctrine, for the preaching of Fox, or the first gathering of the Society. All the ground covered by this doctrinal statement was amply treated in the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, and the Confession of the Presbyterians.

The above document was issued without quotation marks, or any indication as to what "primitive" Friends were responsible for the sentiments contained in its various parts. By careful examination it will be seen that one sentence, at least, is from Barclay's Apology, "but it proves to be a garbled quotation." We refer to the following sentence in the second paragraph in the above article, relating to the Scriptures: "But they are not or cannot be subjected to the fallen, corrupt reason of man." Barclay's complete statement is here given:

"Yet, as the proposition itself concludeth, to the last part of which I now come, it will not from thence follow that these divine revelations are to be subjected to the examination either of the outward testimony of Scripture or of the human or natural reason of man, as to a more noble and certain rule or touchstone; for the divine revelation and inward illumination is that which is evident by itself, forcing the well-disposed understanding and irresistibly moving it to assent by its own evidence and clearness, even as the common principles of natural truths to bend the mind to a natural assent."[127]

It will be seen clearly that the reference in the document issued by the Meeting for Sufferings was not only a misquotation from Barclay, but also misrepresented his meaning. The latter is particularly true if we refer to the top of the same page that contains the above extract, where he says: "So would I not have any reject or doubt the certainty of that unerring Spirit which God hath given his children as that which can alone guide them into all truth, because some have falsely pretended to it."[128] It will thus appear clear that Elias Hicks, and not the Meeting for Sufferings, was supported by Barclay.

The reference in the third paragraph in the foregoing "declaration" to the "three that bear record in heaven" is a quotation from 1 John 5:7. It is entirely omitted from the Revised Version, and thorough scholars in the early years of the nineteenth century were convinced that the passage was an interpolation.

The statement of belief prepared by the Meeting for Sufferings was not approved by the Yearly Meeting, so nothing was really accomplished by the compilation, if such it was.

Considering the order of the events recorded, it is hard not to conceive that the attempt to promulgate a "declaration of faith" by the Yearly Meeting was really intended for personal application to Elias Hicks. Had the plan succeeded, the elders could easily have attempted to silence the Jericho preacher in Philadelphia, on the ground that he was "unsound" touching the doctrine promulgated by the Yearly Meeting.

The task of detailing all of the doings of this period would be too difficult and distasteful to be fully recorded in this book. That the unfriendly conduct was by no means all on one side is painfully true. Still, as the determination of the Philadelphia elders to deal with Elias Hicks, and stop his ministry if possible, was continued, the effort cannot be ignored.

In First month, 1825, the elders presented a charge of unsoundness against Elias Hicks in the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders, the intent being to have the charge forwarded to the monthly meeting, but this action was not taken. With phenomenal persistence one of the elders introduced the subject in the monthly meeting, and secured the appointment of a committee to investigate the merits of the case. This committee made a report unfavorable to Elias Hicks, which report, his friends claimed was improperly entered on the minutes. A vigorous, but by no means a united effort was made to get this report forwarded to Jericho Monthly Meeting, but this failed. One of the incidents of this attempt against Elias Hicks was the disownment of a member of the Northern District Monthly Meeting, for remarks made in Western District Monthly Meeting. The report of the committee against Elias was under consideration, when the visitor arose and said: "If it be understood by the report—if it set forth and declare, that Elias Hicks, the last time he was in this house, preached doctrines contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or contrary to our first or primitive Friends, being present at that time, I stand here as a witness that it is utterly false."[129] Although this Friend was disowned by his monthly meeting he was reinstated by the Quarterly Meeting. It should be said that the report of unsoundness referred to, contained this specific charge: "We apprehend that Elias Hicks expressed sentiments inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures, and the religious principles our Society has held from its first rise."

The trouble in Philadelphia was renewed in an aggravated form in First month, 1827, when Elias Hicks appeared in the city on another religious visit. Of course the atmosphere had been charged with all sorts of attacks regarding the venerable preacher. Under such conditions no special advertising was necessary to get a crowd. The populace was curious, not a few wanted to hear and see, for themselves, this man about whom so many charges had been made. As a matter of course the meeting-houses were crowded beyond their capacity. It was alleged by Orthodox Friends that the meetings were disorderly, which may have been literally true. But the tumult was increased by injecting an element of controversy, into the First-day afternoon meeting in Western meeting-house, on the part of an Orthodox elder. All the evidence goes to show that Elias attempted to quiet the tumult. He seems to have been willing to accord liberty of expression to his opponents. The matter was taken into Western Monthly Meeting, a committee entering the following charge: "That a large and disorderly concourse of people were brought together, at an unseasonable hour, and under circumstances that strongly indicated a design to preoccupy the house to the exclusion of most of the members of our meeting, and to suppress in a riotous manner any attempt that might be made to maintain the doctrine and principles of our religious society, in opposition to the views of Elias Hicks."[130]

The literal truthfulness of this charge in every particular may be at least mildly questioned. It must be remembered that of the Friends in Philadelphia at that time, the Orthodox were a minority of about one to three. The majority of Friends felt that much of the trouble was personal, and they undoubtedly flocked to hear the traduced preacher. The outside crowd that came could not rightfully or wisely have been kept from attending public meetings. Both parties had been sowing to the wind, and neither could validly object to the whirlwind that inevitably came. Still Western Monthly Meeting proposed to deal with a visiting minister from another yearly meeting, on points of doctrine, and there can be little doubt that arbitrary proceedings of this sort had quite as much, if not more, to do with kindling the fires of "separation," as the preaching of Elias Hicks.

Rapidly the trouble ran back to the opposition raised by the elders in 1822. Eventually Green Street Monthly Meeting became the center of Society difficulty. It will be remembered that in the year last written that monthly meeting had enjoyed a family visitation from Elias Hicks, and had subsequently given him a minute of approval. After this one of the elders, who acquiesced in this action, joined the other nine in written disapproval of Elias Hicks. The major portion of the monthly meeting proposed to take the inconsistent conduct of this elder under care, and the matter was handed over to the overseers. In thus hastily invoking the discipline, Green Street Monthly Meeting made an apparent error of judgment, even admitting that the spirit of the transaction was not censurable. This brought the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders precipitously into the case. Finally Green Street Monthly Meeting released the Friend in question from his station as elder. A question arose on which there was a sharp discussion as to whether elders were independent of the overseers in the exercise of their official duties. A long line of conduct followed, finally resulting in the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders sending a report to the general quarterly meeting, amounting to a remonstrance against Green Street Monthly Meeting. This appeared to be a violation of Discipline, which said: "None of the said meetings of ministers and elders are in anywise to interfere with the business of any meeting for discipline."[131] These matters, with the remonstrance of the released Green Street elder, would therefore seem to have been irregularly brought before the quarterly meeting. It was claimed by the friends of Elias Hicks that he had broken no rule of discipline; that the charge, that he held "sentiments inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the principles of Friends," was vague as to its matter, and purely personal as to the manner of its circulation. Up to this point it should be remembered, the controversy was almost entirely centered on Elias Hicks.

This matter dragged along, a source of constant disturbance, appearing in perhaps a new form in the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders in Eighth month, 1826. The immediate action involved appointing a committee to assist the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders of Green Street Monthly Meeting, the assumed necessity in the case being the reported unsoundness of a Green Street minister, a charge to this effect having been preferred by one member only. The situation, however, caused an abatement in answering the query relating to love and unity. While these transactions were going on among the ministers and elders, Green Street Monthly Meeting took action which removed two of its elders from that station in the Society. The two deposed elders took their grievances to the general quarterly meeting. While the quarterly meeting would not listen to a statement of grievances, yet a committee to go over the whole case was appointed. The committee thus appointed, without waiting any action by the quarterly meeting, transformed the removal of the aggrieved elders into an appeal, and then demanded that Green Street Monthly Meeting turn over to that committee all the minutes relating to the case of the two elders. This the Green Street Meeting refused to do. Although the case had never been before the quarterly meeting, the committee of inquiry reported to the full meeting, that all of the action of Green Street Monthly Meeting relating to the two elders should be annulled. It was claimed that, by virtue of the leadership which the Orthodox had in the quarterly meeting, a precedent had been established which gave committees the right to exceed the power conferred upon them by the meeting which appointed them. The committee had not been appointed to decide a case, but to investigate a complaint.

Following this experience, after much wrangling, and in the midst of manifest disunity, and against what it was claimed was the manifest opposition of the major portion of the meeting, the quarterly meeting in Eleventh month, 1826, appointed a committee to visit the monthly meetings. This committee was manifestly one-sided, but could have no possible disciplinary service from extending brotherly care. Nevertheless at the quarterly meeting in Fifth month, 1827, this committee, for presumed gospel labor, reported that the large Green Street Monthly Meeting should be laid down, and its members attached to the Northern District Monthly Meeting. It is not necessary to enter into any argument as to the right of a quarterly meeting, under our system, to lay down an active monthly meeting, without that meeting's consent. The laying down of Green Street Monthly Meeting followed, the "separation" in the yearly meeting. It should be said that in Second month, 1827, Green Street Monthly Meeting, attempted to secure consent from the quarterly meeting to transfer itself to Abington Quarterly Meeting, and subsequently this was done.

The claim was made, and with some show of reason, that the various lines of conduct taken against Green Street Monthly Meeting, were incited by a desire to punish this meeting for its friendly interest in Elias Hicks.

We are rapidly approaching the point where the Society troubles in Philadelphia ceased to directly relate to Elias Hicks. It will be remembered that there was trouble touching the preaching of Elias coming by way of Southern Quarterly Meeting in 1822. The facts indicate that a majority of that meeting was quite content to let matters rest. It seems, however, that two members of the Meeting for Sufferings from that quarter had misrepresented their constituency in the Hicks controversy. Therefore in 1826 that quarterly meeting discontinued the service of the two members of the Meeting for Sufferings, supplying their places with new appointments. This action was objected to by the full meeting, the majority holding that members could not have their service discontinued by the constituent bodies which appointed them. An attempt was made to convince Southern Quarterly Meeting that it was improper and illegal to appoint new representatives, if the old ones were willing to serve. It was also claimed that it was "never intended to release the representatives from a quarterly meeting to the Meeting for Sufferings, except at their own request."[132] Surely the Discipline then operative gave no warrant for such an inference.[133] Assuming that the above contention was valid, the Meeting for Sufferings would simply have become a small hierarchy in the Society, never to be dissolved, except at its own request.

It would seem, however, that the rules governing the Meeting for Sufferings were especially made to guard against just such an exercise of power as has been mentioned. The Discipline under the heading, "Meeting for Sufferings," contained this provision: "The said meeting is not to meddle with any matter of faith or discipline, which has not been determined by the yearly meeting."[134] This will make it plain why there was such an anxiety that the statement of doctrine issued in 1823,[135] should be endorsed by the yearly meeting, and when that failed, how utterly the statement was without authority or binding force on the Society in general or its members in particular.

CHAPTER XVII.

Three Sermons Reviewed.

We have reached the point where it would seem in order to consider the matter contained in some of the sermons preached by Elias Hicks, in order to determine, if we can, what there was about the matter or the manner of his ministry, which contributed to the controversy, personal and theological, which for several years disturbed the Society of Friends.

The trouble was initiated, and for some time agitated, by comparatively few people. Two or three Friends began talking about what Elias said, from memory. Later they took long-hand notes of his sermons, in either case using isolated and disconnected sentences and expressions. Taken from their association with the balance of the sermon, and passed from mouth to mouth by critics, they assumed an exaggerated importance, and stood out boldly as centers of controversy.

All of the evidence goes to show that little attempt was made to give printed publicity to these discourses, until the preacher had been made famous by the warmth and extent of the controversy over the character of his preaching.

A volume of twelve sermons preached by Elias Hicks at various points in Pennsylvania in 1824 was published the following year in Philadelphia by Joseph and Edward Parker. These discourses were taken in short-hand by Marcus T. C. Gould. Two years later, in 1827, Gould began the publication of "The Quaker," which contained sermons by Elias, and a few other ministers in the Society. In his advertisement of the first volume of this publication, after stating the fact of the controversy which was rapidly dividing the Society of Friends in two contending parties, Gould says:

"At this important crisis, the reporter and proprietor of the following work was employed by the joint consent of both parties, to record in meeting the speeches of the individual whose doctrines were by some pronounced sound, and by others unsound. Since that period he has continued to record the language of the same speaker, and others who stand high as ministers in the Society, and the members have continued to read his reports, as the only way of arriving at the truth, in relation to discourses which were variously represented."

It is not our purpose in this chapter to give sermons or parts of sermons in detail. On the other hand, to simply review a few of these discourses as samples, because at the time of their delivery they called out opposition from Orthodox Friends. It may be fairly inferred that they contained in whole or in part the points of doctrinal offending in the estimation of the critics of Elias Hicks.

The first of the series of sermons especially under review, was delivered in the Pine Street meeting house, Philadelphia, Twelfth month 10, 1826. At the conclusion of this sermon Jonathan Evans arose, and spoke substantially as follows:

"I believe it to be right for me to say, that our Society has always believed in the atonement, mediation, and intercession of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ—that by him all things were created, in heaven and in earth, both visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, principalities, or powers.

"We believe that all things were created by him, and for him; and that he was before all things, and that by him all things consist. And any doctrine which goes to invalidate these fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion we cannot admit, nor do we hold ourselves accountable for.

"Great efforts are making to make the people believe that Jesus Christ was no more than a man, but we do not believe any such thing, nor can we receive any such doctrine, or any thing which goes to inculcate such an idea.

"We believe him to be King of kings, and Lord of lords, before whose judgment seat every soul shall be arraigned and judged by him. We do not conceive him to be a mere man; and we therefore desire, that people may not suppose that we hold any such doctrines, or that we have any unity with them."

Isaac Lloyd said: "I unite with Jonathan Evans—we never have believed that our blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, came to the Jews only; for he was given for God's salvation, to the ends of the earth."[136]

To these doctrinal statements Elias Hicks added: "I have spoken; and I leave it for the people to judge—I do not assume the judgment seat."

It may be informing in this connection to examine this sermon somewhat in detail, to see if we can find the definite doctrine which aroused the public opposition. The text was, "Let love be without dissimulation." Having declared that there could be no agreement between hatred and love; and that love could not promote discord, he indulged in what may be called a spiritual figure of speech, declaring that a Christian must be in the same life, and live with the same blood that Christ did, making the following explanation: "As the support of the animal life is the blood; so it is with the soul: the breath of life which God breathed into it is the blood of the soul; the life of the soul; and in this sense we are to understand it, and in no other sense."

He referred to the reprover of our sins, said that it is God who reproves us. "Now, here is the great business of our lives," he remarked, "not only to know this reprover, but to know that it is a gift from God, a manifestation of His own pure life, that was in his son Jesus Christ." Continuing he said:

"As the apostle testifies: 'In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and that was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' Now can we hesitate a single moment, in regard to the truth of this declaration? No sensible, reflecting mind can possibly do it."[137]

Touching the outward and written as compared with the inner law of life, he affirmed:

"Here is a law more comprehensive than the law of Moses, and it is clear to every individual of us, as the law was to the Israelites. For I dare not suppose that the Almighty would by any means make it a doubtful or mysterious one. It would not become God at all to suppose this the case—it would be casting a deep reflection upon his goodness and wisdom. Therefore I conceive that the law written in the heart, if we attend to it and do not turn from it to build up traditions, or depend on anything that arises from self, or that is in our own power, but come to be regulated by this law, we shall see that it is the easiest thing to be understood that can be, and that all our benefits depend on our complying with this law.

"Here now we see what tradition is. It is a departure from this law; and it has the same effect now that tradition had upon the followers of the outward law; as a belief in tradition was produced they were bound by it, and trusted in it. And so people, nowadays, seem to be compelled to believe in tradition, and thus they turn away from the gospel dispensation, or otherwise the light and life of God's Spirit in the soul, which is the law of the new covenant; for the law is light and the commandment a lamp to show us the way to life."[138]

Using the term, "washed clean in the blood of the lamb," he proceeded to explain himself as follows:

"And what is the blood of the lamb? It was his life, my friends; for as outward, material blood was made use of to express the animal life, inspired men used it as a simile. Outward blood is the life of the animal, but it has nothing to do with the soul; for the soul has no animal blood, no material blood. The life of God in the soul is the blood of the soul, and the life of God is the blood of God; and so it was the life and blood of Jesus Christ his son. For he was born of the spirit of his heavenly Father, and swallowed up fully and completely in his divine nature, so that he was completely divine. It was this that operated, in that twofold state, and governed the whole animal man which was the son of Abraham and David—a tabernacle for his blessed soul. Here now we see that flesh and blood are not capable of being in reality divine; for are they not altogether under the direction and guidance of the soul? Thus the animal body of Jesus did nothing but what the divine power in the soul told it to do. Here he was swallowed up in the divinity of his Father while here on earth, and it was this that was the active thing, the active principle, that governed the animate earth. For it corresponds, and cannot do otherwise, with Almighty goodness, that the soul should have power to command the animal body to do good or evil; because he has placed us in this probationary state, and in his wisdom has set evil and good before us—light and darkness. He has made us free agents, and given us opportunity to make our own election.

"Here now we shall see what is meant by election, the election of God. We see that those who choose the Lord for their portion and the God of Jacob for the lot of their inheritance, these are the elect. And nothing ever did or can elect a soul to God, but in this choice."[139]

It is not easy to see how any one can impartially consider the foregoing, especially the words printed in italics, and continue to claim that Elias Hicks denied the divinity of Christ. Near the end of this sermon we find the following paragraph:

"I say, dearly beloved, my soul craves it for us, that we may sink down and examine ourselves; according to the declaration of the apostle: 'Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves; know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates?' Now we cannot suppose that the apostle meant that outward man that walked about the streets of Jerusalem; because he is not in any of us. But what is this Jesus Christ? He came to be a Saviour to that nation, and was limited to that nation. He came to gather up, and look up the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But as he was a Saviour in the outward sense, so he was an outward shadow of good things to come; and so the work of the man, Jesus Christ, was a figure. He healed the sick of their outward calamities—he cleansed the leprosy—all of which was external and affected only their bodies—as sickness does not affect the souls of the children of men, though they may labour under all these things. But as he was considered a Saviour, he meant by what he said, a Saviour is within you, the anointing of the spirit of God is within you; for this made the ways of Jesus so wonderful in his day that the Psalmist in his prophecy concerning him exclaims: 'Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' He had loved righteousness, you perceive, and therefore was prepared to receive the fullness of the spirit, the fullness of that divine anointing; for there was no germ of evil in him or about him; both his soul and body were pure. He was anointed above all his fellows, to be the head of the church, the top stone, the chief corner stone, elect and precious. And what was it that was a Saviour? Not that which was outward; it was not flesh and blood; for 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven'; it must go to the earth from whence it was taken. It was that life, that same life that I have already mentioned, that was in him, and which is the light and life of men, and which lighteth every man, and consequently every woman, that cometh into the world. And we have this light and life in us; which is what the apostle meant by Jesus Christ; and if we have not this ruling in us we are dead, because we are not under the law of the spirit of life. For the 'law is light and the reproofs of instruction the way to life.'"[140]

Unless the so-called heterodox doctrine can be found in the foregoing extracts, it does not exist in the sermon under discussion.

Two other sermons were evidently both considered offensive and objectionable by the orthodox. One was preached at the Twelfth Street meeting, Twelfth month 10, 1826, and the other the 12th of the same month at Key's Alley, both in Philadelphia. At the Twelfth Street meeting, amid much confusion, Thomas Wistar attempted to controvert what Elias Hicks had said in certain particulars. While this Friend was talking, Elias tried to persuade the audience to be quiet.

At Key's Alley, when Elias had finished, Philadelphia Pemberton, in the midst of a disturbance that nearly drowned his voice, gave an exhortation in support of the outward and vicarious atonement. When Friend Pemberton ceased, Elias Hicks expressed his ideas regarding gospel order and variety in the ministry, for which Friends had always stood, in which he said:

"My dear friends, God is a God of order—and it will do me great pleasure to see this meeting sit quiet till it closes. We have, and claim gospel privileges, and that every one may be persuaded in his own mind; and as we have gifts differing, so ought every one to have an opportunity to speak, one by one, but not two at once, that all may be comforted. If any thing be revealed (and we are not to speak except this is the case), if any thing be revealed to one, let others hold their peace—this is according to order. And I desire it, once for all, my dear friends, if you love me, that you will keep strictly to this order: it will be a great comfort to my spirit."[141]

Speaking of the fear of God, he said that he did not mean "a fear that arises from the dread of torment, or of chastisement, or anything of this kind; for that may be no more than the fear of devils, for they, we read, believe and tremble." His theory was that fear must be based on knowledge, and the fear to displease God is not because of what he may do to us, but what, for want of this knowledge, we lose.

Again, he practically repeated what was evidently considered a truism: "My friends, we are not to look for a law in our neighbor's heart, nor in our neighbor's book; but we are to look for that law which is to be our rule and guide, in our consciences, in our souls; for the law is whole and perfect." Continuing he remarked:

"Now, how concordant this is with the testimony of Jesus, when he queried with his disciples in this wise: 'Whom do men say that I the son of man am?' They enumerated several characters, according to the views of the people in that day. But until we come to this inward, divine law, we shall know nothing rightly of that manifestation; for none of us have seen him, nor any of his works which he acted outwardly. But here we find some are guessing, one way, and some another way, till they become cruel respecting different opinions about him, insomuch that they will kill and destroy each other for their opinions. This is the effect of men's turning away from the true light, the witness for God in their own souls; it throws them into anarchy and confusion."[142]

In the opinion of Elias Hicks, it was not the man Peter that was to constitute the rock upon which the church was to be built, but rather the inner revelation, which enabled the disciple to know that the Master was the Christ. "When a true Christian comes to this rock, he comes to know it, as before pointed out; and here every one must see, when they build on this divine rock, this revealed will of our Heavenly Father, there is no fear."

Touching the vital matters of salvation, we make the following extracts from this sermon:

"Nothing but that which is begotten in every soul can manifest God to the soul. You must know this for yourselves, as nothing which you read in the Scriptures can give you a sense of his saving and almighty power. Now, the only begotten is what the power of God begets in the soul, by the soul uniting with the visitations of divine love. It becomes like a union—the soul submits and yields itself up to God and the revelation of his power, and thus it becomes wedded to him as its heavenly husband. Here, now, is a birth of the Son of God; and this must be begotten in every soul, as God can be manifested by nothing else.

"Now, what was this Holy Ghost and spirit of truth, and where are we to find it? He did not leave his disciples in the dark—'He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.' Mind it, my friends. What a blessed sovereign God this is to be to the children of men—a God who has placed a portion of himself in every rational soul—a measure of his grace sufficient for every purpose, for the redemption of the souls of men from sin and transgression, and to lead them to the kingdom of heaven. And there is no other way. Then do not put it off any longer; do not procrastinate any longer; do not say to-morrow, but immediately turn inward, for the day calls aloud for it—everything around us calls for us to turn inward, to that which will help us to do the great work of our salvation."[143]

There seems to have been little, if any, public demonstration against the preaching of Elias Hicks in meetings where he was present, except in Philadelphia. That is especially true before the coming of the English preachers, and the strained conditions that existed just preceding and during the various acts of separation. It will thus be seen that the concern and purpose of the ten men elders of Philadelphia remained persistent until the end.

---