{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50374/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50374","id":"gutenberg_50374","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50374","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Hicks family","Hicks, Elias, 1748-1830","Quakers -- Biography"],"text":"THE LIFE AND LABORS\n\nOF\n\nELIAS HICKS\n\n\nBY\n\nHenry W. Wilbur\n\n\nIntroduction by\n\nELIZABETH POWELL BOND\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA\n\nPublished by Friends' General Conference Advancement Committee\n\n1910\n\n\nCOPYRIGHTED 1910 BY\nHENRY W. WILBUR\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS                                       5\n\n  AUTHOR'S PREFACE                                            7\n\n  INTRODUCTION                                               11\n\n  CHAPTER I, Ancestry and Boyhood                            17\n\n  CHAPTER II, His Young Manhood                              22\n\n  CHAPTER III, First Appearance in the Ministry              28\n\n  CHAPTER IV, Early Labors in the Ministry                   32\n\n  CHAPTER V, Later Ministerial Labors                        38\n\n  CHAPTER VI, Religious Journeys in 1828                     46\n\n  CHAPTER VII, Ideas About the Ministry                      57\n\n  CHAPTER VIII, The Home at Jericho                          66\n\n  CHAPTER IX, The Hicks Family                               71\n\n  CHAPTER X, Letters to His Wife                             76\n\n  CHAPTER XI, The Slavery Question                           84\n\n  CHAPTER XII, Various Opinions                              95\n\n  CHAPTER XIII, Some Points of Doctrine                     107\n\n  CHAPTER XIV, Before the Division                          121\n\n  CHAPTER XV, First Trouble in Philadelphia                 126\n\n  CHAPTER XVI, The Time of Unsettlement                     139\n\n  CHAPTER XVII, Three Sermons Reviewed                      152\n\n  CHAPTER XVIII, The Braithwaite Controversy                161\n\n  CHAPTER XIX, Ann Jones in Dutchess County                 171\n\n  CHAPTER XX, The Experience with T. Shillitoe              181\n\n  CHAPTER XXI, Disownment and Doctrine                      188\n\n  CHAPTER XXII, After the \"Separation\"                      195\n\n  CHAPTER XXIII, Friendly and Unfriendly Critics             202\n\n  CHAPTER XXIV, Recollections, Reminiscences and Testimonies 211\n\n  CHAPTER XXV, Putting off the Harness                       218\n\n  APPENDIX                                                   226\n\n  TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\n\n  ELIAS HICKS (from bust, by Partridge)       Frontispiece\n\n  HICKS HOUSE AND JERICHO MEETING HOUSE, facing         57\n\n  CHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS, facing                       97\n\n  FACSIMILE OF LETTER, facing                          105\n\n  ELIAS HICKS (from painting, by Ketcham), facing      121\n\n  SURVEYOR'S PLOTTING, BY ELIAS HICKS, facing          144\n\n  BURYING GROUND AT JERICHO, facing                    216\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE.\n\n\nElias Hicks was a much misunderstood man in his own time, and the\nlapse of eighty years since his death has done but little to make him\nknown to the passing generations. His warm personal friends, and of\nthem there were many, considered him little less than a saint; his\nenemies, some of whom were intensely bitter in their personal feeling,\nwhatever may have been the basis of their judgment, believed him to be\na man whose influence was malevolent and mischievous. It is no part\nof the purpose of this book to attempt to reconcile the conflicting\nestimates touching the life and character of this remarkable man.\nOn the contrary, our hope is to present him as he was, in his own\nenvironment, and not at all as he might have been had he lived in our\ntime, or as his admirers would have him, to make him conform to their\nown estimate. In this biographical task, Elias Hicks becomes largely\nhis own interpreter. As he measured himself in private correspondence\nand in public utterance, so this book will endeavor to measure him.\n\nWe believe that it is not too much to say that he carried the\nfundamental idea of the Society of Friends, as delivered by George Fox,\nto its logical conclusion, as applied to thought and life, more clearly\nand forcibly than any of his predecessors or contemporaries. Not a few\nof those who violently opposed him, discounted the position of Fox\nand Barclay touching the Inner Light, and gave exaggerated importance\nto the claims of evangelical theology. Whatever others may have\nthought, Elias Hicks believed that he preached Christianity of the pure\napostolic type, and Quakerism as it was delivered by the founders. It\nshould be remembered that the conformist and non-conformist disputants\nof the seventeenth century talked as savagely about Fox as the early\nnineteenth century critics did about Hicks. In fact, to accept the\ntheory of Fox about the nature and office of the indwelling spirit,\nnecessarily develops either indifference or opposition to the plans and\ntheories of what was in the time of Elias Hicks, if it is not now, the\npopularly accepted theology.\n\nNo attempt has been made to write a comprehensive and detailed history\nof the so-called \"separation.\" So far, however, as the trouble related\nto Elias Hicks, it has been considered, and as much light as possible\nhas been thrown on the case. Necessarily this does not admit of very\nmuch reference to the setting up of separate meetings, which followed\nthe open rupture of 1827-28, or the contests over property which\noccurred after the death of Elias Hicks. Even the causes of the trouble\nin the Society only appear as they seem necessary to make plain the\nfeeling of Elias Hicks in the case, and the attitude of his opponents\ntoward him.\n\nIn dealing with the doctrines of Elias Hicks, or his views about\nvarious subjects, we have endeavored to avoid the one-sided policy,\nand to discriminate between the matters which would be accepted by the\nmajority of those Friends to-day who are erroneously made to bear the\nname of Elias Hicks, and the theories which they now repudiate. On the\nother hand, his most conservative and peculiar ideas are given equal\nprominence with those which more nearly conform to present-day thought.\n\nIn stating cases of antagonism, especially where it appeared in public\nmeetings, we have endeavored rather to give samples, than to repeat and\namplify occurrences where the same purpose and spirit were exhibited.\nThe citations in the book should, therefore, be taken as types, and not\nas mere isolated or extraordinary occurrences.\n\nReferences to the descendants of Elias Hicks, and other matters\nrelating to his life, which do not seem to naturally belong in the\ncoherent and detailed story, will be found in the appendix. This is\nalso true of the usual acknowledgment of assistance, and the reference\nto the published sources of information consulted by the author in\nwriting the book.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nNow and again a human life is lived in such obedience to the \"heavenly\nvision\" that it becomes an authority in other lives. The unswerving\nrectitude; whence is its divine directness? the world has to ask. Its\nclear-sightedness; how comes it that the eye is single to the true\ncourse? Its strength to endure; from what fountain flows unfailing\nstrength? Its quickening sympathy; what is the sweet secret?\n\nThe thought of the world fixes itself into stereotyped and imprisoning\nforms from which only the white heat of the impassioned seer and\nprophet can slowly liberate it. At last the world ceases to persecute\nor to crucify its liberator, and lo! an acknowledged revelation of God!\nThis came to pass in the seventeenth century, when it was given George\nFox to see and to proclaim that \"there was an anointing within man to\nteach him, and that the Lord would teach him, himself.\"\n\nThe eighteenth century developed another teacher in the religious\nsociety of Friends, whose message has been a distinctly leavening\ninfluence in the thought of the world. It is not easy to account for\nElias Hicks. He was not the \"son of a prophet.\" Nor was he a gift from\nthe _schools_ of the time in which he lived. In the \"Journal of His\nLife and Religious Labours,\" published in 1832 by Isaac T. Hopper,\nthere is no reference to school days.\n\nThere is one clue to this man that may explain much to us. Of his\nancestry he says in the restrained language characteristic of his\nwritings, \"My parents were descended from reputable families, and\nsustained a good character among their friends and those who knew\nthem.\" Here, then, is the rock-foundation upon which he builded, the\nfactor which could not be spared from the life which he lived--that in\nhis veins was the blood of those who had \"sustained a good character\namong those who knew them.\" Some of the leisure of his youth had been\ngiven to fishing and fowling, which he looked back to as wholesome\nrecreation, since he mostly preferred going alone. While he waited\nin stillness for the coming of the fowl, 'his mind was at times so\ntaken up in divine meditations, that the opportunities were seasons\nof instruction and comfort to him.' Out of these meditations grew\nthe conviction in his tendered soul that it was wanton diversion for\nhimself and his companions to destroy the small birds that could be of\nno use to them.\n\nRecalling his youth, he writes: \"Some of my leisure hours were occupied\nin reading the Scriptures, in which I took considerable delight, and\nit tended to my real profit and religious improvement.\" It may be that\nthis great classic in English, as well as library of ancient history,\nand book of spiritual revelation, was not only the food that stimulated\nhis spiritual growth, but also took the place to him, in some measure,\nof the schools as a means of culture. It is plain to see that he had\nwhat is the first requisite for a student--a hungering mind. The\nalphabet opened to him the ways and means, which he used as far as he\ncould, for the satisfying of this divine hunger. A new book possessed\nfor him such charm, it is said, that his friends who invited him for\na social visit, knowing this, were careful to put the new books out\nof sight, lest he should become absorbed in them, and they lose his\never-welcome and very entertaining conversation. He even had experience\nas a teacher; and the testimony is given by an aged Friend, once\nhis pupil: \"The manners of Elias Hicks were so mild, his deportment\nso dignified, and his conversation so instructive, that it left an\nimpression for good on many of his pupils' minds that time never\neffaced.\"\n\nThat he had not the teaching of the schools narrowed his own resources,\nand, doubtless, restricted his field of vision. But such a life as\nhis, that garnered wisdom more than knowledge of books, is a great\nencouragement to those who have not had the opportunities of the\nschools. We might not know without being told that he had missed from\nhis equipment a college degree; but we do know that his endowment of\nsound mind was supplemented with incorruptible character; we do know\nthat his life was founded upon belief in everlasting truth and an\nunchanging integrity. The record of his unfolding spiritual life shows\nthat\n\n  \"So nigh is grandeur to our dust,\n    So near is God to man,\n  When Duty whispers low, 'Thou must,'\n    The youth replies, 'I can.'\"\n\nThere is evidence that Elias Hicks had not only a hungering mind, but\nthat he had in marked degree the open mind, and that he accorded to\nothers liberty of opinion. It is said that he was unwilling that his\ndiscourses be printed, lest they become a bondage to other minds. He\nwrote to his friend, William Poole: \"Therefore every generation must\nhave more light than the preceding one; otherwise, they must sit down\nin ease in the labour and works of their predecessors.\" And he left a\nword of caution to approaching age, when he said in a meeting in New\nYork: \"The old folks think they have got far enough, they are settling\non the lees, they are blocking up the way.\" It does not disturb my\nthought of him that my own mother remembered a mild rebuke from him\nfor the modest flower-bed that brightened the door-yard of her country\nhome. For I discover in him rudiments of the love for beauty. A\nminister among Friends was once his guest during the harvest season\non Long Island, and recalled long after that, when the hour arrived\nfor the mid-week meeting, he came in from the harvest field, and not\nonly exchanged his working for his meeting garments, but added his\ngloves, although it was hot, midsummer weather. There was certainly\nthe rudimentary love for beauty in this scrupulous regard for the\nproprieties; but it was kept in such severe check that he could not\njustify the spending of time upon a flower-border. The poet had not\nthen expressed for us the sweet garden prayer that might have brought\nto his sensitive mind a new view of the purpose and value of the\nflower-border:\n\n  \"That we were earthlings and of earth must live,\n    Thou knowest, Allah, and did'st give us bread;\n  Yea, and remembering of our souls, didst give\n    Us food of flowers; thy name be hallowed!\"\n\nFrom the days in which he preferred his hours of solitude in fishing\nas opportunities for \"divine meditations\" we can trace his steady\nspiritual growth. While his business life was henceforth subordinated\nto his labors among men to promote the life of the spirit, he was never\nindifferent to the exact discharge of his own financial obligations;\nnor was he indifferent to the needs of others. One incident surely\nmarks him as belonging to the School of Christ: \"Once when harvests\nwere light and provisions scarce and high, his own wheat fields yielded\nabundantly. Foreseeing the scarcity and consequent rise in prices,\nspeculators sought early to buy his wheat. He declined to sell.\nThey offered him large prices, and renewed their visits repeatedly,\nincreasing the price each time. Still he refused to sell, even for the\nunprecedented sum of three dollars a bushel. But by and by, when his\npoorer neighbors, whose crops were light, began to need, he invited\nthem to come and get as much wheat as they required for use, at the\nusual price of one dollar a bushel.\"\n\nHe entered into the life of his community and of his times,\nanticipating by nearly a century the work of Friends' Philanthropic\nCommittees of the present day. It is related that he was much opposed\nto an attempt to establish a liquor-selling tavern in the Jericho\nneighborhood--that when he saw strangers approaching he would invite\nthem to accept his own hospitality, thus making unnecessary the\ntavern-keeping business in the sparsely settled country town.\n\nWe would expect that, with his sense of justice and his appreciation of\nvalues, Elias Hicks would place men and women side by side, not only\nin the home, but also in the larger household of faith, and in the\naffairs of the world. It is remembered that his face was set in this\ndirection--that, strict Society-disciplinarian as he was, he advocated\na change in the Discipline to allow women a consulting voice in making\nand amending the Discipline.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that he lived through the Revolutionary period\nof 1776, and through the War of 1812. So true was he to his convictions\nagainst war that he would not allow himself to benefit by the advanced\nprices in foodstuffs; and we are told that the records of his monthly\nmeeting show that he sacrificed much of his property by adherence to\nhis peace principles.\n\nNeither can we forget the testing that came to him in the institution\nof slavery. For, according to the custom of the times, his own father\nwas the owner of slaves. His open mind responded to the labors of a\ncommittee of the New York Yearly Meeting; and upon the freeing of his\nfather's slaves, he ever after considered their welfare, making such\nrestitution as he could for past injustice.\n\nTo his daughter, Martha Hicks, he wrote: \"My dear love to thee, to thy\ndear mother, who next to the Divine Blesser has been the joy of my\nyouth, and who, I trust and hope, will be the comfort of my declining\nyears. O dear child, cherish and help her, for she hath done abundance\nfor thee.\"\n\nThese fruits of the religious faith of Elias Hicks are offered as the\ntest given us by the Great Teacher himself, by which to know the life\nof a man. They mark a life rooted in the life of God. Imperishable\nas the root whence they grew, may they feed the souls of men from\ngeneration to generation, satisfying the hungry, strengthening the\nweak, and making all glad in the joy of each! Thus it is permitted to\nbe \"still praising Him.\"\n\n                                        ELIZABETH POWELL BOND.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nAncestry and Boyhood.\n\n\nThe Hicks family is English in its origin, authentic history tracing\nit clearly back to the fourteenth century. By a sort of genealogical\nparadox, a far-away ancestor of the apostle of peace in the eighteenth\ncentury was a man of war, for we are told that Sir Ellis Hicks was\nknighted on the battlefield of Poitiers in 1356, nearly four hundred\nyears before the birth of his distinguished descendant on Long Island,\nin America.\n\nFrom the best available data, it is believed that the progenitor of\nthe Hicks family on Long Island arrived in America in 1638, and came\nover from the New England mainland about 1645, settling in the town\nof Hempstead. A relative, Robert by name, came over with the body of\nPilgrims arriving in Massachusetts in 1621.\n\nJohn Hicks, the pioneer, was undoubtedly a man of affairs, with that\nstrong character which qualifies men for leadership. In the concerns of\nthe new community he was often drafted for important public service. In\nSeventh month, 1647, it became necessary to reach a final settlement\nwith the Indians for land purchased from them by the colonists the\nyear before. The adjustment of this transaction was committed to John\nHicks by his neighbors. When, in 1663, the English towns on the island\nand the New York mainland created a council whose aim it was to secure\naid from the General Court at Hartford against the Dutch, John Hicks\nwas made a delegate from Long Island. In 1665 Governor Nicoll, of New\nYork, called a convention to be composed of two delegates from each\ntown in Westchester County and on Long Island, \"to make additions and\nalterations to existing laws.\" John Hicks was chosen delegate from the\ntown of Hempstead.\n\nThomas, the great grandfather of Elias, was in 1691 appointed the first\njudge of Queens County, by Governor Andross, which office he held for\na number of years, with credit to himself and satisfaction to his\nconstituents.\n\nThe town of Hempstead is on the north side of Long Island, and borders\non the Sound. There Elias Hicks, the fifth in line of descent from\nthe pioneer John, was born on the 19th of Third month, 1748. He was\nthe fourth child of John and Martha Smith Hicks. Of the ancestry of\nthe mother of Elias little is known. There is no evidence that the\nancestors of Elias on either side were members of the Society of\nFriends, still they seem to have had much in common with Friends,\nand, at any rate, were willing to assist the peculiar people when the\nheavy hand of persecution fell upon them. In this connection we may\nquote the words of Elias himself. He says: \"My father was a grandson\nof Thomas Hicks, of whom our worthy friend Samuel Bownas[1] makes\nhonorable mention in his Journal, and by whom he was much comforted\nand strengthened when imprisoned through the envy of George Keith,[2]\nat Jamaica, on Long Island.\"[3]\n\n[1] Samuel Bownas was a minister among Friends, and was born in\nWestmoreland, England, about 1667. He secured a minute to make a\nreligious visit to America the latter part of 1701. Ninth month 30,\n1702, he was bound over to the Queens County Grand Jury, the charge\nagainst him being that in a sermon he had spoken disparagingly of the\nChurch of England. The jury really failed to indict him, which greatly\nexasperated the presiding judge, who threatened to deport him to London\nchained to the man-of-war's deck. It was at this point that Thomas\nHicks, whom Bownas erroneously concluded was Chief Justice of the\nProvince, appeared to comfort and assure him that he could not thus be\ndeported to England. Bownas continued in jail for about a year, during\nwhich time he learned the shoemaker's trade. He was finally liberated\nby proclamation.\n\n[2] George Keith, born near Aberdeen, 1639, became connected with\nthe Society of Friends about 1662. He came to America in 1684, but\nfinally separated from Friends, and endeavored to organize a new sect\nto be called Christian, or Baptist Quakers. This effort failed, and\nabout 1700 he entered the Church of England. After this he violently\ncriticised Friends, and repeatedly sought controversy with them. He had\nquite an experience of this sort with Samuel Bownas, and was considered\nthe real instigator of the complaint on which Bownas was lodged in\njail. Keith looms up large in all that body of history and biography\nunfriendly to the Society of Friends.\n\n[3] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 7.\n\nWe are told in the Journal, \"Neither of my parents were members in\nstrict fellowship with any religious society, until some little time\nbefore my birth.\"[4] It is certain that the father of Elias was a\nmember among Friends at the time of his birth, and his mother must\nalso have enjoyed such membership. Elias must have been a birthright\nmember, as he nowhere mentions having been received into the Society by\nconvincement. It is evident that his older brothers and sisters were\nnot connected with Friends.\n\n[4] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 7.\n\nWhen Elias was eight years of age his father removed from Hempstead to\nthe south shore of Long Island, the new home being near the seashore.\nBoth before and after that time he bewails the fact that his associates\nwere not Friends, and what he confessed was worse--they were persons\nwith no religious inclinations or connections whatever.\n\nThe new home afforded added opportunities for pleasure. Game was\nplentiful in the wild fowl that mated in the marshes and meadows, while\nthe bays and inlets abounded in fish. Hunting and fishing, therefore,\nbecame his principal diversion. While he severely condemned this form\nof amusement in later life, he brought to the whole matter a rational\nphilosophy. He considered that at the time hunting and fishing were\nprofitable to him, because in his exposed condition \"they had a\ntendency to keep me more at and about home, and often prevented my\njoining with loose company, which I had frequent opportunities of doing\nwithout my father's knowledge.\"\n\nThree years after moving to the new home, when Elias was eleven years\nof age, his mother was removed by death. The father, thus left with six\nchildren, two younger than Elias, finally found it necessary to divide\nthe family. Two years after the death of his mother he went to reside\nwith one of his elder brothers who was married, and lived some distance\nfrom his father's. It is probable that this brother's house was his\nhome most of the time until he was seventeen. Much regret is expressed\nby him that he was thus removed from parental restraint.\n\nThe Journal makes possibly unnecessarily sad confession of what he\nconsidered waywardness during this period. He says that he wandered far\nfrom \"the salutary path of true religion, learning to sing vain songs,\nand to take delight in running horses.\"[5] Just what the songs were,\nand the exact character of the horse racing must be mainly a matter of\nconjecture. Manifestly \"running horses\" did not mean at all the type of\nracetrack gambling with which twentieth-century Long Island is familiar.\n\n[5] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 8.\n\nIn the midst of self-accusation, he declares that he did not \"give way\nto anything which was commonly accounted disreputable, having always a\nregard to strict honesty, and to such a line of conduct as comported\nwith politeness and good breeding.\"[6] One can scarcely think of Elias\nHicks as a juvenile Chesterfield. From the most unfavorable things\nhe says about himself, the conclusion is easily reached that he was\nreally a serious-minded youth, and what has always been considered a\n\"good boy.\" It must be remembered, however, that he set for himself a\nhigh standard, which was often violated, as he became what he called\n\"hardened in vanity.\" Speaking of his youthful sports, and possible\nwaywardness, his maturer judgment confessed, that but \"for the\nprovidential care of my Heavenly Father, my life would have fallen a\nsacrifice to my folly and indiscretion.\"[7]\n\n[6] Journal, p. 8.\n\n[7] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 9.\n\nThere is practically no reference to the matter of schools or schooling\nin the Journal. There is every reason for the belief that he was\nself-educated. He may have had a brief experience at schools of a\nrather primary character. At all events he must have had a considerable\nacquaintance with mathematics, and evidently he at an early age\ncontracted the reading habit. Books were few, and of periodical\nliterature there was none. Friendly literature itself was confined to\nSewell's History, probably Ellwood's edition of George Fox's Journal,\nwhile he may have had access to some of the controversial pamphlets\nof the seventeenth century period. The Journals of various \"ancient\"\nFriends were to be had, but how rich the mine of this literature\nwhich he explored we shall never know. Evidently from his youth he\nwas a careful and intelligent reader of the Bible, and regarding its\npassages, its ethics and its theology, he became his own interpreter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nHis Young Manhood.\n\n\nAt the age of seventeen Elias became an apprentice, and set about\nlearning the carpenter's trade. His mechanical experience during\nthis period receives practically no attention in the Journal. We\nknow, however, that in those days none of the trades were divided\ninto sectional parts as now. In short, he learned a whole trade, and\nnot part of one. It was the day of hand-made doors, and not a few\ncarpenters took the timber standing in the forest, and superintended\nor personally carried on all of the processes of transforming it into\nlumber and from it producing the finished product. The carpenter of\na century and a half ago had to be able to wield the broad-ax, and\nliterally know how to \"hew to the line.\"\n\nIt is not known exactly how long this apprenticeship lasted, but\nprobably about four years. As a matter of course, there was much moving\nfrom neighborhood to neighborhood, as the building necessities demanded\nthe presence of the carpenters. The life was more or less irregular,\nand Elias says that he received neither serious advice nor restraint at\nthe hands of his \"master.\" He was brought in contact with frivolously\nminded young people, and was unduly carried away with the love of\namusement. During this period he learned to dance, and enjoyed the\nexperience. But he considered dancing a most mischievous pastime, and\nevil to a marked degree. For this indulgence he repeatedly upbraided\nhimself in the Journal. In his opinion, dancing was \"an unnatural and\nunchristian practice,\" never receiving the approval \"of the divine\nlight in the secret of the heart.\"\n\nHe passed through various experiences in the endeavor to break away\nfrom the dancing habit, with many backslidings, overthrowing what he\nconsidered his good resolutions. But finally he separated from all\nthose companions of his youth who beset him with temptation. He says:\n\"I was deeply tried, but the Lord was graciously near; and as my cry\nwas secretly to him for strength, he enabled me to covenant with him,\nthat if he would be pleased in mercy to empower me, I would forever\ncease from this vain and sinful amusement.\"[8]\n\n[8] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 10.\n\nHis first intimation touching the eternally lost condition of the\nwicked is in connection with his experience at this time. We cannot do\nbetter than to quote his own words:\n\n  \"In looking back to this season of deep probation, my soul has been\n  deeply humbled; for I had cause to believe that if I had withstood at\n  this time the merciful interposition of divine love, and had rebelled\n  against this clear manifestation of the Lord's will, he would have\n  withdrawn his light from me, and my portion would have been among the\n  wicked, cast out forever from the favorable presence of my judge.\n  I should also forever have been obliged to acknowledge his mercy\n  and justice, and acquit the Lord, my redeemer, who had done so much\n  for me; for with long-suffering and much abused mercy he had waited\n  patiently for my return, and would have gathered me before that time,\n  as I well knew, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but\n  I would not.\"[9]\n\n[9] Journal, p. 11.\n\nHis second diversion, and probably practiced after he had given up\ndancing, was hunting. While not considered in itself reprehensible,\nwhen the sport led to wantonness, and the taking of life of bird\nor beast simply for amusement, it was vigorously condemned. He says\nthat he was finally \"led to consider conduct like this to be a great\nbreach of trust, and an infringement of the divine prerogative.\" \"It\ntherefore became a settled principle with me not to take the life of\nany creature, unless it was really useful and necessary when dead, or\nvery noxious and hurtful when living.\"[10]\n\n[10] Journal, p. 13.\n\nWhen the settled conviction came to him touching the dance and the\nsportsman's practice, he was probably not out of his teens. This\nconviction resulted in victory over the propensity, probably before he\nreached his majority. The whole experience was an early illustration\nof the strength of will and purpose which was characteristic of this\nremarkable man throughout his entire life.\n\nMarriage is always a turning-point in a man's life. In the case of\nElias Hicks, it was so in a marked degree. Having become adept in his\ntrade, at the age of twenty-two, he was married to Jemima Seaman. This\nimportant event cannot be better stated than in the simple, quaint\nlanguage of the bridegroom himself. He says:\n\n  \"My affection being drawn toward her in that relation, I communicated\n  my views to her, and received from her a corresponding expression;\n  and having the full unity and concurrence of our parents and friends,\n  we, after some time, accomplished our marriage at a solemn meeting\n  of Friends, at Westbury, on the 2d of First month, 1771. On this\n  important occasion we felt the clear and consoling evidence of\n  divine truth, and it remained with us as a seal upon our spirits,\n  strengthening us mutually to bear, with becoming fortitude, the\n  vicissitudes and trials which fell to our lot, and of which we had a\n  large share while passing through this probationary state.\"[11]\n\n[11] Journal, p. 13.\n\nThe records of Westbury Monthly Meeting contain the official evidence\nof this marriage, which was evidently conducted strictly in accordance\nwith discipline. From the minutes of that meeting we extract the\nfollowing:\n\n  \"At a monthly meeting held in the meeting house, ye 29th day of ye\n  Eleventh month, 1770.\n\n  \"Elias Hicks son of John Hicks, of Rockaway, and Jemima Seaman,\n  daughter of Jonathan Seaman, of Jericho, presented themselves and\n  declared their intentions of marriage with each, and this meeting\n  appoints John Mott and Micajah Mott to make enquiry into Elias Hicks,\n  his clearness in relation of marriage with other women, and to make\n  report at the next monthly meeting.\n\n  \"At a monthly meeting in the meeting house at Westbury ye 26th day\n  of ye Twelfth month, 1770, Elias Hicks and Jemima Seaman appeared\n  the second time, and Elias Hicks signified they continued their\n  intentions of marriage and desired an answer to their former\n  proposals of marriage, and the Friends who were appointed to make\n  enquiry into Elias' clearness reported that they had made enquiry,\n  and find nothing but that he is clear of marriage engagements to\n  other women, and they having consent of parents and nothing appearing\n  to obstruct their proceedings in marriage, this meeting leaves them\n  to solemnize their marriage according to the good order used amongst\n  Friends, and appoints Robert Seaman and John Mott to attend their\n  said marriage, and to make report to the next monthly meeting it was\n  consumated.\n\n  \"On ye 30th day of ye First month, 1771, Robert Seaman reported that\n  they had attended the marriage of Elias Hicks and Jemima Seaman, and\n  was with them both at Jericho and at Rockaway, and John Mott also\n  reported that he accompanied them at Rockaway and that the marriage\n  was consummated orderly.\"\n\nIn more ways than one the marriage of Elias was the important event of\nhis life. Jemima Seaman was an only child, and naturally her parents\ndesired that she should be near them. A few months after their marriage\nElias and Jemima were urged to take up their residence at the Seaman\nhomestead, Elias to manage the farm of his father-in-law. The result\nwas that the farm in Jericho became the home of Elias Hicks the\nremainder of his life. Here he lived and labored for nearly sixty years.\n\nThe Seamans were concerned Friends, and the farm was near the Friends'\nmeeting house in Jericho. From this dates his constant attendance at\nthe meetings for worship and discipline of the Society. Besides the\nfamily influence, some of his neighbors, strong men and women, and\ndeeply attached to the principles and testimonies of Friends, made for\nthe young people an ideal and inspiring environment. The Friends at\nJericho could not have been unmindful of the native ability and taking\nqualities of this young man, whose fortunes were to be linked with\ntheir own, and whose future labors were to be so singularly devoted to\ntheir religious Society.\n\nJemima, the wife of Elias Hicks, was the daughter of Jonathan and\nElizabeth Seaman. The father of Jemima was the fifth generation from\nCaptain John Seaman, who came to Long Island from the Connecticut\nmainland about 1660. For his time, he seems to have been a man of\naffairs, and is recorded as one of the patentees of the town of\nHempstead, on the Sound side of the island. There was a John Seaman\nwho came to Massachusetts in the Winthrop fleet of ten vessels and 900\nimmigrants in 1630. That form of biography which shades into tradition\nis not agreed as to whether Captain John, of Hempstead, was the Puritan\nJohn or his son.\n\nRunning the family history back to England, we find Lazarus Seaman,\nknown as a Puritan divine, a native of Leicester. He died in 1667. He\nis described as a learned theologian, versed in the art of controversy,\nand stout in defense of his position in religious matters.\n\nThe history of heraldry, and the story of the efforts to capture\nthe holy sepulcher, tell us that John de Seaman was one of the first\ncrusaders. To this line the Seaman lineage in America is believed to be\nattached.\n\nAt some time, whether in his early manhood is not known, Elias Hicks\ntook up surveying. How steadily or extensively he followed that\nbusiness it is impossible to say. It is not hard, however, to find\nsamples of his surveying and plotting among the papers of Long Island\nconveyancers.[12] His compass, and the home-made pine case in which he\nkept the instrument and the tripod, are in existence.[13] The compass\nis a simple affair, without a telescope, of course. It folds into a\nflat shape, the box not being more than two inches thick, over all.\n\n[12] See cut facing page 145.\n\n[13] They are in possession of the great-grandson of Elias Hicks,\nWilliam Seaman, of Glen Cove, L. I.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nFirst Appearance in the Ministry.\n\n\nThere are many evidences in the Journal that Elias Hicks appreciated\nthe moral and spiritual advantages of his environment after he took up\nhis residence at Jericho. He confesses, however, that as he had entered\nquite extensively into business, he was much diverted from spiritual\nthings for a number of years after his marriage. During this period he\nsays:\n\n  \"I was again brought, by the operative influence of divine grace,\n  under deep concern of mind; and was led, through adorable mercy,\n  to see that although I had ceased from many sins and vanities of\n  my youth, yet there were many remaining that I was still guilty\n  of, which were not yet atoned for, and for which I now felt the\n  judgments of God to rest upon me. This caused me to cry earnestly\n  to the Most High for pardon and redemption, and he graciously\n  condescended to hear my cry, and to open a way before me, wherein I\n  must walk, in order to experience reconciliation with him; and as I\n  abode in watchfulness and deep humiliation before him, light broke\n  forth out of obscurity, and my darkness became as the noonday. I had\n  many deep openings in the visions of light, greatly strengthening\n  and establishing to my exercised mind. My spirit was brought under\n  a close and weighty labour in meetings for discipline, and my\n  understanding much enlarged therein; and I felt a concern to speak to\n  some of the subjects engaging the meeting's attention, which often\n  brought unspeakable comfort to my mind. About this time I began to\n  have openings leading to the ministry, which brought me under close\n  exercise and deep travail of spirit; for although I had for some time\n  spoken on subjects of business in monthly and preparative meetings,\n  yet the prospect of opening my mouth in public meetings was a close\n  trial; but I endeavored to keep my mind quiet and resigned to the\n  heavenly call, if it should be made clear to me to be my duty.\n  Nevertheless, as I was, soon after, sitting in a meeting, in much\n  weightiness of spirit, a secret, though clear, intimation accompanied\n  me to speak a few words, which were then given to me to utter, yet\n  fear so prevailed that I did not yield to the intimation. For this\n  omission I felt close rebuke, and judgment seemed, for some time,\n  to cover my mind; but as I humbled myself under the Lord's mighty\n  hand, he again lifted up the light of his countenance upon me, and\n  enabled me to renew covenant with him, that if he would pass by this\n  offense, I would, in the future, be faithful, if he should again\n  require such a service of me. And it was not long before I felt\n  an impressive concern to utter a few words, which I yielded to in\n  great fear and dread; but oh, the joy and sweet consolation that my\n  soul experienced, as a reward for this act of faithfulness; and as\n  I continued persevering in duty and watchfulness, I witnessed an\n  increase in divine knowledge, and an enlargement of my gift. I was\n  also deeply engaged for the right administration of discipline and\n  order in the church, and that all might be kept sweet and clean,\n  consistent with the nature and purity of the holy profession we\n  were making; so that all stumbling-blocks might be removed out of\n  the way of honest inquirers, and that truth's testimony might be\n  exalted, and the Lord's name magnified, 'who is over all, God blessed\n  forever.'\"[14]\n\n[14] Journal, p. 15.\n\nStill it appears that his concern for the maintenance of the discipline\nwas more than a slavish allegiance to the letter of the law. More\nthan once he spoke a warning word as to the danger of allowing the\nadministration of the written rule to lead to mere formalism. Once\nbegun, his development in public service was rapid, and his recognition\nby Friends cordial and appreciative to a marked degree.\n\nJust how long Elias Hicks spoke in the meetings for worship, before\nhis \"acknowledgment,\" is not known. The records of Westbury Monthly\nMeeting, however, give detailed information as to this event. From\nthem we make the following extract:\n\n  \"At a monthly meeting held at Westbury ye 29th of Fourth month, 1778,\n  William Seaman and William Valentine report that they have made\n  inquiry concerning Elias Hicks, and find nothing to hinder his being\n  recommended to the meeting of Ministers and Elders, whom this meeting\n  recommends to that meeting as a minister, and directs the clerk to\n  forward a copy of this minute to said meeting.\"\n\nThe acknowledgment of the ministry of Elias Hicks took place a little\nover seven years after his marriage. From various references in the\nJournal the inference is warranted that he did not begin to speak\nin the meeting for worship until a considerable time after this\nevent. It is, therefore, probable that his service in this line had\nnot been going on, at the most, more than three or four years when\nhis acknowledgment took place. He had only been a recorded minister\nsomething over a year when his first considerable visit was undertaken.\n\nUnfortunately, the preserved personal correspondence of Elias Hicks\ndoes not cover this period in his life, so that we are confined to what\nhe chose to put in his Journal, as the only self-interpretation of this\ninteresting period.\n\nIt appears that the New York Yearly Meeting was held at the regularly\nappointed times all through the period of the Revolutionary War.\nPrevious to 1777 the meeting met annually at Flushing, but in that year\nthe sessions were removed to Westbury. In 1793 it was concluded to hold\nfuture meetings in New York.\n\nDuring the war the British controlled Long Island, and for some time\nthe meeting house in Flushing was occupied as a barracks by the king's\ntroops, which probably accounts for moving the yearly meeting further\nout on the island to Westbury.\n\nIn attending the yearly meeting, and in performing religious visits\nto the particular meetings, passing the lines of both armies was a\nfrequent necessity. This privilege was freely granted Friends. Touching\nthis matter, Elias makes this reference:\n\n  \"This was a favor which the parties would not grant to their best\n  friends, who were of a warlike disposition; which shows what great\n  advantages would redound to mankind were they all of this pacific\n  spirit. I passed myself through the lines of both armies six times\n  during the war without molestation, both parties generally receiving\n  me with openness and civility; and although I had to pass over a\n  tract of country, between the two armies, sometimes more than thirty\n  miles in extent, and which was much frequented by robbers, a set,\n  in general, of cruel, unprincipled banditti, issuing out from both\n  parties, yet, excepting once, I met with no interruption even from\n  them. But although Friends in general experienced many favors and\n  deliverances, yet those scenes of war and confusion occasioned many\n  trials and provings in various ways to the faithful.\"[15]\n\n[15] Journal, p. 15.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nEarly Labors in the Ministry.\n\n\nProbably the first official public service to which Elias Hicks was\never assigned by the Society related to a matter growing out of the\nRevolutionary War. Under the new meeting-house in New York was a large\nroom, usually rented for commercial purposes. During the British\noccupation this room was appropriated as a storehouse for military\ngoods. The rent was finally tendered by the military commissioner to\nsome representative Friends, and by them accepted. This caused great\nconcern to many members of the meeting, who felt that the Society of\nFriends could not consistently be the recipient of money from such\na source. The matter came before the Yearly Meeting in 1779. The\npeace party felt that the rent money was blood money, and should be\nreturned, but a vigorous minority sustained the recipients of this\nwarlike revenue. It was finally decided to refer the matter to the\nYearly Meeting of Pennsylvania for determination. A committee to carry\nthe matter to Philadelphia was appointed, of which Elias Hicks, then a\nyoung man of thirty-one, was a member.\n\nHe made this service the occasion for some religious visits, which\nhe, in company with his friend, John Willis, proceeded to make _en\nroute_. The two Friends left home Ninth month 9, 1779, but took a\nroundabout route in order to visit the meetings involved in the concern\nof Elias. Instead of crossing over into New Jersey and going directly\nto Philadelphia, they went up the Hudson valley to a point above\nNewburgh, visiting meetings on both sides of the river. Their most\nnorthern point was the meeting at Marlborough, in Ulster County, New\nYork. They then turned to the southwest, and visited the meetings at\nHardwick[16] and Kingwood, arriving at Philadelphia, Ninth month 25th.\nElias attended all the sittings of the yearly meeting until Fourth-day,\nwhen he was taken ill, and was not able to be in attendance after that\ntime. He was not present when the matter which called the committee\nto Philadelphia was considered. The decision, however, was that the\nmoney received by the New York meeting for rent paid by the British\narmy should be returned. This was done by direction of New York Yearly\nMeeting in 1780. It may be interesting to note that in 1779 the Yearly\nMeeting of Pennsylvania began with the Meeting of Ministers and Elders;\nSeventh-day, the 25th of Ninth month, and continued until Second-day,\nthe 4th of Tenth month, having practically been in session a week and\ntwo days.[17]\n\n[16] Hardwick was in Sussex County, New Jersey. It was the home meeting\nof Benjamin Lundy, the abolitionist.\n\n[17] From 1755 to 1798, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting was held in Ninth\nmonth.\n\nFollowing the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia, the meeting at Byberry\nwas visited, as were those at Wrightstown, Plumstead and Buckingham,\nin Bucks County, Pa. On the return trip he was again at Hardwick,\nafter which he passed to the eastern shore of the Hudson, and was at\nNine Partners, Oswego and Oblong. Turning southward, the meetings at\nPeach Pond, Amawalk and Purchase were visited. From the latter point he\njourneyed homeward.\n\nThis first religious journey of Elias Hicks lasted nine weeks, and in\nmaking it he traveled 860 miles. Forty years later, many of the places\nvisited at this time became centers of the troublesome controversy\nwhich divided the Society in 1827 and 1828.\n\nFour years after the concern and service which took Elias Hicks to\nPhiladelphia in 1779, he undertook his second recorded religious visit.\nIt was a comparatively short one, and took him to the Nine Partners\nneighborhood. He was absent from home on this trip eleven days, and\ntraveled 170 miles.\n\nIn 1784 Elias had a concern to visit neighborhoods in Long Island not\nFriendly in their character. He made one trip, and not feeling free of\nthe obligations resting upon him, he made a second tour. During the two\nvisits he rode about 200 miles.\n\nHe seems to have had a period of quiet home service for about six\nyears, or until 1790, when two somewhat extended concerns were\nfollowed. The first took him to the meetings in the western part of\nLong Island, to New York City and Staten Island. This trip caused him\nto travel 150 miles. The next visiting tour covered a wide extent of\nterritory, and took him to eastern New York and Vermont. On this trip\nhe was gone from home about four weeks, and traveled 591 miles.\n\nThe year 1791 was more than usually active. Besides another visit to\nthose not Friends on Long Island, he made a general visit to Friends\nin New York Yearly Meeting. This visit took him to New Jersey,\nConnecticut, Massachusetts and up the Hudson valley as far as Easton\nand Saratoga. The Long Island visit consumed two weeks' time, and\ninvolved traveling 115 miles. On the general visit he was absent from\nhome four months and eleven days, and traveled 1500 miles.\n\nIn 1792 a committee, of which Elias was a member, was appointed by the\nYearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders to visit subordinate meetings\nof that branch of the Society. In company with these Friends every\nmeeting of Ministers and Elders was visited, and a number of meetings\nfor worship were attended. On this trip he was at Claremont, in\nMassachusetts, and desired to have an appointed meeting. It seemed\nthat the person, not a Friend, who was to arrange for this meeting did\nnot advertise it, for fear it would turn out a silent meeting, and he\nwould be laughed to scorn. The attendance was very small, but otherwise\nsatisfactory, so that the fearful person was very penitent, and desired\nthat another meeting might be held. Elias says: \"But we let him know\nthat we were not at our own disposal; and, as no way appeared open in\nour minds for such an appointment at present, we could not comply with\nhis desire.\"\n\nAn appointed meeting was also held near Dartmouth College, but the\nstudents were hilarious, and the occasion very much disturbed. Still,\nthe visitor hoped \"the season was profitable to some present.\"\n\nIn the following year, 1793, he had a concern to visit Friends in\nNew England, during which he attended meetings in Rhode Island,\nConnecticut, Massachusetts, Maine and the Massachusetts islands. On\nthis trip he traveled by land or on water 2283 miles, and was absent\nabout five months. It may be interesting to note that the traveling\ncompanion of Elias Hicks on the New England visit was James Mott, of\nMamaroneck, N. Y., the maternal grandfather of James Mott,[18] the\nhusband of Lucretia.\n\n[18] Adam Mott, the father of Lucretia's husband, married Anne,\ndaughter of James Mott.\n\nThe New England Yearly Meeting was attended at Newport. The meeting\nwas pronounced a \"dull time\" by the visitor. This was occasioned in\npart, he thought, because a very small number took upon \"them the whole\nmanagement of the business, and thereby shutting up the way to others,\nand preventing the free circulation and spreading of the concern, in a\nproper manner, on the minds of Friends; which I have very often found\nto be a very hurtful tendency.\"\n\nIt seems that in those days the Meeting of Ministers and Elders\nexercised the functions of a visiting committee. Accordingly, the\nYearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders in 1795 appointed a committee\nto visit the quarterly and preparative meetings within the bounds of\nthe Yearly Meeting. As a member of this committee, Elias performed\nhis share of this round of service. On this visit a large number of\nfamilies were visited.\n\nThe visits were made seasons of counsel and advice, especially in the\n\"select meetings.\" In these, he says, \"My mind was led to communicate\nsome things in a plain way, with a view of stirring them up to more\ndiligence and circumspection in their families, the better ordering and\ndisciplining of their children and household, and keeping things sweet\nand clean, agreeably to the simplicity of our holy profession; and I\nhad peace in my labor.\"[19]\n\n[19] Journal, p. 57.\n\nPossibly his most extended visit up to that time was made in 1798. The\ntrip was really begun Twelfth month 12, 1797. It included meeting's in\nNew Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. On this trip\nhe was from home five and one-half months, traveled 1600 miles, and\nattended 143 meetings, nearly an average of one meeting a day.\n\nIt was on this journey that he seriously began his public opposition to\nthe institution of slavery. On the 12th of Third month, at a meeting at\nElk Ridge, Md., he says:\n\n  \"Truth rose into dominion, and some present who were slaveholders\n  were made sensible of their condition, and were much affected. I felt\n  a hope to arise that the opportunity would prove profitable to some,\n  and I left them with peace of mind. Since then I have been informed\n  that a woman present at that session, who possessed a number of\n  slaves, was so fully convinced, as to set them free, and not long\n  afterwards joined in membership with Friends; which is indeed cause\n  of gratitude and thankfulness of heart, to the great and blessed\n  Author of every mercy vouchsafed to the children of men.\"[20]\n\n[20] Journal, p. 67.\n\nHis personal correspondence on this trip yields some interesting\ndescription of experiences, from which we make the following extract,\nfrom a letter written to his wife from \"Near Easton, Talbot County,\nMaryland, Second month 12, 1798\":\n\n  \"Mary Berry, an ancient ministering Friend, that Job Scott makes\n  mention of, was with us at the meeting. On Seventh-day we attended\n  a meeting with the black people at Easton, which we had appointed\n  some days before. There was a pretty large number attended, and the\n  opportunity favoured. Mary Berry observed she thought it was the most\n  so, of any that had ever been with them. They were generally very\n  solid, and many of them very tender. The white people complained much\n  of some of them for their bad conduct, but according to my feeling,\n  many of them appeared much higher in the kingdom than a great many of\n  the whites.\n\n  \"Some days past we were with the people called Nicolites. They dress\n  very plain, many of them mostly in white. The women wore white\n  bonnets as large as thine, and in form like thy old-fashioned bonnet,\n  straight and smooth on the top. In some of their meetings three or\n  four of the foremost seats would be filled with those who mostly had\n  on these white bonnets. They have no backs to their seats, nor no\n  rising seats in their meeting-houses. All sat on a level. They appear\n  like a pretty honest, simple people. Profess our principles, and most\n  of them, by their request, have of late been joined to Friends, and I\n  think many of them are likely to become worthy members of Society, if\n  the example of the backsliders among us do not stumble or turn them\n  out of the right way. There was about 100 received by Friends here at\n  their last monthly meeting, and are like for the first time to attend\n  here next Fifth-day, which made it the more pressing on my mind to\n  tarry over that day.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nLater Ministerial Labors.\n\n\nIn the fall of 1799 a concern to visit meetings in Connecticut was\nfollowed. The trip also took in most of the meetings on the east bank\nof the Hudson as far north as Dutchess County. He was absent six weeks,\nand attended thirty meetings.\n\nFourth month 11, 1801, Elias and his traveling companion, Edmund\nWillis, started, on a visit to \"Friends in some parts of Jersey,\nPennsylvania, and some places adjacent thereto.\" A number of meetings\nin New Jersey were visited on the way, the travelers arriving in\nPhiladelphia in time for the Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders.\nAll of the sessions of the yearly meeting were also attended. It does\nnot appear that Elias Hicks had attended this yearly meeting since\n1779. Practically all of the meetings in New Jersey and Pennsylvania\nwere visited on this trip. It lasted three months and eighteen days,\nduring which time the visitors traveled 1630 miles.\n\nThe personal correspondence of Elias Hicks yields one interesting\nletter written on this trip. It was written to his wife, and was dated\n\"Exeter, 4th of Seventh month, 1801.\" We quote as follows:\n\n  \"We did not get to Lampeter so soon as I expected, as mentioned in my\n  last, for when we left Yorktown last Fourth-day evening, being late\n  before we set out, detained in part by a shower of rain. It was night\n  by the time we got over the river. We landed in a little town called\n  Columbia, where dwelt a few friends. Although being anxious to get\n  forward, I had previous to coming there intended to pass them without\n  a meeting, but found when there I could not safely do it. Therefore\n  we appointed a meeting there the next day, after which we rode to\n  Lampeter, to William Brinton's, of whom, when I went westward, I\n  got a fresh horse, and I left mine in his care. I have now my own\n  again, but she has a very bad sore on her withers, somewhat like is\n  called a 'thistlelon,' but is better than she has been. It is now\n  just six weeks and four days since we went from this place, which\n  is about 48 miles from Philadelphia, since which time we have rode\n  813 miles and attended 35 meetings. Much of the way in this tour has\n  been rugged, mountainous and rocky, and had it not been for the best\n  attendant companion, peace of mind flowing from a compliance with and\n  performance of manifested duty, the journey would have been tedious\n  and irksome. But we passed pretty cheerfully on, viewing with an\n  attentive eye the wonderful works of that boundless wisdom and power\n  (by which the worlds were framed) and which are only circumscribed\n  within the limits of their own innate excellency. Here we beheld all\n  nature almost with its varied and almost endless diversifications.\n\n  \"Tremendous precipices, rocks and mountains, creeks and rivers,\n  intersecting each other, all clothed in their natural productions;\n  the tall pines and sturdy oaks towering their exalted heads above the\n  clouds, interspersed with beautiful lawns and glades; together with\n  the almost innumerable vegetable inhabitants, all blooming forth the\n  beauties of the spring; the fields arable, clothed in rich pastures\n  of varied kinds, wafted over the highways their balmy sweets, and the\n  fallow grounds overspread with rich grain, mostly in golden wheat, to\n  a profusion beyond anything of the kind my eyes ever before beheld,\n  insomuch that the sensible traveler, look which way he would, could\n  scarcely help feeling his mind continually inflamed and inspired with\n  humble gratitude and reverent thankfulness to the great and bountiful\n  author of all those multiplied blessings.\"\n\nThis letter constitutes one of the few instances where Elias Hicks\nreferred to experiences on the road, not directly connected with his\nministerial duty. The reference to Columbia, and his original intention\nto pass by without a meeting, with its statement he \"could not safely\ndo it,\" is characteristic. Manifestly, he uses the word \"safely\" in a\nspiritual sense. The call to minister there was too certain to be put\naside for mere personal inclination and comfort.\n\nThe reference to his horse contains more than a passing interest.\nProbably many other cases occurred during his visits when \"borrowing\"\na horse was necessary, while his own was recuperating. It was a slow\nway to travel, from our standpoint, yet it had its advantages. New\nacquaintances, if not friendships, were made as the travelers journeyed\nand were entertained on the road.\n\nOn the 20th of Ninth month, 1803, Elias Hicks, with Daniel Titus as a\ntraveling companion, started on a visit to Friends in Upper Canada, and\nthose resident in the part of the New York Yearly Meeting located in\nthe Hudson and Mohawk valleys. When the travelers had been from home\na little less than a month, Elias wrote to his wife, from Kingston,\na letter of more than ordinary interest, because of its descriptive\nquality. It describes some of the difficulties, not to say dangers, of\nthe traveling Friend before the days of railroads. We quote the bulk of\nthe letter, which was dated Tenth month, 16, 1803:\n\n  \"We arrived here the 3d instant at the house of Joseph Ferris about 3\n  o'clock at night, having rode the preceding day from Samuel Brown's\n  at Black River, where I dated my last. We traveled by land and water\n  in this day's journey about forty-five miles. Very bad traveling\n  over logs and mudholes, crossing two ferries on our way, each four\n  or five miles wide, with an island between called Long Island. About\n  six miles across we were in the middle thereof, the darkest time\n  in the night, when we were under the necessity of getting off our\n  horses several times to feel for the horses' tracks in order to know\n  whether we were in the path or not, as we were not able to see the\n  path, nor one another at times, if more than five or six feet apart.\n  Some of our company began to fear we should be under the necessity of\n  lying in the woods all night. However, we were favored to get well\n  through, and crossed the last ferry about midnight and after. Landed\n  safely on Kingston shore about 2 o'clock, all well. Since which we\n  have attended ten meetings, three of them preparative meetings, the\n  rest mostly among other people. We just now, this evening, returned\n  from the last held at the house of John Everit, about four miles\n  west of Kingston. We held one yesterday in the town of Kingston in\n  their Court House. It was the first Friends' meeting ever held in\n  that place. The principal inhabitants generally attended, and we have\n  thankfully to acknowledge that the shepherd of Israel in whom was our\n  trust, made bare his arm for our help, setting home the testimony he\n  gave us to the states of the people, thereby manifesting that he had\n  not left himself without a witness in their hearts, as all appeared\n  to yield their assent to the truths delivered, which has generally\n  been the case, in every place where our lots have been cast.\n\n  \"We expect to-morrow to return on our way to Adolphustown, taking\n  some meetings in our way thither, among those not of our Society, but\n  so as to be there ready to attend Friends' monthly that is held next\n  Fifth-day, after which we have some prospect of being at liberty to\n  return on our way back, into our own State.\n\n  \"Having thus given thee a short account of our journey, I may salute\n  thee in the fresh feelings of endeared affection, and strength of\n  gospel love, in which fervent desires are felt for thy preservation,\n  and that of our dear children, and that you may all so act and so\n  walk, as to be a comfort and strength to each other, and feel an\n  evidence in yourselves that the Lord is your friend; for you are my\n  friend (said the blessed redeemer) if you do whatever I command you.\"\n\nFor the three following years there is no record of special activity,\nbut in 1806 a somewhat extended visit was made to Friends in the State\nof New York. He was absent from home nearly two months, traveled over\n1000 miles, attended three quarterly, seventeen monthly, sixteen\npreparative, and forty meetings for worship.\n\nThe years following, including 1812, were spent either at home or\nin short, semi-occasional visits, mostly within the bounds of his\nown yearly meeting. During this period a visit to Canada Half-Yearly\nMeeting was made.\n\nThe first half of 1813 he was busy in his business and domestic\nconcerns, really preparing for a religious journey, which he began\non the 8th of Fifth month. He passed through New Jersey on the way,\nattending meetings in that State, either regular or by appointment,\narriving in Philadelphia in about two weeks. Several meetings in the\nvicinity of that city were attended, whence he passed into Delaware\nand Maryland. His steps were retraced through New Jersey, when he was\nhomeward bound.\n\nFrom 1813 to 1816 we find the gospel labors of Elias Hicks almost\nentirely confined to his own yearly meeting. This round of service did\nnot take him farther from home than Dutchess County. During this period\nwe find him repeatedly confessing indisposition and bodily ailment,\nwhich may have accounted for the fewness and moderateness of his\nreligious visits.\n\nIn First month, 1816, we find him under a concern to visit Friends\nin New England. He had as his traveling companion on this journey\nhis friend and kinsman, Isaac Hicks, of Westbury. During this trip\npractically all of the meetings in New England were visited. It kept\nhim from home about three months, and caused him to travel upward of\n1000 miles. He attended fifty-nine particular, three monthly and two\nquarterly meetings.\n\nDuring the balance of 1816 and part of the year 1817, service was\nprincipally confined to the limits of Westbury Quarterly Meeting.\nBut it was in no sense a period of idleness. Many visits were made\nto meetings. In Eighth month of the latter year, in company with his\nson-in-law, Valentine Hicks, a visit was made to some of the meetings\nattached to Philadelphia and Baltimore Yearly Meetings. Many meetings\nin New Jersey and Pennsylvania received a visit at this time. He went\nas far south as Loudon County, Va., taking meetings _en route_, both\ngoing and coming. He must have traveled not less than 1000 miles on\nthis trip.\n\nVisits near at home, and one to some parts of New York Yearly Meeting,\noccupied all his time during the year 1818.\n\nIn 1819 a general visit to Friends in his own yearly meeting engaged\nhis attention. He went to the Canadian border. This trip was a season\nof extended service and deep exercise. On this journey he traveled 1084\nmiles, was absent from home fourteen weeks, and attended seventy-three\nmeetings for worship, three quarterly meetings and four monthly\nmeetings.\n\nThe years from 1819 to 1823, inclusive, were particularly active. Elias\nHicks was seventy-one in the former year. The real stormy period of his\nlife was approaching in the shape of the unfortunate misunderstanding\nand bitterness which divided the Society. It scarcely demands more than\npassing mention here, as later on we shall give deserved prominence to\nthe \"separation\" period.\n\nHe started on the Ohio trip Eighth month 17, 1819, taking northern and\ncentral Pennsylvania on his route. He arrived in Mt. Pleasant in time\nfor Ohio Yearly Meeting, which seems to have been a most satisfactory\noccasion, with no signs of the storm that broke over the same meeting\na few years later. Elias himself says: \"It was thought, I believe, by\nFriends, to have been the most favored yearly meeting they had had\nsince its institution, and was worthy of grateful remembrance.\"[21]\nDuring this visit many appointed meetings were held, besides regular\nmeetings for worship. On the homeward journey, Friends in the\nShenandoah Valley, in Virginia, and in parts of Maryland were visited.\nOn this trip he journeyed 1200 miles, was from home three months, and\nattended eighty-seven meetings.\n\n[21] Journal, p. 377.\n\nIn 1820 a visit was made to Farmington and Duanesburg Quarterly\nMeetings, and in the summer of 1822 he visited Friends in some parts of\nPhiladelphia Yearly Meeting. On this trip the Baltimore Yearly Meeting\nwas also visited, as were some of the particular meetings in Maryland.\nHe did not reach Philadelphia on the return journey until the early\npart of Twelfth month. While his Journal is singularly silent about the\nmatter, it must have been on this visit that he encountered his first\npublic opposition as a minister. But, with few exceptions, the Journal\nignores the whole unpleasantness.\n\nIn 1824 he again attended Baltimore Yearly Meeting. The only comment on\nthis trip is the following: \"I think it was, in its several sittings,\none of the most satisfactory yearly meetings I have ever attended, and\nthe business was conducted in much harmony and brotherly love.\"[22]\n\n[22] Journal, p. 396.\n\nOn the homeward trip he stopped in Philadelphia. Here he suffered a\nsevere illness. Of this detention at that time he says: \"I lodged at\nthe house of my kind friend, Samuel R. Fisher, who, with his worthy\nchildren, extended to me the most affectionate care and attention;\nand I had also the kind sympathy of a large portion of Friends in\nthat city.\"[23] The exception contained in this sentence is the only\nintimation that all was not unity and harmony among Friends in the\n\"City of Brotherly Love.\"\n\n[23] Journal, p. 396.\n\nHis visits in 1825 were confined to the meetings on Long Island and\nthose in central New York.\n\nIn the latter part of the following year he secured a minute to visit\nmeetings composing Concord and Southern Quarterly Meetings, within the\nbounds of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. In passing through Philadelphia\nhe attended Green Street and Mulberry Street Meetings. This was within\na few months of the division of 1827 in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,\nbut the matter is not mentioned in the Journal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nReligious Journeys in 1828.\n\n\nOn the 20th of Third month, 1828, Elias Hicks laid before Jericho\nMonthly Meeting a concern he had to make \"a religious visit in the love\nof the gospel, to Friends and others in some parts of our own yearly\nmeeting, and in the compass of the Yearly Meetings of Philadelphia,\nBaltimore, Ohio, Indiana, and a few meetings in Virginia.\" A minute\nembodying this concern was granted him, the same receiving the\nindorsement of Westbury Quarterly Meeting, Fourth month 24th. Between\nthis period and the middle of Sixth month he made a visit to Dutchess\nCounty, where the experience with Ann Jones and her husband took place,\nwhich will be dealt with in a separate chapter. He also attended New\nYork Yearly Meeting, when he saw and was a part of the \"separation\"\ntrouble which culminated at that time. The Journal, however, makes\nno reference either to the Dutchess County matter or to the division\nin the yearly meeting. These silences in the Journal are hard to\nunderstand. Undoubtedly, the troubles of the period were not pleasant\nmatters of record, yet one wishes that a fuller and more detailed\nstatement regarding the whole matter might be had from Elias Hicks than\nis contained in the meager references in his personal correspondence,\nor his published Journal.\n\nOn the 14th of Sixth month he started on the western and southern\njourney, with his friend, Jesse Merritt, as his traveling companion.\nElias was then a few months past eighty.\n\nThe two Friends halted at points in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,\nholding meetings as the way opened. Service continued in Pennsylvania,\nconsiderably in the western part, passing from Pittsburg into Ohio.\n\nAt Westland Monthly Meeting, in Pennsylvania, his first acknowledgment\nof opposition is observed. He says: \"A Friend from abroad attended\nthis meeting, and after I sat down he rose and made opposition, which\ngreatly disturbed the meeting.\"[24]\n\n[24] Thomas Shillitoe.\n\nWhen he arrived at Brownsville, his fame had preceded him. He makes\nthis reference to the experience there:\n\n  \"Here we put up again with our kind friends Jesse and Edith Townsend,\n  where we had the company of many Friends, and many of the inhabitants\n  of the town not members of our Society, also came in to see us; as\n  the unfounded reports of those who style themselves Orthodox, having\n  been generally spread over the country, it created such a great\n  excitement in the minds of the people at large, that multitudes\n  flocked to the meetings where we were, to hear for themselves; and\n  many came to see us, and acknowledged their satisfaction.\n\n  \"At this place we again fell in with the Friend from abroad, who\n  attended the meeting with us; he rose in the early part of the\n  meeting, and continued his communication so long that a number left\n  the meeting, by which it became very much unsettled: however, when he\n  sat down I felt an opening to stand up; and the people returned and\n  crowded into the house, and those that could not get in stood about\n  the doors and windows, and a precious solemnity soon spread over the\n  meeting, which has been the case in every meeting, where our opposers\n  did not make disturbance by their disorderly conduct. The meeting\n  closed in a quiet and orderly manner, and I was very thankful for the\n  favour.\"[25]\n\n[25] Journal, p. 404.\n\nFollowing his experience at Brownsville, Elias returned to Westland,\nattending the meeting of ministers and elders, and the meeting\nfor worship. The person before mentioned, who may be called the\n\"disturbing Friend,\" was again in evidence, this time reinforced by a\n\"companion.\" At the instigation of Friends, the elders and overseers\nhad \"an opportunity\" with the disturbers, but with small success. The\nsame trouble was repeated on First-day. On this occasion the opposition\nwas vigorous and virulent. In the midst of the second opportunity of\nthe opposing Friend the audience melted away, leaving him literally\nwithout hearers.\n\nFrom Westland the journey was continued to Pittsburg, where an\nappointed meeting was held. Salem, Ohio, was the next point visited,\nwhere the quarterly meeting was attended. On First-day a large company,\nestimated at two thousand, gathered. The occasion was in every way\nsatisfactory. Visits to different meetings continued. There was\nmanifest opposition at New Garden, Springfield, Goshen and Marlborough.\nAt Smithfield the venerable preacher was quite indisposed. The\nmeeting-house was closed against him, by \"those called Orthodox,\" as\nElias defined them.\n\nOne of the objective points on this trip was Mt. Pleasant, Ohio, where\nthe yearly meeting of 1828 was held. He arrived in time to attend the\nmid-week meeting at that place, a week preceding the yearly meeting. A\nlarge attendance was reported, many being present who were not members\nof the Society. The signs of trouble had preceded the distinguished\nvisitor, the \"world's people\" having a phenomenal curiosity regarding\na possible war among the peaceable Quakers. There was pronounced\nantagonism manifested in this mid-week meeting, described as \"a long,\ntedious communication from a minister among those called Orthodox, who,\nafter I sat down, publicly opposed and endeavored to lay waste what I\nhad said.\"[26]\n\n[26] Journal, p. 411.\n\nDuring the following days meetings were attended at Short Creek,\nHarrisville, West Grove, Concord, St. Clairsville, Plainfield,\nWrightstown and Stillwater. There was no recorded disturbance until\nhe returned to Mt. Pleasant the 6th of Ninth month, the date of the\ngathering of the Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders. When the\nmeeting-house was reached the gate to the yard was guarded, \"by a\nnumber of men of the opposing party,\" who refused entrance to those who\nwere in sympathy with Elias Hicks. They proceeded to hold their meeting\nin the open air. Subsequent meetings were held in a school-house and in\na private house, the home of Israel French.\n\nFirst-day, Ninth month 7th, Mt. Pleasant Meeting was attended in the\nforenoon, and Short Creek Meeting in the afternoon. The meeting at\nMt. Pleasant was what might be called stormy. Elisha Bates and Ann\nBraithwaite spoke in opposition, after Elias Hicks had spoken. In a\nletter dated Ninth month 10th, written to his son-in-law, Valentine\nHicks, Elias says that these Friends \"detained the meeting two hours or\nmore, opposing and railing against what I had said, until the people\nwere wearied and much disgusted.\" No trouble was experienced at Short\nCreek, although experiences similar to those of the morning occurred at\nMt. Pleasant in the afternoon. Amos Peaslee, of Woodbury, N. J., was\nthe center of opposition at that time. He was opposed while on his feet\naddressing the multitude.\n\nIn connection with this yearly meeting a number of Friends were\narrested on charges of trespass and inducing a riot, and taken to\ncourt. All were members of Ohio Yearly Meeting, except Halliday\nJackson,[27] of Darby, Pa. For some reason Elias escaped arrest,\nalthough in the letter referred to he said: \"I have been expecting\nfor several days past to have a writ of trespass served against me by\nthe sheriff, for going on their meeting-house grounds, by which I may\nbe taken twenty miles or more to appear before the judge, as a number\nof Friends already have been, although my mind is quiet regarding the\nevent.\"\n\n[27] Halliday Jackson was father of John Jackson, the well-known\neducator, principal of Sharon Hill School. Halliday was with the Seneca\nIndians in New York State for two years, as a teacher under the care of\nPhiladelphia Yearly Meeting.\n\nWhile at Mt. Pleasant the small monthly meeting of Orthodox Friends\nat his home sent a letter \"officially\" commanding Elias to cease his\nreligious visits. In regard to this matter, and the general situation\nin Ohio, Elias wrote to Valentine Hicks: \"The Orthodox in this yearly\nmeeting are, if possible, tenfold more violent than in any other\npart of the Society. Gideon Seaman, and his associates in the little\nupstart Monthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho,[28] have sent a very\nperemptory order for me to return immediately home, and not proceed any\nfurther on my religious visit, by which they trample the authority of\nour quarterly and monthly meeting under foot.\"\n\n[28] The Monthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho was made up of a small\nnumber of Orthodox Friends, representing only a small minority of the\nmeeting of which Elias Hicks was a member.\n\nFollowing the Ohio Yearly Meeting, Flushing,[29] in that State, was\nvisited, and the First-day meeting attended. Elias was met before he\nreached the meeting-house by Orthodox Friends, who insisted that he\nshould not interrupt the meeting. He entered the house, but before\nthe meeting was fairly settled, Charles Osborn, an Orthodox Friend,\nappeared in prayer, and continued for an hour; and then preached for\nanother hour. Elias thus refers to this occurrence:\n\n[29] Flushing is about 18 miles from Mt. Pleasant. A Wilburite meeting\nis the only Friendly gathering now in the place.\n\n  \"However, when he sat down, although the meeting was much wearied\n  with his long and tedious communications, I felt the necessity of\n  standing up and addressing the people, which brought a precious\n  solemnity over the meeting; but as soon as I sat down, he rose again\n  to contradict, and tried to lay waste my communication, by asserting\n  that I had not the unity of my friends at home; which being untrue,\n  I therefore informed the meeting that I had certificates with me to\n  prove the incorrectness of his assertions, which I then produced, but\n  he and his party would not stay to hear them, but in a disorderly\n  manner arose and left the meeting; but the people generally stayed\n  and heard them read, to their general satisfaction.\"[30]\n\n[30] Journal, p. 414.\n\nMeetings were subsequently attended at different points in Ohio,\ngenerally without disturbance, until Springfield was reached the 22d of\nNinth month. Here the Orthodox shut the meeting-house and guarded the\ndoors. Elias held his meeting under some trees nearby. He says: \"It was\na precious season, wherein the Lord's power and love were exalted over\nall opposition.\"[31]\n\n[31] Journal, p. 416.\n\nPreceding Indiana Yearly Meeting, he was twice at Wilmington, Ohio,\nand attended monthly meeting at Center, the first held since the\n\"separation.\" The attendance was large, many more than the house\nwould accommodate. Elias says: \"The Lord, our never-failing helper,\nmanifested his presence, solemnizing the assembly and opening the\nminds of the people to receive the word preached; breaking down all\nopposition, and humbling and contriting the assembly in a very general\nmanner.\"[32]\n\n[32] Journal, p. 415.\n\nNinth month 27th, Indiana Yearly Meeting convened at Waynesville,\nOhio. It should be noted that the \"separation\" in most of the meetings\ncomprising this yearly meeting had been accomplished in 1827, so that\nthe gathering in 1828 was in substantial unity with the Friends\nin sympathy with Elias Hicks. A letter written to Valentine and\nAbigail Hicks, dated Waynesville, Tenth month 3, 1828, contains some\ninteresting information concerning the experience of the venerable\npreacher. He says:\n\n  \"The Yearly Meeting here would have been very large, had there not\n  been a failure of the information of the conclusion for holding it\n  here, reaching divers of the Quarterly Meetings, by which they were\n  prevented from attending. The meeting was very orderly conducted, and\n  the business managed in much harmony and condescension. The public\n  meetings have been very large, favoured seasons, and all the meetings\n  we have attended in our passing along have been generally very large.\n  Seldom any houses were found large enough to contain the people.\n  Often hundreds were under the necessity of standing out doors. Many\n  of the people without came a great way to be at our meeting. Some\n  ten, some twenty, and some thirty miles, and I have been informed\n  since I have been here that the people in a town 120 miles below\n  Cincinnati have given it in charge to Friends of that place to\n  inform them when we came there, as a steam boat plies between the\n  two places. The excitement is so great among the people by the false\n  rumors circulated by the Orthodox, that they spare no pains to get an\n  opportunity to be with us, and those who have attended from distant\n  parts, informing the people the satisfaction they have had in being\n  with us, in which they have found that the reports spread among them\n  were generally false, it has increased the excitement in others to\n  see for themselves.\"\n\nThe yearly meeting over, Elias attended meetings _en route_ to\nRichmond, Ind., and was at the mid-week meeting in that place, Tenth\nmonth 8th. Several other meetings were attended, the only disturbance\nreported being at Orange, where the Orthodox \"hurt the meeting very\nconsiderably.\" On the 19th he was in Cincinnati, and attended the\nregular meeting in the morning, and a large appointed meeting in the\ncourt-house in the afternoon. Both were pronounced \"highly favored\nseasons.\"\n\nFirst-day, the 26th, he was at Fairfield, where the Orthodox revived\nthe story that he was traveling without a minute. While Elias was\nspeaking, the Orthodox left the meeting in a body. He remarks: \"But\nFriends and others kept their seats, and we had a very solemn close,\nand great brokenness and contrition were manifest among the people;\nand to do away with the false report spread by the Orthodox, I had my\ncertificates read, which gave full satisfaction to the assembly.\"[33]\n\n[33] Journal, p. 419.\n\nElias then journeyed to Wheeling, his face being turned homeward.\nHe held an appointed meeting in that city. It is suggestive that,\nnotwithstanding the theological odium under which he was supposed to\nrest, the meeting was held in the Methodist church, which had been\nkindly offered for the purpose. This would seem to indicate that the\nMethodists had not yet taken any sides in the quarrel which had divided\nthe Society of Friends.\n\nAfter visiting Redstone Quarterly Meeting, in western Pennsylvania, he\nvisited the meetings in the Shenandoah and Loudon valleys, in Virginia.\nHe was at Alexandria and Washington, and on First-day, Eleventh month\n16th, was at Sandy Spring, Md. The meetings about Baltimore and in\nHarford and Cecil counties were visited. He reached West Grove in\nPennsylvania, Twelfth month 1st, and encountered some trouble, as he\nfound that the meeting-house had been closed against him. A large crowd\nassembled, better councils prevailed, and the house was opened. The\naudience was beyond the capacity of the house, and the meeting in every\nway satisfactory.\n\nUpon his arrival at West Grove, Twelfth month 1st, he sent a letter to\nhis son-in-law and daughter, Royal and Martha Aldrich. In this letter\nhe gives a brief account of his experiences in Maryland and Lancaster\nCounty. He says: \"The aforesaid meetings were very large and highly\nfavored, generally made up of every description of people, high and\nlow, rich and poor, Romanists, and generally some of every profession\nof Protestants known in our country. Generally all went away fully\nsatisfied as to those evil reports that have been spread over the\ncountry concerning me, and many announced the abhorrence they had of\nthose false and slanderous reports.\"\n\nIt appears from this letter that the traveling companion of Elias,\nJesse Merritt, was homesick, and hoped that some other Friend would\ncome from Long Island to take his place for the rest of the trip. In\ncase such a shift was made, Elias requested that whoever came \"might\nbring with him my best winter tight-bodied coat, and two thicker\nneck-cloths, as those I have are rather thin. I got a new great-coat in\nAlexandria, and shall not need any other.\"\n\nFrom a letter written to his wife from West Chester, Twelfth month\n7th, we learn that John Hicks had arrived to take the place of Jesse\nMerritt, and he seized that opportunity to send a letter home. As\nthe two Friends had been away from home nearly six months, it is not\nstrange that the companion on this journey desired to return. He could\nscarcely have been under the deep and absorbing religious concern\nwhich was felt by his elder brother in the truth. The nature of this\nobligation is revealed in the letter last noted. In this epistle to his\nwife, Elias says:\n\n  \"Abigail's letter informs of the infirm state of V. and Caroline,\n  which excites near-feeling and sympathy with them, and which would\n  induce me to return home immediately if I was set at liberty from\n  my religious obligations, but as that is not the case, I can only\n  recommend them to the preserving care and compassionate regard of\n  our Heavenly Father, whose mercy is over all his works and does\n  not suffer a sparrow to fall without his notice. And as we become\n  resigned to his heavenly disposals, he will cause all things to work\n  together for good, to his truly devoted children. Therefore, let all\n  trust in him, for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength.\"\n\nThe meetings in Delaware, eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey were\npretty generally attended, and with no reported disturbance. First-day,\nthe 21st of Twelfth month, Elias attended the meeting at Cherry Street\nin the morning and Green Street in the afternoon, and on the 28th he\nrepeated that experience. On both occasions \"hundreds more assembled\nthan the houses could contain.\"[34] In the suburban meetings in\nDelaware and Bucks Counties, \"the houses were generally too small to\ncontain the people; many had to stand out-of-doors for want of room;\nnevertheless, the people behaved orderly and the Lord was felt to\npreside, solemnizing those crowded assemblies, in all of which my mind\nwas opened, and ability afforded, to preach the gospel to the people in\nthe demonstration of the spirit and with power, and many hearts were\nbroken and contrited and went away rejoicing, under thankful sense of\nthe unmerited favor.\"[35]\n\n[34] Journal, p. 423.\n\n[35] Journal, p. 423.\n\nThe great crowds which flocked to hear Elias Hicks after the\n\"separation\" were probably called together partly because of curiosity\non their part, and to a considerable extent because of his continued\npopularity as a minister, in spite of the trouble which had come to\nthe Society. That he was appreciative of what we would now call the\nadvertising quality of those who antagonized him, and became his\ntheological and personal enemies, is well attested. In summing up\nhis conclusions regarding the long religious visit now under review,\nhe said: \"My opposing brethren had, by their public opposition and\nerroneous reports, created such excitement in the minds of the people\ngenerally of every profession, that it induced multitudes to assemble\nto hear for themselves, and they generally went away satisfied and\ncomforted.\"[36] Undoubtedly, the multitudes who heard Elias Hicks\npreach in 1828 went away wondering what all the trouble was about.\n\n[36] Journal, p. 423.\n\nElias and his traveling companion reached home about the middle of\nFirst month, 1829. This was one of the longest and most extended\nreligious journeys ever made by him, and was completed within two\nmonths of his eighty-first year. On the journey he traveled nearly 2400\nmiles, and was absent seven months and ten days.\n\nGoing carefully over the various journeys of this well-known minister,\na conservative estimate will show that he traveled in the aggregate not\nless than forty thousand miles during his long life of public service.\nHe was probably the best-known minister in the Society of Friends in\nhis time. His circle of personal friends was large, and extended over\nall the yearly meetings. It is necessary to keep these facts in mind,\nin order to understand how the major portion of Friends at that time\nmade his cause their own when the rupture came.\n\nThe majority of Friends at that time were content as to preaching, with\nwords that seemed to be full of spirit and life, and this undoubtedly\nwas characteristic of the preaching of Elias Hicks. To attempt to\ndestroy the standing in the Society of a man of such character and\nequipment was certain to break something other than the man attacked.\nThis will become more apparent as we consider more closely the relation\nof Elias Hicks to the controversy with which his name and person were\nlinked, and with the trouble in the Society of Friends, for which,\neither justly or otherwise, he was made the scapegoat.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nIdeas About the Ministry.\n\n\nTo construct from the published deliverances, and personal\ncorrespondence of Elias Hicks, a statement of his theory and practice\ntouching the ministry is desirable if not easy. That he considered\npublic religious exercise an exalted function, if of the right sort,\nand emanating from the Divine source, is abundantly evidenced in all\nhe said and wrote. The call to particular and general service, whether\nin his home meeting for worship, or in connection with his extended\nreligious journeys, he believed came directly from the Divine Spirit.\n\nOne instance is related, which possibly as clearly as anything,\nillustrates his feeling regarding the ministry, and the relationship\nof the Infinite to the minister. In the fall of 1781, when his service\nin the ministry had been acknowledged about three years, he was very\nill with a fever, which lasted for several months. In the most severe\nperiod of this indisposition he tells us that \"a prospect opened to\nmy mind to pay a religious visit to some parts of our island where no\nFriends lived, and among a people, who, from acquaintance I had with\nthem, were more likely to mock than receive me.\" He opposed the call,\nand argued against it, only to see the disease daily reducing his\nbodily and mental strength. He became convinced that in yielding to\nthis call lay his only hope of recovery, and had he not done so his\nlife would have gone out. Having fully recovered, the intimated service\nwas performed the following summer.\n\nHe seemed to treat his ministry as something in a measure apart from\nhis personality. He repeatedly referred to his own ministerial labors\nin a way not unlike that indulged in by his most ardent admirers.\nYet this was always accompanied with acknowledgment of the Divine\nenlightening and assistance. On the 22d of Tenth month, 1779, he held\nan appointed meeting in Hartford, Conn., a thousand persons being\npresent. Of this meeting he said: \"The Lord, in whom we trust, was\ngraciously near, and furnished us with ability to conduct the meeting\nto the satisfaction and peace of our own minds; and to the edification\nof many present, and general satisfaction to the assembly.\"[37]\n\n[37] Journal, p. 85.\n\nSpeaking of a meeting at Market Street, Philadelphia, in Fourth month,\n1801, he remarked: \"My spirit was set at liberty, and ability afforded\nto divide the word among them, according to their varied conditions, in\na large, searching and effectual testimony; whereby a holy solemnity\nwas witnessed to spread over the meeting, to the great rejoicing of the\nhonest-hearted.\"[38]\n\n[38] Journal, p. 89.\n\nAt a meeting at Goose Creek, Virginia, the 22d of Third month, 1797,\nhe tells us: \"After a considerable time of silent labor, in deep\nbaptism with the suffering seed, my mouth was opened in a clear, full\ntestimony, directed to the states of those present. And many were\nbrought under the influence of that power which 'cut Rahab, and wounded\nthe dragon.'\"[39]\n\n[39] Journal, p. 69.\n\nIn the acknowledgment of the Divine influence and favor, Elias Hicks\nhad a collection of phrases which he repeatedly used. \"It was the\nLord's doings, and marvelous in our eyes,\" was a common expression. He\nrepeatedly said: \"Our sufficiency was not of ourselves, but of God;\nand that the Lord was our strength from day to day, who is over all\nblessed forever.\" One of his favorite expressions was: \"To the Lord be\nall the praise, nothing due to man.\"\n\nTrite and pointed Scripture quotations were always at command, and\nthey were effectively employed, both in speaking and writing. It will\nbe noted by the reader that not a few of the expressions used by Elias\nHicks sound like the phrases coined by George Fox.\n\nThat Elias Hicks believed in the plenary inspiration of the preacher is\nwell attested. His testimony was constantly against the \"letter,\" with\nlittle recognition that the letter could ever contain the spirit. Here\nis a sample exhortation to ministers:\n\n  \"And it is a great thing when ministers keep in remembrance that\n  necessary caution of the divine Master, not to premediate what they\n  shall say; but carefully to wait in the nothingness and emptiness of\n  self, that what they speak may be only what the Holy Spirit speaketh\n  in them; then will they not only speak the truth, but the truth,\n  accompanied with power, and thereby profit the hearers.\"[40]\n\n[40] Journal, p. 296.\n\nHe admonished Friends in meeting, and especially ministers, to \"get\ninward, and wait in their proper gifts.\" The evident theory was that by\nwaiting, and possibly wrestling with the manifestation it was possible\nto tell whether it was from below or above.\n\nStill, there was not an entire absence of the human and even the\nrational in Elias Hicks' theory of the ministry as it worked out in\npractice. He had evidently discovered the psychological side of public\nspeaking to the extent of recognizing that even the preacher was\ninfluenced by his audience.\n\nWhen he was in Philadelphia in 1816, before the troubled times had\narrived, he tells us that \"it proved a hard trying season: one of\nthem [ministers] was exercised in public testimony, and although she\nappeared to labor fervently, yet but little life was felt to arise\nduring the meeting. This makes the work hard for the poor exercised\nministers, who feel the necessity publicly to advocate the cause of\ntruth and righteousness, and yet obtain but little relief, by reason\nof the deadness and indifference of those to whom they are constrained\nto minister. I found it my place to sit silent and suffer with the\nseed.\"[41]\n\n[41] Journal, p. 271.\n\nIn a personal letter, while on one of his visits, Elias Hicks gave the\nfollowing impression of the meeting and the ministry:\n\n  \"To-day was the quarterly meeting of discipline. It was large, and I\n  think in the main a favored instructive season, although considerably\n  hurt by a pretty long, tedious communication, not sufficiently\n  clothed with life to make it either comfortable or useful. So it\n  is, the Society is in such a mixed and unstable state, and many\n  who presume to be teachers in it, are so far from keeping on the\n  original foundation, the light and spirit of truth, and so built up\n  in mere tradition, that I fear a very great portion of the ministry\n  among us, is doing more harm than good, and leading back to the weak\n  and beggarly elements, to which they seem desirous to be again in\n  bondage.\"[42]\n\n[42] Letter to his wife, dated Purchase, N. Y., Tenth month 29, 1823.\n\nThis is not the only case of his measuring the general effect of the\nministry. In Seventh month, 1815, he attended Westbury Quarterly\nMeeting, and of its experiences he wrote as follows:\n\n  \"Was the parting meeting held for public worship. It was a large\n  crowded meeting, but was somewhat hurt in the forepart, by the\n  appearance of one young in the ministry standing too long, and\n  manifesting too much animation: Yet, I believed, he was under\n  the preparing hand, fitting for service in the Church, if he only\n  keeps low and humble, and does not aspire above his gift, into the\n  animation of the creature. For there is great danger, if such are\n  not deeply watchful, of the transformer getting in and raising the\n  mind into too much creaturely zeal, and warmth of the animal spirit,\n  whereby they may be deceived, and attribute that to the divine power,\n  which only arises from a heated imagination, and the natural warmth\n  of their own spirits; and so mar the work of the divine spirit on\n  their minds, run before their gift and lose it, or have it taken away\n  from them. They thereby fall into the condition of some formerly, as\n  mentioned by the prophet, who, in their creaturely zeal, kindle a\n  fire of their own, and walk in the light thereof; but these, in the\n  end, have to lie down in sorrow.\"[43]\n\n[43] Journal, p. 234.\n\nOf the same quarterly meeting, held in Fourth month in the following\nyear, in New York, Elias wrote: \"It was for the most part a favored\nseason, but would have been more so, had not some in the ministry quite\nexceeded the mark by unnecessary communication. For very great care\nought to rest on the minds of ministers, lest they become burthensome,\nand take away the life from the meeting, and bring over it a gloom of\ndeath and darkness, that may be sensibly felt.\"[44]\n\n[44] Journal, p. 268.\n\nHis feeling regarding his own particular labor in the ministry is\nalmost pathetically expressed as follows:\n\n  \"Meetings are generally large and well-attended, although in the\n  midst of harvest. I have continual cause for deep humility and\n  thankfulness of heart under a daily sense of the continued mercy of\n  the Shepherd of Israel, who when he puts his servants forth, goes\n  before them, and points out the way, when to them all seems shut\n  up in darkness. This has been abundantly my lot from day to day,\n  insomuch that the saying of the prophet has been verified in my\n  experience, that none are so blind as the Lord's servants, nor deaf\n  as his messengers. As generally when I first enter meetings I feel\n  like one, both dumb and deaf, and see nothing but my own impotence.\n  Nevertheless as my whole trust and confidence is in the never-failing\n  arm of divine sufficiency, although I am thus emptied, I am not cast\n  down, neither has a murmuring thought been permitted to enter, but\n  in faith and patience, have had to inherit the promise, as made to\n  Israel formerly by the prophet. 'I will never leave thee, nor forsake\n  thee.' This my dear, I trust will be the happy lot of all those who\n  sincerely trust in the Lord, and do not cast away their confidence,\n  nor lean to their own understanding.\"[45]\n\n[45] Letter to his wife, written from East Caln, Pa., Seventh month 22,\n1813.\n\nOccasionally in his ministry Elias Hicks did what in our time would be\ncalled sensational things. In this matter he shall be his own witness.\nFourth-day, the 6th of Twelfth month, 1815, at Pearl Street meeting in\nNew York, there was a marriage during the meeting, on which account the\nattendance was large. After remarking that his mind was \"exercised in\nan unusual manner,\" he says:\n\n  \"For the subject which first presented, after my mind had become\n  silenced, was the remembrance of the manner in which the temporal\n  courts among men are called to order; and it became so impressive,\n  as to apprehend it right to make use of it as a simile, much in the\n  way the prophet was led to make use of some of the Rechabites, to\n  convict Israel of their disobedience and want of attention to their\n  law and law-giver. I accordingly was led to cry audibly three times,\n  'O yes! O yes! O yes! silence all persons, under the pain and penalty\n  of the displeasure of the court.' This unusual address had a powerful\n  tendency to arrest the attention of all present, and from which I\n  took occasion, as truth opened the way, to reason with the assembly,\n  that if such a confused mass of people as are generally collected\n  together on such occasions, and from very different motives, and\n  many from mere curiosity to hear and see the transactions of the\n  court, should all in an instant so honor and respect the court,\n  as immediately to be still and silent at the simple call of the\n  crier: How much more reasonable is it, for a collection of people,\n  promiscuously gathered to the place appointed in a religious way, to\n  wait upon, and worship the Judge of heaven and earth, to be still,\n  and strive to silence every selfish and creaturely thought and\n  cogitation of the mind. For such thoughts and cogitations would as\n  certainly prevent our hearing the inward divine voice of the King\n  of heaven, and as effectually hinder our worshipping him in spirit\n  and in truth, as the talking of the multitude at a court of moral\n  law, would interrupt the business thereof. As I proceeded with this\n  simile, the subject enlarged and spread, accompanied with gospel\n  power and the evident demonstration of the spirit, whereby truth was\n  raised into victory, and ran as oil over all. The meeting closed with\n  solemn supplication and thanksgiving to the Lord our gracious Helper,\n  to whom all the honor and glory belong, both now and forever.\"[46]\n\n[46] Journal, p. 248.\n\nWhatever may have been the opinion of Elias Hicks as to the inspiration\nof the minister, he evidently did not consider that it was so\nimpersonal and accidental, or so entirely outside the preacher, as to\ndemand no care on his own part. The following advisory statement almost\nprovides for what might be called \"preparation:\"\n\n  \"In those large meetings, where Friends are collected from various\n  parts, the weak and the strong together, and especially in those\n  for worship, it is essentially necessary that Friends get inward,\n  and wait in their proper gifts, keeping in view their standing and\n  place in society, especially those in the ministry. For otherwise\n  there is danger even from a desire to do good, of being caught with\n  the enemies' transformations, particularly with those that are\n  young, and inexperienced; for we seldom sit in meetings but some\n  prospect presents, which has a likeness, in its first impression,\n  to the right thing; and as these feel naturally fearful of speaking\n  in large meetings, and in the presence of their elderly friends,\n  and apprehending they are likely to have something to offer, they\n  are suddenly struck with the fear of man, and thereby prevented\n  from centering down to their gifts, so as to discover whether it\n  is a right motion or not; and the accuser of the brethren, who is\n  always ready with his transformations to deceive, charges with\n  unfaithfulness and disobedience, by which they are driven to act\n  without any clear prospect, and find little to say, except making\n  an apology for them thus standing; by which they often disturb the\n  meeting, and prevent others, who are rightly called to the work, and\n  thereby wound the minds of the living baptized members.\"[47]\n\n[47] Journal, p. 230.\n\nThe responsibility which Elias Hicks felt for the meeting of which\nhe was a member, and in which he felt called to minister, is well\nillustrated in the following quotation:\n\n  \"I was under considerable bodily indisposition most of this week. On\n  Fifth-day, so much so, as almost to give up the prospect of getting\n  to meeting; but I put on my usual resolution and went, and was glad\n  in so doing, as there I met with that peace of God that passeth all\n  understanding, which is only known by being felt. I had to declare to\n  my friends how good it is to trust in the Lord with all the heart,\n  and lean not to our own understandings, lest they fail us.\"[48]\n\n[48] Journal, p. 230.\n\nThis records no uncommon occurrence. He was often indisposed, but the\nillness had to be severe if it kept him away from meeting.\n\nDuring his later life he was frequently indisposed, and sometimes\nunder such bodily pain when speaking that he was forced to stop in\nthe midst of a discourse. This happened in Green Street Meeting\nHouse, Philadelphia, Eleventh month 12, 1826. On this occasion the\nstenographer says that after \"leaving his place for a few minutes, he\nresumed.\" During this particular sermon Elias sat down twice, beside\nthe time mentioned, evidently to recover physical strength.\n\nElias Hicks was not one of those ministers who always spoke if he\nattended meeting. Many times he was silent; this being especially true\nwhen in his home meeting. When on a religious visit he generally spoke,\nbut not always. That his willingness to \"famish the people from words,\"\ntended to his local popularity, is quite certain.\n\nThe printed sermons of Elias Hicks would indicate that at times he\nwas quite lengthy, and seldom preached what is known now as a short,\nten-minute sermon. Estimating a number of sermons, we find that they\naveraged about 6500 words, so that his sermons must have generally\noccupied from thirty to forty-five minutes in delivery. Occasionally a\nsermon contained over 8000 words, while sometimes less than 4000 words.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nThe Home at Jericho.\n\n\nThe village of Jericho, Long Island, is about 25 miles east of New York\nCity, in the town of Oyster Bay. It has had no considerable growth\nsince the days of Elias Hicks, and now contains only about a score and\na half of houses. Hicksville, less than two miles away, the railroad\nstation for the older hamlet, contains a population of a couple of\nthousand. It was named for Valentine Hicks, the son-in-law of Elias.\n\nRunning through Jericho is the main-traveled road from the eastern\npart of Long Island to New York, called Jericho Pike. In our time it\nis a famous thoroughfare for automobiles, is thoroughly modern, and as\nsmooth and hard as a barn floor. In former days it was a toll-road, and\nover it Elias Hicks often traveled. A cross-country road runs through\nJericho nearly north and south, leading to Oyster Bay. On this road,\na few rods to the north from the turn in the Jericho Pike stands the\nhouse which was originally the Seaman homestead, where Elias Hicks\nlived from soon after his marriage till his death.\n\nThe house was large and commodious for its time, but has been\nremodeled, so that only part of the building now standing is as it\nwas eighty years ago. The house ends to the road, with entrance from\nthe south side. It was of the popular Long Island and New England\nconstruction, shingled from cellar wall to ridge-pole. Four rooms on\nthe east end of the house, two upstairs and two down, are practically\nas they were in the days of Elias Hicks. In one of these he had his\nparalytic stroke, and in another he passed away. The comparatively wide\nhall which runs across the house, with the exception of the stairway,\nis as it was in the time of its distinguished occupant. A new stairway\nof modern construction now occupies the opposite side of the hall from\nthe one of the older time. This hall-way, it is said, Elias Hicks loved\nto promenade, sometimes with his visitors, and here with characteristic\nwarmth of feeling he sped his parting guests, when the time for their\ndeparture came.\n\nLike the most of his neighbors, Elias Hicks was a farmer. The home\nplace probably contained about seventy-five acres, but he possessed\ndetached pieces of land, part of it in timber. Several years before\nhis death he sold forty acres of the farm to his son-in-law, Valentine\nHicks, thus considerably reducing the care which advancing years and\nincreased religious labor made advisable.\n\nJericho still retains its agricultural character more than some of\nthe other sections of neighboring Long Island. The multi-millionaire\nand the real estate exploiter have absorbed many of the old Friendly\nhomes toward the Westbury neighborhood, and are pushing their ambitious\nintent at land-grabbing down the Jericho road.\n\nIf Elias were to return and make a visit from Jericho to the meeting\nat Westbury, as he often did in his time, three or four miles away,\nhe would pass more whizzing automobiles en route than he would teams,\nand would see the landscape beautifully adorned with lawns and walks,\nwith parks and drives on the hillsides, not to mention the costly Roman\ngarden of one of Pittsburg's captains of industry. Should he so elect,\nhe could be whirled in a gasoline car in a few minutes over a distance\nwhich it probably took him the better part of an hour to make in his\nday. As he went along he could muse over snatches of Goldsmiths'\n\"Deserted Village,\" like the following, which would be approximately,\nif not literally, true:\n\n  \"Hoards, e'en beyond the miser's wish abound,\n  And rich men flock from all the world around.\n  Yet count our gains: this wealth is but a name\n  That leaves our useful products just the same.\n  And so the loss: the man of wealth and pride\n  Takes up the place that many poor supplied;\n  Space for his lake, his parks extending bounds,\n  Space for his horses, equipage and hounds,\n  The robe that wraps his limbs in silken sloth,\n  Has robbed the neighboring fields of half their growth.\"\n\nBut there are some compensations in the modern scene, and however\nemotionally sad the change, the helpfully suggestive side is not in\nlamentation over the inevitable, but in considering the growing demands\nwhich the situation makes upon the practical spiritual religion which\nElias Hicks preached, and in which his successors still profess to\nbelieve.\n\nA hundred years ago, wheat was a regular and staple farm product on\nLong Island, especially in and around Jericho, and on the Hicks farm.\nBut no wheat is raised in this section now. The farmer finds it more\nprofitable to raise the more perishable vegetables to feed the hungry\nhordes of the great city, which has crowded itself nearer and nearer to\nthe farmers' domain.\n\nLess than a quarter of a mile up the road from the Hicks home is the\nFriends' Meeting House, which Elias Hicks helped to build, if he did\nnot design it. The timbers and rafters, which were large, and are\nstill sound to the core, were hewed by hand of course. Like most of\nthe neighboring buildings, its sides were shingled, and probably the\noriginal shingles have not been replaced since the house was built,\na hundred and twenty-two years ago. The \"public gallery\" contained\nbenches sloping steeply one above the other, making the view of\nthe preacher's gallery easy from these elevated positions. Over\nthe preacher's gallery, and facing the one just described, is room\nfor a row of seats behind a railing. Whether this was a sort of a\n\"watch-tower\" from which the elders might observe the deportment of the\nyoung people in the seats opposite, or whether it was simply used for\noverflow purposes, tradition does not tell us.\n\nThe fact probably is that what is known as the Hicks property at\nJericho came to Elias by his wife Jemima. There is every reason to\nbelieve that at the time of his marriage he was a poor man, and as\nthe young folks took up their residence at the Seaman home soon after\ntheir marriage, there was no time for an accumulation of property on\nthe part of the head of the new family. The economic situation involved\nin the matter under consideration had a most important bearing on the\nreligious service of Elias Hicks. Taking the Seaman farm brought him\neconomic certainty, if not independence. It is hardly conceivable that\nhe could have given the large attention to the \"free gospel ministry\"\nwhich he did, had there been a struggle with debt and difficulty which\nwas so incidental in laying the foundations of even a moderate success\na century and a quarter ago. It is by no means to be inferred, however,\nthat Elias Hicks was ever a wealthy man, or possessed the means of\nluxury, for which of course he had no desire, and against which he\nbore a life-long testimony. The real point to be gratefully remembered\nis that he was not overburdened with the care and worry which a less\ndesirable economic condition would have enforced.\n\nIn the main, Elias Hicks saw his married children settle around him.\nRoyal Aldrich, who married his oldest daughter, had a tannery, and\nlived on the opposite side of the road not far away. Valentine Hicks,\nwho married another daughter, had a somewhat pretentious house for the\ntime, at the foot of the little hill approaching the meeting house, and\njust beyond the house of Elias, Robert Seaman, who married the youngest\ndaughter, lived only a few steps away. Joshua Willets, who married the\nthird daughter, resided on the south side of the island, some miles\ndistant. The time of scattering families, lured by business outlook and\neconomic advantage, had not yet arrived.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nThe Hicks Family.\n\n\nIn the home at Jericho the children of Elias Hicks were born. Touching\nhis family we have this bit of interesting information from Elias Hicks\nhimself:\n\n  \"My wife, although not of a very strong constitution, lived to be the\n  mother of eleven children, four sons and seven daughters. Our second\n  daughter, a very lovely promising child, died when young with the\n  small pox, and the youngest was not living at its birth. The rest\n  all arrived to years of discretion, and afforded us considerable\n  comfort, as they proved to be in a good degree dutiful children. All\n  our sons, however, were of weak constitutions, and were not able to\n  take care of themselves, being so enfeebled as not to be able to\n  walk after the ninth year of their age. The two eldest died in the\n  fifteenth year of their age, the third in his seventeenth year, and\n  the youngest was nearly nineteen when he died. But, although thus\n  helpless, the innocency of their lives, and the resigned cheerfulness\n  of their dispositions to their allotments, made the labour and toil\n  of taking care of them agreeable and pleasant; and I trust we were\n  preserved from murmuring or repining, believing the dispensation to\n  be in wisdom, and according to the will and gracious disposing of an\n  all-wise providence, for purposes best known to himself. And when I\n  have observed the great anxiety and affliction, which many parents\n  have with undutiful children who are favoured with health, especially\n  their sons, I could perceive very few whose troubles and exercises,\n  on that account, did not far exceed ours. The weakness and bodily\n  infirmity of our sons tended to keep them much out of the way of the\n  troubles and temptations of the world; and we believed that in their\n  death they were happy, and admitted into the realms of peace and joy;\n  a reflection, the most comfortable and joyous that parents can have\n  in regard to their tender offspring.\"[49]\n\n[49] Journal, p. 14.\n\nThe children thus referred to by their father were the following:\nMartha, born in 1771. She married Royal Aldrich, and died in 1862, at\nthe advanced age of ninety-one. She was a widow for about twenty years.\n\nDavid was born in 1773, and died in 1787. Elias, the second son, was\nborn in 1774, and died the same year as his brother David. Elizabeth\nwas born in 1777, and died in 1779. This is the daughter who had the\nsmall pox. There are no records telling whether the other members of\nthe family had the disease, or how this child of two years became a\nvictim of the contagion.\n\nPhebe, the third daughter, was born in 1779. She married Joshua\nWillets, as noted in the last chapter.\n\nAbigail, who married Valentine Hicks, a nephew of Elias, was born in\n1782. She died Second month 26, 1850, while her husband passed away the\n5th of Third month of the same year, just one week after the death of\nhis wife.\n\nJonathan, the third son, was born in 1784, and passed away in 1802. His\nbrother, John, was born in 1789, and died in 1805.\n\nElizabeth, evidently named for her little sister, was born in 1791,\nand lived to a good old age. She passed away in 1871. She was never\nmarried, and occasionally accompanied her father on his religious\nvisits. She was known in the neighborhood, in her later years at least,\nas \"Aunt Elizabeth,\" and is the best-remembered of any of the children\nof Elias Hicks. As the Friends remember her she was a spare woman,\nnever weighing over ninety pounds.\n\nThe youngest child of the family, Sarah, was born in 1793. She married\nRobert Seaman, her kinsman, and died in 1835. Robert, her husband, died\nin 1860.\n\nIt will be seen that the home at Jericho was a house acquainted with\ngrief. Of the ten children, Martha, David, Elias and little Elizabeth\nmade up the juvenile members of the household, up to the time of the\ndeath of the latter. Phebe came the same year, while Abigail was born\nthree years later, so that there were at least four or five children\nalways gathered around the family board. Before the passing away\nof Elias and David, the family had been increased by the birth of\nJonathan, making the children living at one time six. After the death\nof the three older boys, and the birth of Elizabeth and Sarah, until\nthe death of John in 1805, living children were still six in number.\nThe five daughters, Martha, Phebe, Abigail, Elizabeth and Sarah all\noutlived their parents.\n\nElias Hicks was undoubtedly a most affectionate father, as the\nletters to his wife and children show. How much this was diluted by\nthe apparent sternness of his religious concerns is a matter for the\nimagination to determine. What were the amusements of this large family\nis an interesting question in this \"age of the child,\" with its surfeit\nof toys and games. What were the tasks of the girls it is not so hard\nto answer. Of course they worked \"samplers,\" pieced quilts, learned to\nspin and knit, and possibly to weave, and to prepare the wool or flax\nfor the loom. If we read between the lines in the description of their\nfather, we can easily infer that the physically afflicted sons were\nnevertheless not without the joys of boyhood.\n\nAt all events, if it was an afflicted family, it was also a united\none. It was a home where the parents were reverenced by the children,\nand where there was a feeling of love, and a sense of loyalty. This\nfeeling is still characteristic of the descendants of Elias Hicks. It\nis a sample of the persistence of the qualities of a strong man, in the\ngenerations that come after him.\n\nOf the four daughters of Elias Hicks who were married, but two had\nchildren, so that the lineal descendants of the celebrated Jericho\npreacher are either descendants of Martha Hicks, wife of Valentine,\nor of Sarah Hicks Seaman. These two branches of the family are quite\nnumerous.[50]\n\n[50] The descendants referred to will be given in their proper place in\nthe Appendix.\n\nOf Jemima, the wife of Elias Hicks, little is known apart from the\ncorrespondence of her husband, and that is considerable. That he\nconsidered her his real help-meet, and had for her a lover's affection\nto the end is abundantly attested by all of the facts. Dame Rumor, in\nthe region of Jericho, claims that she was her husband's intellectual\ninferior, but that is an indefinite comparison worth very little. That\nshe was at some points his superior is undoubtedly true, and it must be\nremembered that Elias himself, with all of his great natural ability,\nlacked intellectual culture and literary training. Jemima was evidently\na good housekeeper, and manager of affairs. Before she had sons-in-law\nwith whom to advise, and even after that, the business side of the\nfamily was a considerable part of the time in her hands. It is no small\nmatter to throw upon a woman, never robust, the responsibility of both\nthe mother and father of a family during the prolonged absence of the\nhusband.\n\nThe first long religious visit of Elias Hicks lasted ten weeks. At\nthat time there were four little people in the Hicks home, from\neight-year-old Martha to two-year-old Elizabeth, who died that\nyear, while Phebe was born after the return of her father from his\nPhiladelphia trip. Several of the other extended journeys were made\nwhile the children of the family were of an age requiring care. Of\ncourse this laid labor and responsibility on the wife and mother.\nThese she bore without complaining and, we may be sure, with executive\nability of no mean order.\n\nIt was a time when women were not expected to be either the\nintellectual peers or companions of their husbands, and we cannot\njustly apply the measurements and standards of to-day, to the women of\na century ago. Men of the Elias Hicks type, meeting their fellows in\npublic assemblies and ministering to them, traveling widely and forming\nmany friendships, whether in the Society of Friends or out of it, are\nlikely to be praised, if not petted, while their wives, less known,\nlabor on unappreciated. Such a woman was Jemima Hicks. To her, and all\nlike her, the lasting gratitude of the sons of men is due.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nLetters to his Wife.\n\n\nIn the long absences from home, which the religious visits of Elias\nHicks involved, as a matter of course many of the domestic burdens fell\nheavily upon his wife. In so far as he could atone for his absence\nby sending epistles home he did so. In fact, for the times, he was a\nvoluminous letter writer.\n\nIt was not a time of rapid transit. Distances now spanned in a few\nhours demanded days and weeks when Elias Hicks was active in the\nministry. At the best, but a few letters could reach home from the\ntraveler absent for several months.\n\nIn the main the letters which Elias sent to his beloved Jemima were\nof the ardent lover-like sort. It seemed impossible, however, for\nhim to avoid the preacherly function in even his most tender and\ndomestic missives. Exhortations to practical righteousness, and to\nthe maintenance of what he considered the Friendly fundamentals, were\nplentifully mixed with his most private and personal concerns.\n\nIn going over this correspondence one wishes for more description,\nrelating to the human side of the traveler's experiences. A man who\nseveral times traversed what was really the width of habitable America,\nand mostly either in a wagon or on horseback, must have seen much that\nwas interesting, and many times humorous and even pathetic. But few of\nthese things moved Elias Hicks, or diverted him from what he considered\nthe purely gospel character of his mission.\n\nStill there is much worth while in this domestic correspondence. From\nit we compile and annotate such extracts as seem to help reveal the\ncharacter of the man who wrote them.\n\nOn the 13th of Eighth month, 1788, Elias was at Creek, now Clinton\nCorners, in Dutchess county, New York. From a letter written to his\nwife that day, we quote:\n\n  \"My heart glows at this time with much love and affection for thee\n  and our dear children, with breathing desires for your preservation,\n  and that thou, my dear, may be kept in a state of due watchfulness\n  over thyself, and those dear lambs under thy care, that nothing may\n  interrupt the current of pure love among you in my absence.\"\n\nA letter dated \"Lynn, Massachusetts, ye 24th of Eighth month, 1793,\"\nand written to his wife, is of peculiar interest. We quote the first\nsentences:\n\n  \"I received last evening, at my return to this place from the East,\n  thy very acceptable letter of the 16th instant.... The contents,\n  except the account of the pain in thy side, were truly comfortable.\n  That part wherein thou expresseth a resignation to the Divine Will,\n  was particularly satisfactory, for in this, my dear, consists our\n  chiefest happiness and consolation.\"\n\nHe sometimes expressed a sense of loneliness in his travels, but was\ncertain of the nearness of the Divine Spirit. In the letter mentioned\nabove he said:\n\n  \"Thou hast cause to believe with me, my dear, that it was He that\n  first united our hearts together in the bonds of an endeared love\n  and affection. So it is He that has kept and preserved us all our\n  life long, and hath caused us to witness an increase of that unfading\n  love, which as thou expresseth is ever new.\"\n\nEvidently his beloved Jemima, like Martha of old, was unduly troubled\nabout many things, for we find Elias in his letter indulging in the\nfollowing warning: \"And let me again hint to thee a care over thyself,\nfor I fear thou wilt expose thyself by too much bodily exercise in the\ncare of thy business.\"\n\nIt is seldom that we find even a tinge of complaining in any of his\nletters. It seems, however, that his women folks were not industrious\ncorrespondents. In closing the letter noted he thus expressed himself:\n\n  \"My companion receives his packet of letters, frequently four, five\n  or six at a time, which makes me feel as if I was forgotten by my\n  friends, having received but two small letters from home since I left\n  you. And thou writest, my dear, as if paper was scarce, on very small\n  pieces.\"\n\nOn the 3d of Ninth month, of the same year, a letter was written to his\nwife, much like the foregoing. It is interesting to note that Elias was\nat this time the guest of Moses Brown (in Providence), the founder of\nthe Moses Brown School. The small pieces of paper mentioned are hints\nof a wifely economy, not altogether approved by her very economical\nhusband. There is a gentle tinge of rebuke in the following, written\nfrom Nine Partners, Eleventh month 19, 1818. The temptation is strong\nto read into these lines, a grain of humor touching the much-talked-of\npersistence of a woman's will:\n\n  \"Inasmuch as I have often felt concerned when thus absent, least thou\n  should worry thyself, with too much care and labor in regard to our\n  temporal concerns, and have often desired thee to be careful in that\n  respect, but mostly without effect, by reason that thou art so choice\n  of thy own free agency as to be afraid to take the advice of thy\n  best friend, lest it might mar that great privilege; I therefore now\n  propose to leave thee at full liberty to use it in thine own pleasure\n  with the addition of this desire, that thou use it in that way as\n  will produce to thee the most true comfort and joy, and then I trust\n  I shall be comforted, my dear, in thy comfort, and joyful in thy joy.\"\n\nA letter dated West Jersey, near Salem, the 6th of First month, 1798,\nmentions a singular concern about apparel. He exhorts his wife to guard\nthe tender minds of their children from \"foolish and worldly vanities,\"\nand then drops into a personal and general statement regarding what he\nconsidered simplicity and plainness as follows:\n\n  \"Great is the apparent departure from primitive purity and plainness\n  among many professors of the truth, where our lots have been cast.\n  Foreseeing that I may often be led in a line of close doctrine to\n  such it has brought me under close self-examination, knowing for\n  certain that those who have to deal out to others ought to look well\n  to their own going. In this time of scrutiny nothing turned up as\n  bringing reproof to my mind concerning our children, but the manner\n  of wearing their gown sleeves long and pinned at the wrist. This I\n  found to strike at the pure life, and wounded my mind. I clearly saw\n  my deficiency that I had not more endeavored to have it done away\n  with before I left home, for I felt it as a burden then. But seeing\n  our dear daughters had manifested so much condescension in other\n  things, and this being like one of the least, I endeavored to be easy\n  under it. But feeling it with assurance not to be a plant of our\n  Heavenly Father's right-hand planting, think it ought to be plucked\n  up. Let our dear daughters read these lines, and tell them their dear\n  father prays they may wisely consider the matter, and if they can be\n  willing so far to condescend to my desire while absent as to have\n  these things removed, it will be as balsam to my wounded spirit, and\n  they will not go without their reward. But their father's God will\n  bless them and become their God, as they are faithful to his reproofs\n  in their hearts, and walk fearfully before Him. He will redeem them,\n  out of all adversity to the praise and glory of His grace, who is\n  over all, God, blessed forever.\"\n\nDuring a visit to Nine Partners, Twelfth month 15, 1803, Elias wrote\nto Jemima. Evidently she had repelled the inference, if not the\nimplication, that she had been negligent in her correspondence, for we\nfind the letter in question beginning in this fashion:\n\n  \"Although I wrote thee pretty fully last evening, yet having since\n  that received a precious, refreshing letter from thee, by Isaac\n  Frost (it being the first I have received from thee since I left\n  home), but finding from thy last that thou hast written several. It\n  affords a singular satisfaction in finding thou hast been mindful of\n  me. But I have not complained, my dear, nor let in, nor indulged a\n  thought that thou hadst forgotten me, nor do I believe thou couldst.\n  There is nothing while we continue in our right minds that can\n  dissolve that firm and precious bond of love and endeared affection,\n  which from our first acquaintance united us together, and in which,\n  while writing these lines my spirit greets thee with endeared\n  embraces.\"\n\nIt surely seems strange that a man who was the father of eleven\nchildren, that his only source of personal \"reproof\" concerning them,\nwas this little matter of the sleeves and the pins. This probably is a\nfair illustration of what may be called the conservatism of Elias Hicks\ntouching all of the peculiarities of the Society of Friends.\n\nThe postscript to a letter written to Jemima from Shrewsbury, New\nJersey, Twelfth month 17, 1797, reads as follows: \"As thou writes but\npoorly, if thou should get Hallet or Royal to write superscriptions on\nthe letters, it would make them more plain for conveyance.\"\n\nIt was only seldom that business affairs at home were referred to in\nhis epistles to his wife. But occasionally a departure was made from\nthis practice. Where these lapses do occur, it would seem that they\nshould be noted. In the fall of 1822 Elias was in the vicinity of\nPhiladelphia, and was stopping with his friend and kinsman, Edward\nHicks, at Newtown, in Bucks county.\n\nIn this letter he says: \"My health is much the same as when I left\nhome. I was disappointed in not meeting any letters here, as I feel\nvery anxious how you all do.\" We copy the balance of the letter, with\nits tender admonition to Jemima:\n\n  \"I will just remind thee that before I left home I put two old ewes\n  in the green rye on the plains. If they should improve as to be fit\n  to kill, I should be willing thou would let Josiah have one of them,\n  as he agreed to split up some of the timber that was blown down in\n  the woods by him, into rails and board himself. The other thou might\n  sell or otherwise at thy pleasure.\n\n  \"Now, my dear, let me remind thee of thy increasing bodily\n  infirmities, and the necessity it lays thee under to spare thyself of\n  the burthen and care of much bodily and mental labour and exercise,\n  by which thou will experience more quiet rest, both to body and\n  mind, and that it may be, my dear, our united care to endeavor that\n  our last days may be our best days, that so we may witness a state\n  and qualification to pass gently and quietly out of time, into the\n  mansions of eternal blessedness, where all sighing and sorrow, will\n  be at an end.\"\n\nWhile in Pennsylvania, and at what is now York, Fourth month 3, 1798,\nhe sent a tender missive home. Part of it referred to business matters.\nHe gave directions for preparing the ground, and planting potatoes, and\nalso for oats and flax, the latter being a crop practically unknown\nto present-day Long Island. He then gives the following direction\nregarding a financial obligation:\n\n  \"And as James Carhartt has a bond of sixty pounds against me, of\n  money belonging to a Dutchman, should be glad if thou hast not money\n  enough by thee to pay the interest thereof, thou would call upon\n  Royal or brother Joseph and get some, and pay it the first of Fifth\n  month.\"\n\nWhile at Rahway, New Jersey, Eleventh month 6, 1801, on his visit\nto Friends in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, he wrote one of his most\nexpressive letters to Jemima. A postscript was attached directed to\nhis daughters. To his oldest daughter, Martha, he sent an exhortation\nin which he said: \"My desires for thee, my dear, are that thou may be\npreserved innocent and chaste to the Lord, for I can have no greater\njoy than to find my children walking in the truth.\"\n\nThat a large part of his concern was for the comfort of his wife\nin the long absences from home is abundantly shown in his entire\ncorrespondence. The last postscript to the Rahway letter is as follows:\n\n  \"And, dear Phebe and Abigail, remember your Creator, who made you not\n  to spend your time in play and vanity, but to be sober and to live\n  in his fear, that he may bless you. Be obedient to your dear mother,\n  it is my charge to you. Love and help her whatever you can; it will\n  comfort your dear father.\"\n\nThe 2d of Eleventh month, 1820, Elias arrived at Hudson, and learning\nthat the steamboat to New York was to pass that day, he prepared and\nsent a letter to his wife. In this letter he says:\n\n  \"It may be that some of my friends may think me so far worth\n  noticing, as to meet me with a line or two at Nine Partners, as I\n  have often felt very desirous of hearing how you fare at home, but\n  this desire hath mostly failed of being gratified. I suppose the many\n  things so absorb the minds of my friends at home, that they have no\n  time to think of so poor a thing as I am. But never mind it, as all\n  things, it is said, will work together for good to those that love\n  and fear [God].\"\n\nWhile at Saratoga, in 1793, Elias wrote to Jemima, Tenth month 15th.\nThis is one of his most ardent epistles. \"Oh, my dear,\" he says, \"may\nwe ever keep in remembrance the day of our espousal and gladness of our\nhearts, as I believe it was a measure of the Divine Image that united\nour hearts together in the beginning. It is the same that I believe\nhas, and still doth strengthen the sweet, influential and reciprocal\nbond, that nothing, I trust, as we dwell under a sense of Divine love\nand in the pure fear, will ever be able to obliterate or deface.\"\n\nThird month 15, 1798, a letter was written from Alexandria, Va., from\nwhich we make this extract:\n\n  \"We came here this morning from Sandy Spring, which is upwards of\n  twenty miles distant. Got in timely so as to attend their meeting\n  which began at the tenth hour. Crossed the river Potomac on our way.\n  We got on horseback about break of day, and not being very well I\n  thought I felt the most fatigued before I got in, I was ever sensible\n  of before. When I came to the meeting, a poor little one it was, and\n  wherein I had to suffer silence through the meeting for worship, but\n  in their Preparative which followed, I found my way open in a measure\n  to ease my mind.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nThe Slavery Question.\n\n\nJohn Woolman was the mouth-piece of the best Quaker conscience of the\neighteenth century on the slavery question. For twenty-five years\nbefore his death, in 1772, he was pleading with the tenderness of a\nwoman that his beloved religious society should clear itself from\ncomplicity with the system which held human beings in bondage. His\nmantel apparently fell on Warner Mifflin, a young man residing in Kent\ncounty, Delaware, near the little hamlet of Camden. In 1775 Mifflin\nmanumitted his slaves, and was followed by like conduct on the part of\nhis father, Daniel Mifflin, a resident of Accomac County, in Virginia.\n\nWarner Mifflin is said to have been the first man in America to\nvoluntarily give freedom to his bondmen, and to make restitution to\nsuch of them as were past twenty-one, for the unrequited service which\nthey had rendered him. Be that as it may, from 1775, until his death\nin 1799, Warner Mifflin, with tireless zeal labored with Friends\npersonally, and with meetings in their official capacity, to drive the\nlast remnant of slavery from the Quaker fold. His efforts appeared in\nvarious monthly meeting minutes throughout Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,\nand he was not backward in laying his concern before the Yearly Meeting\nitself. In 1783, on the initiative of Mifflin, the Yearly Meeting for\nPennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Western Parts of Maryland\nand Virginia, memorialized the infant United States Congress in regard\nto slavery. The document was a striking one for the time, was signed in\nperson by 535 Friends, and was presented to the Congress by a strong\ncommittee headed by Warner Mifflin.\n\nThese efforts at internal deliverance from connection and complicity\nwith slavery produced speedy results, and before the close of the\ncentury not a Quaker slave holder remained in the Society, unless in\nsome obscure cases that continued \"under care.\" Having cleared its own\nskirts of slavery, the members of the Society became divided into two\nclasses--the one anxious that the Quaker conscience should make its\nappeal to the general conscience for the entire abolition of the \"great\niniquity.\" The other class, satisfied with their own sinlessness in\nthis particular, wished the Society to remain passive, and in no way\nmix with a public agitation of the mooted question. These two opposing\nviews distracted the Society down to the very verge of the final issue\nin the slaveholders' rebellion.\n\nElias Hicks was three years Warner Mifflin's junior. He probably saw\nthe Delaware abolitionist during his visits to Philadelphia Yearly\nMeeting before the death of Mifflin. Whether either ever saw or heard\nJohn Woolman cannot be positively stated. Mifflin was twenty-seven when\nthe great New Jersey preacher and reformer passed away, and must have\nfallen under the spell of Woolman's inspiring leadership. Elias Hicks\ncould hardly have escaped being influenced by this \"elder brother,\"\nalthough he may never have seen him.\n\nThe subject of this biography was among those who believed that the\nSociety of Friends had a message to the world along the line of its\ninternal testimony against slavery, and he did not hesitate to deliver\nthe message, though it disturbed the superficial ease in Zion. Still he\nhad no definite plan apart from the appeal to conscience for settling\nthe problem.\n\nIt must be remembered, however, that Elias Hicks passed away before\nthe real abolition movement, as represented by Garrison and Phillips\nand their compeers, had begun its vigorous agitation, or organized\nits widely applied propaganda. What the attitude of Elias would have\nbeen toward Friends becoming members of the abolition societies, which\nafter his death played such an important part, and touching which many\nFriends were either in doubt or in opposition we cannot even surmise.\n\nBenjamin Lundy[51] commenced his literary warfare against slavery, with\nthe ponderously named \"Genius of Universal Emancipation,\" in 1821.\nElias Hicks was one of Lundy's most concerned and faithful patrons, in\nsome of his undertakings,[52] as appears in his personal correspondence.\n\n[51] Benjamin Lundy was born of Quaker parents, First month 4, 1789, in\nSussex County, New Jersey. He learned the trade of harness maker and\nsaddler, and went to Ohio, where he became very much interested in the\nslavery question. In 1816 he issued an \"Address\" touching the evils of\nslavery. Of this Address, Horace Greeley says, it contained the germ\nof the whole anti-slavery movement. In First month, 1821, he issued\nthe first number of _The Genius of Universal Emancipation_. Lundy was\ninterested in various schemes for colonization, and assisted many\nemancipated negroes to go to Hayti, and contemplated the establishment\nof a colony of colored people in Mexico. He died at Lowell, Illinois,\nEighth month 22, 1839, and was buried in the Friends' burying ground at\nClear Creek.\n\n[52] Please inform Benjamin Lundy that I have procured fifty-two\nsubscribers, or subscribers for fifty-two books, entitled, \"Letters,\"\netc.--Extract from letter to his son-in-law, Valentine Hicks, dated\nJericho, Eleventh month 6, 1827.\n\nThe state of New York provided for the gradual emancipation of its\nslaves in 1799, so that Elias Hicks had to go away from home after that\nperiod to get into real slave territory. As has been seen he began\nbearing his testimony in meetings for worship against the institution\nin Maryland, where slave holding was the law of the land until the end.\n\nThere are statements more or less legendary to the effect that Elias\nwas the owner of one slave, but of that there is no authentic evidence,\nwhile the probabilities are all against it. If he ever held a slave or\nslaves, he undoubtedly manumitted them. An act of such importance would\nhardly have escaped record in the Journal, and no reference to it\nexists.\n\nThe controversies and disownments in the Society of Friends on account\nof the slavery question really came after the death of Elias. The\ntrouble in New York resulting in the disownment of Isaac T. Hopper,\nJames S. Gibbons and Charles Marriott came on more than a decade after\nhis death. This entire controversy has been wrongly estimated by\nmost of the biographers and historians, representing the pronounced\nabolitionists of the period. It was not simply a contest between\nanti-slavery Friends and pro-slavery Friends. In fact the moving\nspirits against Isaac T. Hopper were not advocates or defenders of\nslavery as an institution. George F. White, who was probably the head\nand front of the movement to disown Isaac T. Hopper, was not in favor\nof slavery. After his death his monthly meeting memorialized him, and\namong other things stated that he had for years refrained from using\ncommodities made by slave labor.\n\nThe conservative wing of the Society was opposed to Friends becoming\nidentified with any organization for any purpose outside of the\nSociety. George F. White attacked temperance organizations, as he did\nabolition societies.\n\nIt was a common inference, if not a claim, of the Garrisonian\nabolitionists, that there were no real anti-slavery men outside of\ntheir organization. In Fifth month, 1840, there was a debate involving\nthe abolition attitude of the Society of Friends in the town of\nLynn, Massachusetts. In this debate William Lloyd Garrison said of\nthe Society: \"If it were an abolition society, its efforts would be\nidentified with ours.\"[53]\n\n[53] The \"Liberator,\" May 1, 1841, p. 3.\n\nIn the same debate Oliver Johnson disputed the abolition claims of the\nSociety of Friends, saying: \"They have asserted for themselves the\nclaim of being an abolition society. But we never could get into their\nmeeting house.\"[54] Thus was the test of abolitionism made to hinge\nupon housing the Abolition Society.\n\n[54] The \"Liberator,\" May 1, 1841, p. 3.\n\nThat the attitude of the conservatives was ill-advised and\nreprehensible may be true. It is also true that this body of Friends\nwere not in favor of any effort to overthrow slavery by popular\nagitation. They held that all other Christians should do what Friends\nhad done, cease to hold slaves, and that would settle the whole\nquestion. However shortsighted this attitude may have been, very few,\nif any, of the Friends holding it, believed in holding black men in\nbondage. In fact it is pretty safe to assert that at no time after the\nSociety had freed itself from direct complicity with slavery was there\nany considerable number of strictly pro-slavery Friends in this country.\n\nIn the disownments in the Society growing out of the slavery\ncontroversy there was never a direct charge of abolitionism brought\nagainst the accused. In Kennett Monthly Meeting in Chester County,\nPa., where in about seven years thirty-four Friends were disowned, the\ncharge was that the persons had \"associated with others in forming,\nsustaining and supporting a professedly religious organization[55]\ndistinct from and not owned by Friends, and have wholly declined\nattending our religious meetings.\"[56]\n\n[55] The \"Progressive Friends.\"\n\n[56] Records of Kennett Monthly Meeting, First month 6, 1857.\n\nOf course, it is true that the Friends who took part in the Progressive\nFriends' movement were probably led to do so because the way did not\nopen for them to be aggressively anti-slavery in the parent meeting.\n\nThe colonization scheme, that is a plan to colonize emancipated negroes\neither in Africa, or in Hayti, or elsewhere, was prominently urged\nduring the time of Elias Hicks. Benjamin Lundy had a plan of this\ncharacter which he attempted to make practical. Evan Lewis,[57] of New\nYork, in 1820, was interested in an effort of this sort, and sought the\nadvice of Elias Hicks in the matter.\n\n[57] Evan Lewis, a New York Friend and business man. He corresponded\nwith King Henry, of San Domingo. Was a warm friend of Elias Hicks, and\nafter the \"separation\" wrote a pamphlet in defense of Elias.\n\nWe have not been able to find any reply to this particular letter, and\nare thus not warranted in saying whether Elias Hicks sympathized with\nsuch a scheme or not.\n\nThe attitude of Elias Hicks on the slavery question is only minutely\nreferred to in his Journal. His private correspondence gives his\nfeeling and conduct in the case, in not a few instances. From his\ngeneral disposition one would expect to find his objections to slavery\nbased entirely on moral and religious grounds. Still, evidence abounds\nthat he had also considered the economic phases of the question, as\nnote the following:\n\n  \"I may further add that from forty years of observation that in all\n  cases where opportunity has opened the way fairly to contrast the\n  subject, it has afforded indubitable evidence to my mind, that free\n  labor is cheaper and more profitable than that done by slaves.\"[58]\n\n[58] From letter written to James Cropper, of England, dated Baltimore,\nEleventh month 2, 1822.\n\nIt seems to have been laid upon him to present the claims of the truth\nas he saw it, in slave-holding communities. He makes the following\nstatement touching service of this kind in Virginia:\n\n  \"I have passed through some proving seasons since I left Baltimore,\n  in meetings where many negro masters attended, some of whom held\n  fifty, some an hundred, and some it was thought one hundred and fifty\n  of these poor people in slavery. Was led to treat on the subject in\n  divers meetings, in such a manner and so fully to expose the iniquity\n  and unrighteousness thereof, that some who had stouted[59] it out\n  hitherto against all conviction, were much humbled and brought to a\n  state of contrition, and not one individual had power to make any\n  opposition. But truth reigned triumphantly over all, to the rejoicing\n  of many hearts.\"[60]\n\n[59] \"Stouted\" seems to have been a favorite word with Elias. He\nhabitually uses it as representing an aggravated resistance to the\ntruth.\n\n[60] From letter written to his wife from Alexandria, Va., Third month\n15, 1798.\n\nElias Hicks wrote a number of articles on the slavery question, and\nsome of them were printed and publicly circulated. A letter written\nat Manchester, England, Seventh month 5, 1812, by Martha Routh, and\naddressed to Elias Hicks, says: \"I have not forgot that I am debtor to\nthee this way, for two very acceptable and instructive epistles, the\nlatter with a pamphlet setting forth the deep exercise of thy mind, and\nendeavors for the more full relief of our fellow-brethren, the African\nrace.\" This letter informs Elias that the author sent his pamphlet to\nThomas Clarkson.\n\nConsiderable was written by Elias Hicks on the slave trade, some of it\nexisting as unpublished manuscript. An article, filling four closely\nwritten pages of foolscap, is among his literary effects. A very long\nletter was written to James Cropper, of England, on the same subject.\nBoth of these documents were written while the slave-trade bill was\npending in the British Parliament. Elias considered the measure\nentirely inadequate, holding that the domestic production of slaves was\nas inhuman and abhorrent, if not more so, as their importation from\nAfrica. In the letter to Cropper this strong statement is found: \"It\nought ever to be remembered that it is one of the most necessary and\nessential duties both towards God and man, for individuals and nations\nto exert all the power and influence they are possessed of, in every\nrighteous and consistent way, to put an entire stop to all oppression,\nrobbery and murder without partiality, as it respects nations or\nindividuals.\"\n\nMany times, in his published sermons, Elias Hicks dealt with the\niniquity of slavery. Without doubt he expressed himself in like manner\nin sermons preached before interest in the man and his utterances\ncaused his sermons to be stenographically reported and published.\n\n  \"Oh! that our eyes might be opened, to see more deeply into the\n  mystery of iniquity and godliness; that we might become conversant\n  in godliness and so reject iniquity. For all this wicked oppression\n  of the African race is of the mystery of iniquity. The man of sin\n  and son of perdition does these works, and nothing else does them.\n  Justice is fallen in the streets, and in the councils of the nation.\n  How much justice there is; for they have it in their power to do\n  justice to these poor oppressed creatures, but they are waiting till\n  all their selfish notions are gratified.\"[61]\n\n[61] From sermon preached at Newtown, Pa., Twelfth month 18, 1826. The\n\"Quaker,\" Vol. 4, p. 183.\n\nElias Hicks was as strongly opposed to the lines of interest and\neconomic conduct which indirectly supported slavery as he was to the\ninstitution itself. We quote:\n\n  \"And for want of a sight of this oppression, how many there are\n  who, though they seem not willing to put their hands upon a\n  fellow creature to bind him in chains of bondage, yet they will\n  do everything to help along by purchasing the labor of those poor\n  creatures, which is like eating flesh and drinking blood of our poor\n  fellow-creatures. Is it like coming home to justice? For the thief\n  and oppressor are just alike; the one is as bad as the other.\"[62]\n\n[62] From sermon preached at Abington, Pa., Twelfth month 15, 1826. The\n\"Quaker,\" Vol. 4, p. 155.\n\nIn dealing with slavery and slaveholders, his language often bordered\non what would now be called bitterness. Here is a case in point:\n\n  \"Can slaveholders, mercenaries and hirelings, who look for their gain\n  from this quarter, can they promote the religion of Jesus Christ? No,\n  they are the cause of its reproach, for they are the cause of making\n  unbelievers.\"[63]\n\n[63] A series of extemporaneous discourses by Elias Hicks. Joseph and\nEdward Parker, p. 24.\n\nHis concern touching slavery was largely based on considerations of\njustice, and regard for the opportunity which he believed ought to be\nthe right of all men. In one of his sermons he said:\n\n  \"Thousands and tens of thousands have been forbidden the enjoyment\n  of every good thing on earth, even of common school-learning; and\n  must it still be so? God forbid it. But this would be a trifle, if\n  they had the privilege of rational beings on the earth; that liberty\n  which is the greatest of all blessings--the exercise of free agency.\n  And here we are glutting ourselves with the toils of their labor!...\n  But this noble testimony, of refusing to partake of the spoils of\n  oppression, lies with the dearly beloved young people of this day. We\n  can look for but little from the aged, who have been accustomed to\n  these things.\"[64]\n\n[64] From sermon preached in Philadelphia, Twelfth month 1, 1824.\nParker's \"Discourses by Elias Hicks,\" p. 60-61.\n\nIn the sermon \"just referred to,\" we find the following:\n\n  \"We are on a level with all the rest of God's creatures. We are not\n  better for being white than others for being black; and we have no\n  more right to oppress the blacks because they are black than they\n  have to oppress us because we are white. Therefore, every one who\n  oppresses his colored brother or sister is a tyrant upon the earth;\n  and every one who strengthens the hand of an oppressor is a tyrant\n  upon earth. They have turned from God, and have not that powerful\n  love, which does away all distinction and prejudice of education, and\n  sets upon equal grounds all those that have equal rights.\"[65]\n\n[65] The same, p. 79.\n\nOf the \"essays\" on the slavery question written by Elias Hicks, one has\nsurvived, and is bound in the volume, \"Letters of Elias Hicks.\" The\npamphlet in question, though small, like many \"ancient\" productions,\nhad a very large title, viz.: \"Observations on the Slavery of the\nAfricans and Their Descendants, and the Use of the Produce of Their\nLabor.\"[66] It was originally published in 1811, having been approved\nby the Meeting for Sufferings of New York Yearly Meeting. Nearly half\nof the \"essay\" is made up of a series of questions and answers. When\nprinted it made six leaves the size of this page. On the subject of the\nproduct of slave labor, decided ground was taken, the claim being that\nall such produce was \"prize goods.\" The reason for this claim was that\nthe slaves originally were captives, practically the victims of a war\nof capture if not conquest. Among other things the essay argues the\nrightfulness and justice of any State to pass laws abolishing slavery\nwithin its borders.\n\n[66] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 9.\n\nWhile the arguments presented in this document are of general value, it\nis probable that the pamphlet was in the main intended for circulation\namong Friends, with a view to stimulating them to such action as would\nforward the cause of freedom. This essay by Elias Hicks antedated by\nfive years the address by Benjamin Lundy, already referred to, and\nwas probably one of the first publications in the nineteenth century\nactually advocating the abolition of slavery.\n\nIn studying the slavery question it is necessary to remember that\nbefore the invention of the cotton gin, about 1793, a considerable\nbut unorganized and ineffective anti-slavery sentiment existed in the\ncountry. But after that invention, which rendered slave labor very\nremunerative, sentiment of this sort subsided so that the Friends, who,\nlike Elias Hicks, advocated abolition during the first quarter of the\nnineteenth century, were really pioneers in the attempt which resulted\nin the freedom of a race.\n\nAt one time church organizations, even in the South, especially the\nBaptists, passed resolutions favorable to the abolition of slavery.\nChurches North and South in the decade between 1780 and 1790 were well\nabreast of Friends in this particular. Touching this matter Horace\nGreeley remarked: \"But no similar declaration has been made by any\nSouthern Baptist Convention since field-hands rose to $1,000 each, and\nblack infants at birth were accounted worth $100.\"[67]\n\n[67] \"The American Conflict,\" by Horace Greeley, Vol. I, p. 120.\n\nWe could make copious extracts from the anti-slavery utterances of\nElias Hicks, but our object is simply to give the scope of his thinking\nand purpose in regard to this matter. Few men at certain points were\nmore altruistic than he, and as an altruist he could not do other\nthan oppose the great social and economic iniquity of his time. From\nhis standpoint slavery was utterly and irretrievably bad, and to bear\ntestimony constant and consistent against it was part of the high\ncalling of the Christian.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nVarious Opinions.\n\n\nElias Hicks had very definite ideas on a great many subjects. While\nin many respects he was in advance of his time, at other points he\nwas conservative. At any rate he was not in unity with some of the\nprevalent social and economic arrangements. On the question of property\nhe entertained some startling convictions. Just how much public\nexpression he gave to these views may not be positively determined.\nThat he believed that there were grave spiritual dangers involved in\ngetting and holding great wealth, is abundantly attested in his public\nutterances, but we must look to his private correspondence for some of\nhis advanced views on the property question.\n\nIn a letter addressed to \"Dear Alsop,\" dated Jericho, Fifth month 14,\n1826, he deals quite definitely with the matter of property. After\nclaiming that the early Christians wandered from the pure gospel of\nJesus after they ceased to rely on the inward teacher, he makes a\ndeclaration on the subject as follows:\n\n  \"But did we all as individuals take the spirit of truth, or light\n  within, as our only rule and guide in all things, we should all then\n  be willing, and thereby enabled, to do justly, love mercy, and walk\n  humbly with God. Then we should hold all things in common, and call\n  nothing our own, but consider all our blessings as only lent to us,\n  to be used and distributed by us in such manner and way as his holy\n  spirit, or this inward teacher, may from time to time direct. Hence\n  we should be made all equal, accountable to none but God alone, for\n  the right use or the abuse of his blessings. Then all mankind would\n  be but one community, have but one head, but one father, and the\n  saying of Jesus would be verified. We should no longer call any man\n  master, for one only has a right to be our Master, even God, and all\n  mankind become brethren. This is the kind of community that I have\n  been labouring for more than forty years to introduce mankind into,\n  that so we might all have but one head, and one instructor and he\n  (God) come to rule whose only right it is, and which would always\n  have been the case, had not man rebelled against his maker, and\n  disobeyed his salutary instruction and commands.\"\n\nTouching the \"cares and deceitfulness of riches,\" he had much to say.\nHe tells us that on a certain day he attended the meeting of ministers\nand elders in Westbury, and sat through it \"under great depression\nand poverty of spirit.\" There was evidently some confession and not\na little complaining, as there is now, regarding the possession\nand exercise of spiritual gifts on the part of Friends. But Elias\naffirmed that the \"cloud\" over the meeting was not \"in consequence of\na deficiency of ministers, as it respects their ministerial gifts, nor\nfrom a want of care in elders in watching over them; but from a much\nmore deep and melancholy cause, viz.: the love and cares of this world\nand the deceitfulness of riches; which, springing up and gaining the\nascendency in the mind, choke the good seed like the briars and thorns,\nand render it fruitless; and produce such great dearth and barrenness\nin our meetings.\"[68]\n\n[68] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 233.\n\nElias Hicks apparently believed that labor had in itself a vital\nspiritual quality. In fact he held that the famous injunction in\nGenesis \"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread\" \"was not a\npenalty, but it was a divine counsel--a counsel of perfect wisdom and\nperfect love.\"[69] It was his opinion that all oppression, slavery and\ninjustice, had their origin in the disposition of men to shirk the\nobligation to labor, thus placing burdens on their fellows, which\nthey should bear themselves.\n\n[69] Sermon preached at Abington, Pa., Twelfth month 15, 1826. The\n\"Quaker,\" p. 155.\n\nEvery exhortation touching labor he religiously followed himself. He\nrecords that at the age of sixty he labored hard in his harvest field,\nand remarks with evident pride and satisfaction as follows:\n\n  \"I found I could wield the scythe nearly as in the days of my youth.\n  It was a day of thankful and delightful contemplation. My heart\n  was filled with thankfulness and gratitude to the blessed Author\n  of my existence, in a consideration of his providential care over\n  me, in preserving me in health, and in the possession of my bodily\n  powers, the exercise of which were still affording me both profit\n  and delight; and I was doubly thankful for the continued exercise\n  of my mental faculties, not only in instructing me how to exert and\n  rightly employ my bodily powers, in the most useful and advantageous\n  manner, but also in contemplating the works of nature and Providence,\n  in the blessings and beauties of the field--a volume containing more\n  delightful and profitable instruction than all the volumes of mere\n  learning and science in the world.\n\n  \"What a vast portion of the joys and comforts of life do the idle and\n  slothful deprive themselves of, by running into cities and towns,\n  to avoid labouring in the field; not considering that this is one\n  of the principal sources that the gracious Creator of the universe\n  has appointed to his creature, man, from whence he may derive\n  great temporal happiness and delight. It also opens the largest\n  and best field of exercise to the contemplative mind, by which it\n  may be prepared to meet, when this mortal puts on immortality,\n  those immortal joys that will ever be the lot of the faithful and\n  industrious.\"[70]\n\n[70] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 185.\n\nIt will probably be disputed in our time, that those who labor and\nattempt to live in cities enjoy lives of greater ease than those who\ntill the soil.\n\nWhile Elias recognized the obligation to labor, and believed it was a\nblessed privilege, he had learned in the school of experience that an\nover-worked body and an over-worried mind tended to spiritual poverty.\nWe quote:\n\n  \"The rest of this week was spent in my ordinary vocations. My farming\n  business was very pressing, and it being difficult to procure\n  suitable assistance, my mind was overburdened with care, which\n  seldom fails of producing leanness of spirit in a lesser or greater\n  degree.\"[71]\n\n[71] Journal, p. 151.\n\nAs offset to this we quote the following:\n\n  \"What a favor it is for such an active creature as man, possessed of\n  such powers of body and mind, always to have some employment, and\n  something for those powers to act upon; for otherwise they would be\n  useless and dormant, and afford neither profit nor delight.\"[72]\n\n[72] Journal, p. 184.\n\nThe building of railroads in this country had fairly begun when Elias\nHicks passed away in 1830. Projects had been under way for some time,\nand certain Friends in Baltimore, then the center of railroad activity,\nhad become interested in the enterprise. In a letter to Deborah and\nJames P. Stabler,[73] written in New York, Sixth month 28, 1829, Elias\nexpresses himself quite freely regarding the matter. He says: \"It was a\ncause of sorrow rather than joy when last in Baltimore to find my dear\nfriend P. E. Thomas[74] so fully engaged in that troublesome business\nof the railroad,[75] as I consider his calling to be of a more noble\nand exalted nature than to enlist in such low and groveling concerns.\nFor it is a great truth that no man can serve two masters, for he\nwill either love the one, and hate the other, or hold to the one, and\ndespise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. The railroad in this\ncase I consider mammon.\"\n\n[73] Deborah Stabler was the widow of Dr. William Stabler, the latter\nbeing a brother of Edward Stabler, of Alexandria, the well-known\npreacher, and close friend of Elias Hicks. Deborah was a recorded\nminister. James P. was her son. He was chief engineer of the Baltimore\nand Susquehanna Railroad in its early construction, and was the\nfirst general superintendent and chief engineer of the Baltimore and\nOhio, and built part of the line from Baltimore to Frederick. He was\nthe author of a small pamphlet entitled, \"The Certain Evidences of\nPractical Religion,\" published in 1884. He resided at Sandy Spring, Md.\n\n[74] Philip E. Thomas, for many years sat at the head of the Baltimore\nmeeting. He was the son of Evan Thomas, of Sandy Spring, who was a\nrecorded minister. Philip E. was an importing hardware merchant, a\nmost successful business man, and the first president of the Baltimore\nand Ohio Railroad. In the construction and operation of that line of\nrailroad, he was associated with the leading business men of Baltimore.\nHe was for many years an elder of Baltimore meeting.\n\n[75] The railroad thus referred to by Elias Hicks was undoubtedly\nthe section of the Baltimore and Ohio which ran from Baltimore to\nEllicott's Mills, a distance of 15 miles. It was begun in 1828, and\nopened in Fifth month, 1830. Horses were at first used as motive power.\nThis was the first railroad built in the United States.\n\nThe following is an extract from the same letter:\n\n  \"It afforded me very pleasing sensations to be informed of dear\n  James' improvement in health, but it excited some different feeling\n  when informed that he had taken the place of Assistant Superintendent\n  of the railroad company, a business I conceive that principally\n  belongs to the men of this world, but not to the children of light,\n  whose kingdom is not of this world; for when we consider that there\n  are thousands and tens of thousands who are voluntarily enlisted in\n  works that relate to the accommodation of flesh and blood which can\n  never inherit the kingdom of heaven.\"\n\nThe objection to railroads is one of those unaccountable but\ninteresting contradictions which appear in the lives of some\nprogressive men. By a sort of irony of fate, Valentine Hicks, the\nson-in-law of Elias, a few years after the death of the latter, became\nvery much interested in the railroad business. The charter of the Long\nIsland Railroad Company was granted Fourth month 24, 1834. In this\ndocument Valentine Hicks was named one of the commissioners to secure\nthe capital stock, and appoint the first Board of Directors. While not\nthe first president of that company, he was elected president Sixth\nmonth 7, 1837, and served in that capacity until Fifth month 21, 1838.\n\nElias Hicks at points anticipated the present theory of suggestion\ntouching bodily ailment, if he did not forestall some of the ideas\nregarding mental healing, and Christian Science. Writing to his\nson-in-law, Valentine Hicks, from Easton, Pa., Eighth month 15, 1819,\nhe thus expressed himself:\n\n  \"And indeed, in a strict sense, the mind or immortal spirit of man\n  cannot be affected with disease or sickness, being endued with\n  immortal powers; therefore all its apparent weakness lies in mere\n  imagination, giving the mind a wrong bias and a wrong direction,\n  but it loses more of its real strength, as to acting and doing.\n  For instance, if at any time it admits those false surmises and\n  imaginations, and by them is led to believe that its outward\n  tabernacle is out of health and drawing towards a dissolution, and\n  not being ready and willing to part with it, although little or\n  nothing may be the disorder of the body, yet so powerfully strong is\n  the mind under the influence of these wrong surmises that there seems\n  at times to be no power in heaven or earth sufficient to arrest its\n  progress, or stop its career, until it brings on actual disease, and\n  death to the body, which, however, had its beginning principally in\n  mere imagination and surmise. Hence we see the absolute necessity\n  of thinking less about our mere bodily health, and much more about\n  the mind, for if the mind is kept in a line of right direction, as\n  it is that in which all its right health and strength consisteth, we\n  need not fear any suffering to the body. For, if while the mind is\n  under right direction, the body is permitted to fall under or into\n  a state of affliction or disease, and the mind is kept in a state\n  of due arrangement, it will prove a blessing and be sanctified to\n  us as such, and in which we shall learn by certain experience that\n  all things work together for good to those whose minds are preserved\n  under the regulating influence of the love of God, which love casteth\n  out all fear.\"\n\nElias Hicks was a firm opponent of the public school system, and\nespecially the law which supported such schools by general taxation.\nHis views regarding this matter are quite fully stated in a letter\nwritten Fifth month 24, 1820. It was written to Sylvanus Smith, and\nanswered certain inquiries which had evidently been directed to Elias\nby this Friend. His objection to public schools, however, was partly\nbased on what he considered moral and religious grounds. He said he had\nrefrained from sending his children to any schools which were not under\nthe immediate care of the Society of Friends. Observation, he said, led\nhim to believe that his \"children would receive more harm than good by\nattending schools taught by persons of no religious principles, and\namong children whose parents were of different sects, and many very\nloose and unconcerned and vulgar in their lives and conduct.\" He also\nassumed that in the public schools his children would be demoralized\n\"by the vicious conduct of many of the children, and sometimes even\nthe teachers, which would be very degrading to their morals, and\nwounding to their tender minds.\" From his standpoint Friends could not\nconsistently \"take any part in those district schools, nor receive any\npart of the bounty given by the legislature of the state for their use.\"\n\nTouching the question of parental authority and individual freedom,\nElias Hicks also had opinions prejudicial to the public schools. In the\nletter under review he said:\n\n  \"Believing the law that has established them to be arbitrary and\n  inconsistent with the liberty of conscience guaranteed by the\n  Constitution of the United States, and derogatory to right parental\n  authority; as no doubt it is the right and duty of every parent to\n  bring up and educate his children in that way he thinks is right,\n  independent of the control of any authority under heaven (so long\n  as he keeps them within the bounds of civil order). As the bringing\n  up and right education of our children is a religious duty, and\n  for which we are accountable to none but God only, therefore for\n  the magistrate to interfere therewith by coercive means is an\n  infringement upon the divine prerogative.\"\n\nThe observance of Thanksgiving Day, outside of New England, had not\nbecome a common thing in the time of Elias Hicks. Evidently about 1825,\nthe Governor of New York issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation, which\ncaused Elias to write an article. It was addressed to _The Christian\nInquirer_,[76] and bore heavily against the whole thanksgiving scheme,\nespecially when supported by the civil government. In his opinion\nwherever the magistrate recommended an observance of Thanksgiving Day,\nhe was simply playing into the hands of the ecclesiastical power. We\nquote:\n\n[76] The _Christian Inquirer_ was a weekly newspaper in New York,\nstarted in 1824. It was of pronounced liberal tendencies. A good deal\nof its space was devoted to Friends, especially during the \"separation\"\nperiod.\n\n  \"Therefore the Governor's recommendation carries the same coercion\n  and force in it, to every citizen, as the recommendation of the\n  Episcopal Bishop would to the members of his own church. In this view\n  we have the reason why the clergymen in our state call upon the civil\n  magistrate to recommend one of their superstitious ceremonies. It is\n  in order to coerce the citizens at large to a compliance with their\n  dogmas, and little by little inure them to the yoke of ecclesiastical\n  domination. I therefore conceive there is scarcely a subject that\n  comes under our notice that lies more justly open to rebuke and\n  ridicule than the thanksgiving days and fast days that are observed\n  in our country, for there is nothing to be found in the writings of\n  the New Testament to warrant such formality and superstition, and I\n  fully believe in the way they are conducted they are altogether an\n  abomination in the sight of the Lord, and tend more abundantly to\n  bring a curse upon our nation than a blessing, as they too often end\n  with many in festivity and drunkenness.\"\n\nIn closing his communication Elias says that in issuing his\nproclamation the Governor was simply \"doing a piece of drudgery\"\nfor the clergy. The following, being the last paragraph in the\ncommunication referred to, sounds very much like the statements put\nforward by the extreme secularists in our own time:\n\n  \"And has he not by recommending a religious act united the civil and\n  ecclesiastical authorities, and broken the line of partition between\n  them, so wisely established by our enlightened Constitution, which\n  in the most positive terms forbids any alliance between church and\n  state, and is the only barrier for the support of our liberty and\n  independence. For if that is broken down all is lost, and we become\n  the vassals of priestcraft, and designing men, who are reaching after\n  power by every subtle contrivance to domineer over the consciences of\n  their fellow citizens.\"\n\nIt is not at all surprising that Elias Hicks was opposed to Free\nMasonry. On this subject he expressed himself vigorously. This\nopposition was based upon the secret character of the oath, and\nespecially a solemn promise not to divulge the \"secrets of Masonry,\nbefore he knows what the secrets are.\"\n\nThe anti-masonic movement, being the outcome of the mysterious\ndisappearance of William Morgan from Batavia, New York, was at its\nheight during the last years of Elias Hicks. It was claimed that Morgan\nwas probably murdered because of a book published by him in 1826,\nexposing the secrets of Masonry. Some of the rumors connected with\nthis disappearance account for statements made by Elias Hicks in his\ncriticism of the organization.\n\nTouching the matter of exclusiveness on the part of Friends, Elias\nHicks was a conservative of the conservatives. To keep aloof from\nthings not connected with the Society he considered a virtue in itself.\nIn referring to a meeting he attended in Goshen, Pa., he said:\n\n  \"Had to caution Friends against mixing with the people in their human\n  policies, and outward forms of government; showing that, in all ages,\n  those who were called to be the Lord's people had been ruined, or\n  suffered great loss, by such associations; and manifesting clearly\n  by Scripture testimony, and other records, that our strength and\n  preservation consisted in standing alone, and not to be counted\n  among the people or nations, who were setting up party, and partial\n  interest, one against another, which is the ground of war and\n  bloodshed. These are actuated by the spirit of pride and wrath, which\n  is always opposed to the true Christian spirit, which breathes 'peace\n  on earth, and good will to all men.' Those, therefore, who are in the\n  true Christian spirit cannot use any coercive force or compulsion by\n  any means whatever; not being overcome with evil, but overcoming evil\n  with good.\"[77]\n\n[77] Journal, p. 76-77.\n\nIn the article in which he condemned Masonry, Elias Hicks spoke\nvigorously in criticism of the camp meetings held by some of the\nchurches. He called them \"night revels,\" and considered them \"a very\ngreat nuisance to civil society.\" He thought they were promoters of\n\"licentiousness, immorality and drunkenness,\" and were more or less\nreproachful to the Christian name, \"giving much occasion for infidels\nto scoff.\"\n\nWhile at Elizabeth, in New Jersey, Elias wrote a letter[78] to a young\nman named Samuel Cox. It seems that this person contemplated studying\nfor the ministry; that his grandmother was a Friend, and Elias labored\nwith the grandson on her account. He said that \"human study or human\nscience\" could not qualify a minister. In fact to suppose such a thing\nwas to cast \"the greatest possible indignity on the Divine Being, and\non the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.\" Of course it was asserted that\nministry came only by the power of the Spirit, and much Scripture was\nquoted to prove it. There is little in the writings of Elias Hicks to\nshow that he considered that equipping the natural powers was helpful\nin making the spiritual inspiration effective.\n\n[78] Letter was dated, Fifth month 12, 1813.\n\nIt is evident, however, that Elias was not indifferent to his own\nintellectual equipment. He was fond of quoting from books the things\nwhich fortified his own position. The following shows how he stored his\nmind with facts, from which he drew certain conclusions:\n\n  \"Indisposition of body prevented my attending meeting. I therefore\n  spent the day quietly at home, and in reading a portion of Mosheim's\n  Ecclesiastical History of the Fifth Century, and which is indeed\n  enough to astonish any sensible, considerate man, to think how the\n  professors of that day could be hardy enough to call themselves\n  Christians, while using every artifice that their human wisdom could\n  invent to raise themselves to power and opulence, and endeavoring to\n  crush down their opposers by almost every cruelty that power, envy\n  and malice could inflict, to the entire scandal of the Christian\n  name; and changing the pure, meek, merciful and undefiled religion\n  of Jesus into an impure, unmerciful, cruel, bloody and persecuting\n  religion. For each of those varied sects of professed Christians, in\n  their turn, as they got the power of the civil magistrate on their\n  side, would endeavor, by the sword, and severe edicts, followed\n  by banishment, to reduce and destroy all those who dissented from\n  them, although their opinions were not a whit more friendly to real,\n  genuine Christianity than the tenets of their opposers; for all were,\n  in great measure, if not entirely, adulterated and apostatized from\n  the true spirit of Christianity, which breathes peace on earth, and\n  good will to men.\"[79]\n\n[79] Journal, p. 224.\n\nElias Hicks believed that there was a sure way of determining conduct,\nwhether it was from \"one's own will,\" or whether it proceeded from the\ndivine leading. In regard to this matter, he said:\n\n  \"But the great error of the generality of professed Christians lies\n  in not making a right distinction between the works that men do in\n  their own will, and by the leadings of their own carnal wisdom, and\n  those works that the true believer does, in the will and wisdom of\n  God. For although the former, let them consist in what they will,\n  whether in prayers, or preaching, or any other devotional exercises,\n  are altogether evil; so on the contrary those of the latter, let\n  them consist in what they may, whether in ploughing, in reaping,\n  or in any handicraft labor, or in any other service, temporal or\n  spiritual, as they will in all be accompanied with the peace and\n  presence of their heavenly Father, so all they do will be righteous,\n  and will be imputed to them as such.\"[80]\n\n[80] Journal, p. 218.\n\nHis contention regarding this matter is possibly more clearly stated in\nthe following paragraph:\n\n  \"The meeting was large, wherein I had to expose the danger of\n  self-righteousness, or a trust in natural religion, or mere morality;\n  showing that it was no more than the religion of Atheists, and was\n  generally the product of pride and self-will; and, however good\n  it may appear to the natural unregenerate man, is as offensive in\n  the divine sight as those more open evils which appear so very\n  reproachful to the eyes of men. I was favored by the spirit of truth,\n  in a large, searching testimony, to the convicting and humbling many\n  hearts, and comfort of the faithful.\"[81]\n\n[81] Meeting at Uwchlan, Pa., Tenth month 22, 1798. Journal, p. 76.\n\nThis is not unlike statements often made in modern revivals, touching\nthe absolute uselessness of good works, without the operation of divine\ngrace, in bringing salvation.\n\nA broader view of goodness and its sources seems to have been taken by\nClement, of Alexandria[82] who said: \"For God is the cause of all good\nthings; but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testament; and of\nothers by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was\ngiven to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call\nthe Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring 'the Hellenic mind,'\nas the law, the Hebrews 'to Christ.'\"[83]\n\n[82] Titus Flavius Clemens, called sometimes St. Clement, and Clement\nof Alexandria in Church history, was born either at Athens or\nAlexandria about A. D. 153, and died about A. D. 220. He early embraced\nChristianity, and was among the most learned and philosophical of the\nChristian fathers.\n\n[83] \"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" Vol. II, p. 305.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nSome Points of Doctrine.\n\n\nElias Hicks had ideas of the future life, salvation, rewards and\npunishments, sometimes original, and in some respects borrowed or\nadapted from prevalent opinions. But in all conclusions reached he\nseems to have thought his own way out, and was probably unconscious\nof having been a borrower at all. He believed unfalteringly in the\nimmortality of the soul, and held that the soul of man is immortal,\nbecause it had its origin in an immortal God. Every sin committed \"is\na transgression against his immutable and unchangeable law, and is an\nimmortal sin, as it pollutes and brings death on the immortal soul\nof man, which nothing in heaven nor in the earth but God alone can\nextinguish or forgive, and this he will never do, but upon his own\nrighteous and merciful conditions, which consist in nothing more nor\nless than sincere repentance and amendment of life.\"[84]\n\n[84] From letter addressed to \"A Friend,\" name not given, written at\nJericho, Second month 22, 1828.\n\nIt will be noted that this statement was made near the close of\nhis career, and has been purposely selected because it undoubtedly\nexpressed his final judgment in the matter. In all probability the\nwords used were not meant to be taken literally, such for instance as\nthose referring to the \"death\" of the soul. There is little, if any\nreason to think that Elias Hicks believed in the annihilation of the\nsinner.\n\nTouching sin he further explained his position. Whatever God creates\nis \"immutably good.\" \"Therefore if there is any such thing as sin and\niniquity in the world, then God has neither willed it nor ordained\nit.\"[85] His position regarding this point caused him to antagonize\nand repudiate the doctrine of foreordination. From his standpoint\nthis involved the creation of evil by the Almighty, a thoroughly\npreposterous supposition. Again, he held that if God had, \"previous\nto man's creation, willed and determined all of his actions, then\ncertainly every man stands in the same state of acceptance with\nhim, and a universal salvation must take place: which I conceive\nthe favorers of foreordination would be as unwilling as myself to\nbelieve.\"[86]\n\n[85] Journal, p. 161.\n\n[86] From funeral sermon delivered in 1814. Journal, p. 161.\n\nThree years after the declaration quoted above, Elias Hicks wrote\na letter[87] to a person known as \"J. N.,\" who was a believer\nin universal salvation. In this letter he revives his idea that\nforeordination and universal salvation are twin heresies, both equally\nmischievous. This letter is very long, containing nearly 4,000 words.\nThe bulk of it deals with the theory of predestination, while some of\nit relates to the matter of sin and penalty. At one point the letter is\ncensorious, nearly borders on the dogmatic, and is scarcely kind. We\nquote:\n\n[87] Letter dated Baltimore, Tenth month, 1817.\n\n  \"Hadst thou, in thy researches after knowledge, been concerned to\n  know the first step of wisdom--the right knowledge of thyself--such\n  an humbling view of thy own insufficiency and entire ignorance\n  of the Divine Being, and all his glorious attributes, would, I\n  trust, have preserved thee from falling into thy present errors.\n  Errors great indeed, and fatal in their consequences; for if men\n  were capable of believing with confidence thy opinions, either as\n  regards the doctrine of unconditional predestination and election,\n  or the doctrine of universal salvation, both of which certainly and\n  necessarily resolve in one, who could any longer call any thing he\n  has his own? for all would fall a prey to the villains and sturdy\n  rogues of this belief. And, indeed, a belief of these opinions\n  would most assuredly make thousands more of that description than\n  there already are; as every temptation to evil, to gratify the\n  carnal desires, would be yielded to, as that which was ordained to\n  be; and of course would be considered as something agreeable to\n  God's good pleasure; and therefore not only our goods and chattels\n  would become a prey to every ruffian of this belief, but even our\n  wives and daughters would fall victims to the superior force of the\n  abandoned and profligate, as believing they could do nothing but\n  what God had ordained to be. But we are thankful in the sentiment\n  that no rational, intelligent being can possibly embrace, in full\n  faith, these inconsistent doctrines; as they are founded on nothing\n  but supposition; and supposition can never produce real belief, or a\n  faith that any rational creature can rely upon.\"[88]\n\n[88] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 28.\n\nWe make no attempt to clear up the logical connection between the\ndoctrine of foreordination and the theory of universal salvation, for\nit is by no means clear that the two necessarily belong together.\nFrom the reasoning of Elias Hicks it would seem that he considered\nsalvation a transaction which made a fixed and final condition for the\nsoul at death, whereas the Universalist theory simply provides for a\nfuture turning of all souls toward God. Surely the supposition that\nthe holding of the views of \"J. N.\" would bring the moral disorder\nand disaster outlined by his critic had not then been borne out by\nthe facts, and has not since. Neither the believers in foreordination\nor universal salvation have been shown worse than other men, or more\nsocially dangerous.\n\n\"Sin,\" he says, \"arises entirely out of the corrupt independent will\nof man; and which will is not of God's creating, but springs up and\nhas its origin in man's disobedience and transgression, by making\na wrong use of his liberty.\"[89] As the sin is of man's voluntary\ncommission, the penalty is also to be charged to the sinner, and not to\nGod. On this point Elias Hicks was clear in his reasoning and in his\nconclusions:\n\n[89] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 30.\n\n  \"Hence those who make their election to good, and choose to follow\n  the teachings of the inward law of the spirit of God, are of course\n  leavened into the true nature of God, and consequently into the\n  happiness of God. For nothing but that which is of the nature of God\n  can enjoy the happiness of God. But he who makes his election, or\n  choice, to turn away from God's law and spirit, and govern himself\n  or is governed by his own will and spirit, becomes a corrupt tree\n  and although the same justice, wisdom, power, mercy and love are\n  dispensed to this man as to the other, yet by his contrary nature,\n  which has become fleshly, by following his fleshly inclinations, he\n  brings forth corrupt fruit.\"[90]\n\n[90] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 33.\n\nManifestly the idea that the Almighty punishes men for his own glory\nhad no place in the thinking of the Jericho preacher.\n\nThe theory of sin and penalty held by Elias Hicks necessarily led him\nto hold opinions regarding rewards and punishments, and the place\nand manner of their application, at variance with commonly accepted\nnotions. In fact, the apparent irregularity of his thinking in this\nparticular was one of the causes of concern on his behalf on the part\nof his captious critics and some of his friends. One of the latter had\nevidently written him regarding this matter, and his reply is before\nus.[91] From it we quote:\n\n[91] Letter dated Jericho, Third month 14, 1808.\n\n  \"As to the subject relative to heaven and hell, I suppose what gave\n  rise to that part of my communication (although I have now forgotten\n  the particulars) was a concern that at that time as well as many\n  other times has sorrowfully impressed my mind, in observing the\n  great ignorance and carnality that was not only prevailing among\n  mankind at large, but more especially in finding it to be the\n  case with many professing with us in relation to those things. An\n  ignorance and carnality that, in my opinion, has been one great\n  cause of the prevailing Atheism and Deism that now abounds among\n  the children of men. For what reason or argument could a professed\n  Christian bring forward to convince an Atheist or Deist that there is\n  such a place as heaven as described and circumscribed in some certain\n  limits and place in some distant and unknown region as is the carnal\n  idea of too many professing Christianity, and even of many, I fear,\n  of us? Or such a place as hell, or a gulf located in some interior\n  part of this little terraqueous globe? But when the Christian brings\n  forward to the Atheist or Deist reasons and arguments founded on\n  indubitable certainty, things that he knows in his own experience\n  every day through the powerful evidence of the divine law-giver in\n  his own heart, he cannot fail of yielding his assent, for he feels as\n  he goes on in unbelief and hardness of heart he is plunging himself\n  every day deeper and deeper into that place of torment, and let him\n  go whithersoever he will, his hell goes with him. He can no more\n  be rid of it than he can be rid of himself. And although he flies\n  to the rocks and mountains to fall on him, to deliver him from his\n  tremendous condition, yet he finds all is in vain, for where God is,\n  there hell is always to the sinner; according to that true saying of\n  our dear Lord, 'this is the condemnation of the world that light is\n  come into the world, but men love darkness rather than the light,\n  because their deeds are evil.' Now God, or Christ (who are one in\n  a spiritual sense), is this light that continually condemns the\n  transgressor. Therefore, where God or Christ is, there is hell always\n  to the sinner, and God, according to Scripture and the everyday\n  experience of every rational creature, is everywhere present, for he\n  fills all things, and by him all things consist. And as the sinner\n  finds in himself and knows in his own experience that there is a\n  hell, and one that he cannot possibly escape while he remains a\n  sinner, so likewise the righteous know, and that by experience, that\n  there is a heaven, but they know of none above the outward clouds\n  and outward atmosphere. They have no experience of any such, but\n  they know a heaven where God dwells, and know a sitting with him at\n  seasons in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.\"\n\nIt will be remembered that Elias based salvation on repentance and\namendment of life, but the bulk of his expression would seem to\nindicate that he held to the idea that repentance must come during this\nlife. In fact, an early remark of his gives clear warrant for this\nconclusion.[92] He does not seem to have ever adopted the theory that\ncontinuity of life carried with it continuation of opportunity touching\nrepentance and restoration of the soul.\n\n[92] See page 23 of this book.\n\nFrom the twentieth century standpoint views like the foregoing would\nscarcely cause a ripple of protest in any well-informed religious\ncircles. But eighty years ago the case was different. A material place\nfor excessively material punishment of the soul, on account of moral\nsin and spiritual turpitude, was essential to orthodox standing in\npractically every branch of the Christian church, with possibly two or\nthree exceptions. Elias Hicks practically admits that in the Society\nof Friends not a few persons held to the gross and materialistic\nconceptions which he criticised and repudiated.\n\nThe question of personal immortality was more than once submitted to\nhim for consideration. After certain Friends began to pick flaws with\nhis ideas and theories, he was charged with being a doubter regarding\nnearly all the common Christian affirmations, immortality included.\nThere was little reason for misunderstanding or misrepresenting him\nin this particular, for, however he failed to make himself understood\ntouching other points of doctrine, he was perfectly clear on this\npoint. In a letter to Charles Stokes, of Rancocas, N. J., written\nFourth month 3, 1829, he said:\n\n  \"Can it be possibly necessary for me to add anything further, to\n  manifest my full and entire belief of the immortality of the soul of\n  man? Surely, what an ignorant creature must that man be that hath\n  not come to the clear and full knowledge of that in himself. Does not\n  every man feel a desire fixed in his very nature after happiness,\n  that urges him on in a steady pursuit after something to satisfy\n  this desire, and does he not find that all the riches and honor\n  and glory of this world, together with every thing that is mortal,\n  falls infinitely short of satisfying this desire? which proves it to\n  be immortal; and can any thing, or being, that is not immortal in\n  itself, receive the impress of an immortal desire upon it? Surely\n  not. Therefore, this immortal desire of the soul of man never can\n  be fully satisfied until it comes to be established in a state of\n  immortality and eternal life, beyond the grave.\"[93]\n\n[93] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 218.\n\nThere are not many direct references to immortality in the published\nsermons, although inferences in that direction are numerous. In a\nsermon at Darby, Pa., Twelfth month 7, 1826, he declared: \"We see\nthen that the great business of our lives is 'to lay up treasure in\nheaven.'\"[94] In this case and others like it he evidently means\ntreasure in the spiritual world. In his discourses he frequently\nreferred to \"our immortal souls\" in a way to leave no doubt as to his\nbelief in a continuity of life. His reference to the death of his young\nsons leave no room for doubt in the matter.[95]\n\n[94] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. IV, p. 127.\n\n[95] See page 61 of this book.\n\nIn speaking of the death of his wife, both in his Journal and in his\nprivate correspondence, his references all point to the future life.\n\"Her precious spirit,\" he said, \"I trust and believe has landed safely\non the angelic shore.\" Again, \"being preserved together fifty-eight\nyears in one unbroken bond of endeared affection, which seemed if\npossible to increase with time to the last moment of her life; and\nwhich neither time nor distance can lessen or dissolve; but in the\nspiritual relation I trust it will endure forever.\"[96]\n\n[96] Journal, p. 425.\n\nDuring the last ten years of the life of Elias Hicks he was simply\noverburdened answering questions and explaining his position touching\na multitude of views charged against him by his critics and defamers.\nAmong the matters thus brought to his attention was the miraculous\nconception of Jesus, and the various beliefs growing out of that\ndoctrine. In an undated manuscript found among his papers and letters,\nand manifestly not belonging to a date earlier than 1826 or 1827, he\npretty clearly states his theory touching this delicate subject. In\nthis document he is more definite than he is in some of his published\nstatements relating to the same matter. He asserts that there is a\ndifference between \"begetting and creating.\" He scouts as revolting the\nconception that the Almighty begat Jesus, as is the case in the animal\nfunction of procreation. On the other hand, he said: \"But, as in the\nbeginning of creation, he spake the word and it was done, so by his\nalmighty power he spake the word and by it created the seed of man in\nthe fleshly womb of Mary.\" In other words, the miraculous conception\nwas a creation and not the act of begetting.\n\nIn his correspondence he repeatedly asserted that he had believed in\nthe miraculous conception from his youth up. To Thomas Willis, who was\none of his earliest accusers, he said that \"although there appeared\nto me as much, or more, letter testimony in the account of the four\nEvangelists against as for the support of that miracle, yet it had\nnot altered my belief therein.\"[97] It has to be admitted that the\nmiraculous conception held by Elias Hicks was scarcely the doctrine of\nthe creeds, or that held by evangelical Christians in the early part\nof the nineteenth century. His theory may be more rational than the\npopular conception and may be equally miraculous, but it was not the\nsame proposition.\n\n[97] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 179.\n\nWhether Elias considered this a distinction without a difference we\nknow not, but it is very certain that he did not consider the miracle\nor the dogma growing out of it a vital matter. He declared that a\n\"belief therein was not an essential to salvation.\"[98] His reason\nfor this opinion was that \"whatever is essential to the salvation of\nthe souls of men is dispensed by a common creator to every rational\ncreature under heaven.\"[99] No hint of a miraculous conception, he\nheld, had been revealed to the souls of men.\n\n[98] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 178.\n\n[99] \"Letters of Elias Hicks,\" p. 178.\n\nIt is possible that in the minds of the ultra Orthodox, to deny the\nsaving value of a belief in the miraculous conception, although\nadmitting it as a fact, or recasting it as a theory, was a more\nreprehensible act of heresy than denying the dogma entirely. Manifestly\nElias Hicks was altogether too original in his thinking to secure his\nown peace and comfort in the world of nineteenth-century theology.\n\nWhen we consider the theory of the divinity of Christ, and the theory\nof the incarnation, we find Elias Hicks taking the affirmative side,\nbut even here it is questionable if he was affirming the popular\nconception. Touching these matters he put himself definitely on record\nin 1827 in a letter written to an unnamed Friend. In this letter he\nsays:\n\n  \"As to the divinity of Christ, the son of the virgin--when he had\n  arrived to a full state of sonship in the spiritual generation, he\n  was wholly swallowed up into the divinity of his heavenly Father,\n  and was one with his Father, with only this difference: his Father's\n  divinity was underived, being self-existent, but the son's divinity\n  was altogether derived from the Father; for otherwise he could not\n  be the son of God, as in the moral relation, to be a son of man,\n  the son must be begotten by one father, and he must be in the same\n  nature, spirit and likeness of his father, so as to say, I and my\n  father are one in all those respects. But this was not the case with\n  Jesus in the spiritual relation, until he had gone through the last\n  institute of the law dispensation, viz., John's watery baptism, and\n  had received additional power from on high, by the descending of\n  the holy ghost upon him, as he came up out of the water. He then\n  witnessed the fulness of the second birth, being now born into the\n  nature, spirit and likeness of the heavenly Father, and God gave\n  witness of it to John, saying, 'This is my beloved son, in whom I\n  am well pleased.' And this agrees with Paul's testimony, where he\n  assures us that as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the\n  sons of God.\"[100]\n\n[100] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. IV, p. 284.\n\nJust as he repudiated material localized places of reward and\npunishment, Elias Hicks disputed the presence in the world of a\npersonal evil spirit, roaming around seeking whom he might ensnare and\ndevour. In fact, in his theology there was no tinge of the Persian\ndualism. Satan, from his standpoint, had no existence outside man. He\nwas simply a figure to illustrate the evil propensity in men. In the\nestimation of the ultra Orthodox to claim that there was no personal\ndevil, who tempted our first parents in Eden, was second only in point\nof heresy to denying the existence of God himself--the two persons\nboth being essential parts in the theological system to which they\ntenaciously held.\n\nTouching this matter he thus expressed himself: \"And as to what is\ncalled a devil or satan, it is something within us, that tempts us to\ngo counter to the commands of God, and our duty to him and our fellow\ncreatures; and the Scriptures tell us there are many of them, and that\nJesus cast seven out of one woman.\"[101]\n\n[101] From letter to Charles Stokes, Fourth month 3, 1829. \"Letters of\nElias Hicks,\" p. 217.\n\nHe was charged with being a Deist, and an infidel of the Thomas Paine\nstripe, yet from his own standpoint there was no shadow of truth in any\nof these charges. His references to Atheism and Deism already cited in\nthese pages afford evidence on this point. In 1798 he was at Gap in\nPennsylvania, and in referring to his experience there he said:\n\n  \"Whilst in this neighborhood my mind was brought into a state of\n  deep exercise and travail, from a sense of the great turning away\n  of many of us, from the law and the testimony, and the prevailing\n  of a spirit of great infidelity and deism among the people, and\n  darkness spreading over the minds of many as a thick veil. It was a\n  time in which Thomas Paine's Age of Reason (falsely so called) was\n  much attended to in those parts; and some, who were members in our\n  Society, as I was informed, were captivated by his dark insinuating\n  address, and were ready almost to make shipwreck of faith and a good\n  conscience. Under a sense thereof my spirit was deeply humbled before\n  the majesty of heaven, and in the anguish of my soul I said, 'spare\n  thy people, O Lord, and give not thy heritage to reproach,' and\n  suffer not thy truth to fall in the streets.\"[102]\n\n[102] Journal, p. 70.\n\nTouching his supposed Unitarianism, there are no direct references to\nthat theory in his published works. A letter written by Elias Hicks\nto William B. Irish,[103] Second month 11, 1821, is about the only\nreference to the matter. In this letter he says:\n\n[103] William B. Irish lived in Pittsburg, and was a disciple of Elias\nHicks, as he confessed to his spiritual profit. In a letter written\nto Elias from Philadelphia, Eleventh month 21, 1823, he said: \"I tell\nyou, you are the first man that ever put my mind in search of heavenly\nfood.\" Whether he ever united with the Society we are not informed,\nalthough Elias expressed the hope that he might see his way clear to do\nso.\n\n  \"In regard to the Unitarian doctrine, I am too much a stranger to\n  their general tenets to give a decided sentiment, but according to\n  the definition given of them by Dyche in his dictionary, I think it\n  is more consistent and rational than the doctrine of the trinity,\n  which I think fairly makes out three Gods. But as I have lately\n  spent some time in perusing the ancient history of the church, in\n  which I find that Trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, Nestorians and\n  a number of other sects that sprung up in the night of apostacy, as\n  each got into power they cruelly persecuted each other, by which\n  they evidenced that they had all apostatized from the primitive\n  faith and practice, and the genuine spirit of Christianity, hence\n  I conceive there is no safety in joining with any of those sects,\n  as their leaders I believe are generally each looking to their own\n  quarter for gain. Therefore our safety consists in standing alone\n  (waiting at Jerusalem) that is in a quiet retired state, similar to\n  the disciples formerly, until we receive power from on high, or until\n  by the opening of that divine spirit (or comforter, a manifestation\n  of which is given to every man and woman to profit withal) we are led\n  into the knowledge of the truth agreeably to the doctrine of Jesus to\n  his disciples.\"\n\nIn regard to the death and resurrection of Jesus, Elias Hicks\nconsidered himself logically and scripturally sound, although his\nideas may not have squared with any prevalent theological doctrines.\nIn reply to the query, \"By what means did Jesus suffer?\" he answered\nunhesitatingly, \"By the hands of wicked men.\" A second query was to the\neffect, \"Did God send him into the world purposely to suffer death?\"\nHere is the answer:\n\n  \"By no means: but to live a righteous and godly life (which was\n  the design and end of God's creating man in the beginning), and\n  thereby be a perfect example to such of mankind as should come to\n  the knowledge of him and of his perfect life. For if it was the\n  purpose and will of God that he should die by the hands of wicked\n  men, then the Jews, by crucifying him, would have done God's will,\n  and of course would all have stood justified in his sight, which\n  could not be.\" ... \"But the shedding of his blood by the wicked\n  scribes and Pharisees, and people of Israel, had a particular effect\n  on the Jewish nation, as by this the topstone and worst of all their\n  crimes, was filled up the measure of their iniquities, and which put\n  an end to that dispensation, together with its law and covenant.\n  That as John's baptism summed up in one, all the previous water\n  baptisms of that dispensation, and put an end to them, which he\n  sealed with his blood, so this sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ,\n  summed up in one all the outward atoning sacrifices of the shadowy\n  dispensation and put an end to them all, thereby abolishing the law\n  having previously fulfilled all its righteousness, and, as saith the\n  apostle, 'He blotted out the handwriting of ordinances, nailing them\n  to his cross;' having put an end to the law that commanded them,\n  with all its legal sins, and abolished all its legal penalties, so\n  that all the Israelites that believed on him after he exclaimed on\n  the cross 'It is finished,' might abstain from all the rituals of\n  their law, such as circumcision, water baptisms, outward sacrifices,\n  Seventh-day Sabbaths, and all their other holy days, etc.\"[104]\n\n[104] All of the extracts above are from a letter to Dr. Nathan\nShoemaker, of Philadelphia, written Third month 31, 1823. See \"Foster's\nReport,\" pp. 422-23.\n\nContinuing, he says: \"Now all this life, power and will of man, must\nbe slain and die on the cross spiritually, as Jesus died on the cross\noutwardly, and this is the true atonement, of which that outward\natonement was a clear and full type.\" For the scriptural proof of\nhis contention he quotes Romans VI, 3:4. He claimed that the baptism\nreferred to by Paul was spiritual, and the newness of life to follow\nmust also be spiritual.\n\nThe resurrection was also spiritualized, and given an internal, rather\nthan an external, significance. Its intent was to awaken in \"the\nbeliever a belief in the sufficiency of an invisible power, that was\nable to do any thing and every thing that is consistent with justice,\nmercy and truth, and that would conduce to the exaltation and good of\nhis creature man.\"\n\n  \"Therefore the resurrection of the dead body of Jesus that could not\n  possibly of itself create in itself a power to loose the bonds of\n  death, and which must consequently have been the work of an invisible\n  power, points to and is a shadow of the resurrection of the soul that\n  is dead in trespasses and sins, and that hath no capacity to quicken\n  itself, but depends wholly on the renewed influence and quickening\n  power of the spirit of God. For a soul dead in trespasses and sins\n  can no more raise a desire of itself for a renewed quickening of\n  the divine life in itself than a dead body can raise a desire of\n  itself for a renewal of natural life; but both equally depend on the\n  omnipotent presiding power of the spirit of God, as is clearly set\n  forth by the prophet under the similitude of the resurrection of dry\n  bones.\" Ezekiel, 37:1.[105]\n\n  [105] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. IV, p. 286. Letter of Elias Hicks to an\nunknown friend.\n\n  \"Hence the resurrection of the outward fleshly body of Jesus and some\n  few others under the law dispensation, as manifested to the external\n  senses of man, gives full evidence as a shadow, pointing to the\n  sufficiency of the divine invisible power of God to raise the soul\n  from a state of spiritual death into newness of life and into the\n  enjoyment of the spiritual substance of all the previous shadows of\n  the law state. And by the arising of this Sun of Righteousness in the\n  soul all shadows flee away and come to an end, and the soul presses\n  forward, under its divine influence, into that that is within the\n  veil, where our forerunner, even Jesus, has entered for us, showing\n  us the way into the holiest of holies.\"[106]\n\n[106] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. IV, pp. 286-287. Letter of Elias Hicks to an\nunknown friend.\n\nWe have endeavored to give such a view of the doctrinal points covered\nas will give a fair idea of what Elias Hicks believed. Whether they\nwere unsound opinions, such as should have disrupted the Society of\nFriends, and nearly shipwreck it on a sea of bitterness, we leave for\nthe reader to decide. It should be stated, however, that the opinions\nherein set forth did not, by any means, constitute the subject matter\nof all, or possibly a considerable portion of the sermons he preached.\nThere is room for the inquiry in our time whether a large amount of\ndoctrinal opinion presented in our meetings for worship, even though it\nbe of the kind in which the majority apparently believe, would not have\na dividing and scattering effect.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nBefore the Division.\n\n\nNo biography of Elias Hicks could be even approximately adequate which\nignored the division in the Society of Friends in 1827-1828, commonly,\nbut erroneously, called \"the separation.\" While his part in the trouble\nhas been greatly exaggerated, inasmuch as he was made the storm-center\nof the controversy by his opponents, to consider the causes and\ninfluences which led to the difficulty, especially as they were either\nrightly or wrongly made to apply to Elias Hicks, is vital to a study of\nhis life, and an appreciation of his labors.\n\nWe shall not be able to understand the matter at all, unless we can in\na measure take ourselves back to the first quarter of the nineteenth\ncentury, and as far as possible appreciate the thought and life of that\ntime. We must remember that a system of dogmatic theology, unqualified\nand untempered by any of the findings of modern scholarship, was the\ncentral and dominating influence in the religious world. Authority\nof some sort was the source of religious belief, and uniformity of\ndoctrine the basis of religious fellowship.\n\nThe aftermath of the French Revolution appeared in a period of\nreligious negation. Destructive, rather than constructive criticism was\nthe ruling passion of the unchurched world. The conservative mind was\nburdened with apprehension, and the fear of a chaos of faith possessed\nthe minds of the preachers, the theologians and the communicants of the\nso-called Orthodox Christian churches. The Unitarian uprising in New\nEngland had hopelessly divided the historic church of the Puritans,\nand the conservative Friends saw in every advance in thought the\nbreaking up of what they considered the foundations of religion, and\nfear possessed them accordingly.\n\nBut more important than this is the fact that Friends had largely lost\nthe historic perspective, touching their own origin. They had forgotten\nthat their foundations were laid in a revolt against a prevalent\ntheology, and the evil of external authority in religion. From being\npersecuted they had grown popular and prosperous. They therefore\nshrank from change in Zion, and from the opposition and ostracism\nwhich always had been the fate of those who broke with approved and\nestablished religious standards. Without doubt they honored the heroism\nand respected the sacrifices of the fathers as the \"first spreaders\nof truth.\" But they had neither the temper nor the taste to be alike\nheroic, in making Quakerism a progressive spirit, rather than a final\nrefuge of a traditional religion.\n\nAn effort was made by the opponents of Elias Hicks to make it appear\nthat what they were pleased to call his \"unsoundness in doctrine,\"\ncame late in life, and somewhat suddenly. But for this claim there is\nlittle if any valid evidence. His preaching probably underwent little\nvital change throughout his entire ministry. Turner, the English\nhistorian, says: \"But the facts remain that until near the close of his\nlong life Hicks was in general esteem, that there is no sign anywhere\nin his writings of a change of opinions, or new departure in his\nteaching.\"[107]\n\n[107] \"The Quakers,\" Frederick Storrs Turner, p. 293.\n\nThere is unpublished correspondence which confirms the opinion of\nTurner. This is true touching what might be called his theological as\nwell as his sociological notions.\n\nIn a letter written to Elias Hicks in 1805, by James Mott, Sr.,[108]\nreference is made to Elias having denied the absolutely saving\ncharacter of the Scriptures. In this connection the letter remarks:\n\"I conceive it is no matter how highly people value the Scriptures,\nprovided they can only be convinced that the spirit that gave them\nforth is superior to them, and to be their rule and guide instead of\nthem.\"\n\n[108] This James Mott was the father of Anne, who married Adam, the\nfather of James, the husband of Lucretia. James Mott, Sr. died in 1823.\n\nIn 1806, in a sermon at Nine Partners, in Dutchess County, New York,\nas reported by himself, he declared that men can only by \"faithful\nattention and adherence to the aforesaid divine principle, the light\nwithin, come to know and believe the certainty of those excellent\nScripture doctrines, of the coming, life, righteous works, sufferings,\ndeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ our blessed pattern; and that\n_it is by obedience to this inward light only_ that we are prepared for\nadmittance into the heavenly kingdom.\"[109]\n\n[109] Journal, p. 122.\n\nIt seems, however, that Stephen Grellet,[110] if we may take the\nauthority of his biographers, Hodgson[111] and Guest,[112] as early\nas 1808, was fearful of the orthodoxy of Elias Hicks, and probably\nbased his fear on extracts like the passage cited above. Whatever may\nbe imagined to the contrary, it is pretty certain that at no time for\nforty years before his death did Elias Hicks preach doctrine that\nwould have been satisfactory to the orthodox theologians of his time,\nalthough he did not always antagonize the dogmas of the churches.\n\n[110] Stephen Grellet, born in Limoges, France, Eleventh month 2,\n1773. A scion of the French nobility. Became interested in the Society\nof Friends when about twenty years of age. Came to America in 1795,\nand was recorded a minister in Philadelphia, in 1798. Became a New\nYork business man in 1799. Made extensive religious visits in various\ncountries in Europe, and in many American states. Was also active in\nphilanthropic work. He died at Burlington, N. J., in 1855. In his\ntheology he was entirely evangelical.\n\n[111] \"Life of Stephen Grellet,\" Hodgson, p. 142.\n\n[112] \"Stephen Grellet,\" by William Guest, p. 73.\n\nIf Stephen Grellet ever had any personal interview with Elias Hicks\nregarding his \"unsoundness,\" the matter was ignored by the latter. In\nEighth month, 1808, some months after it is claimed the discovery was\nmade by Grellet, the two men, with other Friends, were on a religious\nvisit in parts of New England. In a letter to his wife, dated Danby,\nVt., Eighth month 26, 1808, Elias says: \"Stephen Grellet, Gideon\nSeaman, Esther Griffin and Ann Mott we left yesterday morning at a town\ncalled Middlebury, about eighteen miles short of this place, Stephen\nfeeling a concern to appoint a meeting among the town's people of that\nplace.\" Evidently no very great barrier existed between the two men at\nthat time.\n\nIn any event no disposition seemed to exist to inaugurate a theological\ncontroversy in the Society of Friends, or to erect a standard of\nfellowship other than spiritual unity, until a decade after the claimed\nconcern of Stephen Grellet. It appears that in 1818, Phebe Willis, wife\nof Thomas Willis, a recorded minister of Jericho Monthly Meeting, had a\nwritten communication with Elias, touching his doctrinal \"soundness,\"\nPhebe being an elder. That the opposition began in Jericho, and that it\nwas confined to the Willis family and one other in that meeting, seems\nto be a fairly well attested fact. In 1829, after the division in the\nSociety had been accomplished, Elias Hicks wrote a letter to a friend\ngiving a short history of the beginning of the trouble in Jericho, from\nwhich we make the following extract:\n\n  \"The beginning of the rupture in our yearly meeting had its rise\n  in our particular monthly meeting, and I have full evidence before\n  me of both its rise and progress. The first shadow of complaint\n  against me as to my doctrines was made by Thomas Willis, a member and\n  minister of our own preparative meeting. He manifested his first\n  uneasiness at the close of one of our own meetings nearly in these\n  words, between him and myself alone. 'That he apprehended that I,\n  in my public communication, lowered down the character of Jesus and\n  the Scriptures of truth.' My reply to him was that I had placed them\n  both upon the very foundation they each had placed themselves, and\n  that I dare not place them any higher or lower. At the same time the\n  whole monthly meeting, except he and his wife, as far as I knew, were\n  in full unity with me, both as to my ministry and otherwise, but as\n  they were both members of the meeting of ministers and elders they\n  made the first public disclosure of their uneasiness. Thomas had an\n  ancient mother, likewise a minister, that lived in the house with\n  them; they so far overcame her better judgment as to induce her to\n  take a part with them, although she was a very amiable and useful\n  member, and one that I had always a great esteem for, and we had been\n  nearly united together in gospel fellowship, both in public meetings\n  and those for discipline, for forty years and upward.\"[113]\n\n[113] Letter to Johnson Legg, dated Jericho, Twelfth month 15, 1829.\n\nThe meeting, through a judicious committee, tried to quiet the fears\nof Thomas Willis and wife, and bring them in unity with the vastly\nmajor portion of the meeting, but without success. These Friends being\npersistent in their opposition, they were suspended from the meeting of\nministers and elders, but were permitted to retain their membership in\nthe Society.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nFirst Trouble in Philadelphia.\n\n\nTransferring the story of the opposition to the ministry of Elias Hicks\nto Philadelphia, it would appear that its first public manifestation\noccurred in 1819. During this year he made his fifth somewhat extended\nreligious visit to the meetings within the bounds of Philadelphia\nYearly Meeting. Elias was attending the monthly meeting then held\nin the Pine Street meeting-house, and obtained liberty to visit the\nwomen's meeting. While absent on this concern, the men's meeting did\nthe unprecedented thing of adjourning, the breaking up of the meeting\nbeing accomplished by a few influential members. For a co-ordinate\nbranch of a meeting for discipline to close while service was being\nperformed in the allied branch in accord with regular procedure was\nconsidered irregular, if not unwarranted. The real inspiring cause for\nthis conduct has been stated as follows by a contemporary writer:\n\n  \"An influential member of this meeting who had abstained from the\n  produce of slave labor came to the conclusion that this action was\n  the result of his own will. He therefore became very sensitive and\n  irritable touching references to the slavery question, and very\n  bitter against the testimony of Elias Hicks. It is believed that this\n  was one of the causes which led to the affront of Elias Hicks in the\n  Pine Street Meeting aforesaid.\"[114]\n\n[114] \"A review of the general and particular causes which have\nproduced the late disorders and divisions in the Yearly Meeting of\nFriends, held in Philadelphia,\" James Cockburn, 1829, p. 60.\n\nIt was claimed in the famous New Jersey chancery case[115] by the\nOrthodox Friends, that there was precedent for adjourning a meeting\nwhile a visiting minister in proper order was performing service in a\nco-ordinate branch of the Society. Be that as it may, the weight of\nevidence warrants the conclusion that the incident at Pine Street was\nintended as an affront to Elias Hicks. The conservative elements in\nPhiladelphia had evidently made up their minds that the time had come\nto visit their displeasure upon the Long Island preacher.\n\n[115] Foster's report, many times referred to in these pages, is a\ntwo-volume work, containing the evidence and the exhibits in a case in\nthe New Jersey Court of Chancery. The examinations began Sixth month\n2, 1830, in Camden, N. J., before J. J. Foster, Master and Examiner in\nChancery, and continued from time to time, closing Fourth month 13,\n1831. The case was brought to determine who should possess the school\nfund, of the Friends' School, at Crosswick, N. J. The decision awarded\nthe fund to the Orthodox.\n\nThe incident referred to above must have occurred in the latter part\nof Tenth month. Elias says in his Journal, after mentioning his\narrival in Philadelphia: \"We were at two of their monthly meetings and\ntheir quarterly meeting.\"[116] He makes no mention of the unpleasant\noccurrence.\n\n[116] Journal, p. 382.\n\nThere seems to have been no further appearance of trouble in the\nlatitude of Philadelphia until Eighth month, 1822. This time opposition\nappeared in what was evidently an irregular gathering of part of the\nMeeting for Sufferings. At this meeting Jonathan Evans is reported to\nhave said: \"I understand that Elias Hicks is coming on here on his way\nto Baltimore Yearly Meeting. Friends know that he preaches doctrines\ncontrary to the doctrines of our Society; that he has given uneasiness\nto his friends at home, and they can't stop him, and unless we can stop\nhim here he must go on.\"[117] This statement was only partially true,\nto say the most possible for it. But a small minority of Elias' home\nmeeting were in any way \"uneasy\" about him, whatever may have been the\ncharacter of his preaching. It stands to reason that had there been a\ngeneral and united opposition to the ministry of Elias Hicks in his\nmonthly meeting or in the New York Yearly Meeting at any time before\nthe \"separation,\" he could not have performed the service involved\nin his religious visits. It will also appear from the foregoing that\nthe few opponents of Elias Hicks on Long Island had evidently planned\nto invoke every possible and conceivable influence, at the center of\nQuakerism in Philadelphia, to silence this popular and well-known\npreacher. At what point the influence so disposed became of general\neffect in the polity of the Society only incidentally belongs to the\npurpose of this book.\n\n[117] \"Foster's Report,\" pp. 355-356.\n\nOut of the unofficial body[118] above mentioned, about a dozen in\nnumber, a small and \"select\" committee was appointed. The object was\napparently to deal with Elias for remarks said to have been made by him\nat New York Yearly Meeting in Fifth month of that year, and reported by\nJoseph Whitall.\n\n[118] \"Foster's Report,\" 1831, Vol. I. See testimony of Joseph Whitall,\np. 247. Also testimony of Abraham Lower, pp. 355-356.\n\nThe minute under which Elias performed the visit referred to above\nwas granted by his monthly meeting in Seventh month, and he promptly\nset out on his visit with David Seaman as his traveling companion. He\nspent nearly three months visiting meetings in New Jersey and in Bucks,\nMontgomery, Delaware and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania, reaching\nBaltimore the 25th of Tenth month, where he attended the Yearly\nMeeting. This appearance and service in Philadelphia, he states very\nbriefly, and with no hint of the developing trouble, as follows:\n\n  \"We arrived in Philadelphia in the early part of Twelfth month, and I\n  immediately entered on the arduous concern which I had in prospect\n  and which I was favored soon comfortably to accomplish. We visited\n  the families composing Green Street Monthly Meeting, being in number\n  one hundred and forty, and we also attended that monthly meeting and\n  the monthly meeting for the Northern District. This closed my visit\n  here, and set me at liberty to turn my face homeward.\"[119]\n\n[119] Journal, p. 394.\n\nIt will thus be seen that the charge of unsoundness was entered in\nPhiladelphia Meeting for Sufferings soon after Elias started on his\nsouthern visit, but the matter was held practically in suspense for\nfour months. In the meantime Elias was waited upon by a few elders,\npresumably in accordance with the action of the Meeting for Sufferings\nheld in Eighth month. This opportunity was had when the visitor passed\nthrough Philadelphia en route to Baltimore. There is reason for\nbelieving that Elias succeeded in measurably satisfying this small\ncommittee. But there was evidently an element in Philadelphia that did\nnot propose to be satisfied.\n\nIn Twelfth month, when Elias arrived in Philadelphia from his southern\ntrip, and began his visits among the families of Green Street Monthly\nMeeting, a meeting of the elders of all the monthly meetings in the\ncity was hastily called. A deputation from the elders sought an\n\"opportunity\" with Elias, and insisted that it be _private_.[120]\nHis position was that he was not accountable to them for anything he\nhad said while traveling with a minute as a minister. Elias finally\nconsented, out of regard to some particular Friends, to meet the elders\nin Green Street meeting-house, provided witnesses other than the\nopposing elders could be present. Among those who accompanied Elias\nwere John Comly, Robert Moore, John Moore and John Hunt. When the\nmeeting was held, however, the elders who opposed Elias said they could\nnot proceed, their reason being that the gathering was not \"select.\" In\nconnection with this controversy letters passed between the opposing\nparties. One was signed by ten elders of Philadelphia, and is as\nfollows:\n\n[120] \"Foster's Report,\" pp. 359-360. \"Cockburn's Review,\" p. 66.\n\n  \"TO ELIAS HICKS:\n\n  \"Friends in Philadelphia having for a considerable time past heard of\n  thy holding and promulgating doctrines different from and repugnant\n  to those held by our religious society, it was cause of uneasiness\n  and deep concern to them, as their sincere regard and engagement for\n  the promotion of the cause of Truth made it very desirable that all\n  the members of our religious society should move in true harmony\n  under the leading and direction of our blessed Redeemer. Upon being\n  informed of thy sentiments expressed by Joseph Whitall--that Jesus\n  Christ was not the son of God until after the baptism of John and the\n  descent of the Holy Ghost, and that he was no more than a man; that\n  the same power that made Christ a Christian must make us Christians;\n  and that the same power that saved Him must save us--many friends\n  were affected therewith, and some time afterward, several Friends\n  being together in the city on subjects relating to our religious\n  society, they received an account from Ezra Comfort of some of thy\n  expressions in the public general meeting immediately succeeding the\n  Southern Quarterly Meeting lately held in the state of Delaware,\n  which was also confirmed by his companion, Isaiah Bell, that Jesus\n  Christ was the first man who introduced the gospel dispensation,\n  the Jews being under the outward or ceremonial law or dispensation,\n  it was necessary that there should be some outward miracle, as the\n  healing of the outward infirmities of the flesh and raising the\n  outward dead bodies in order to introduce the gospel dispensation; He\n  had no more power given Him than man, for He was no more than man;\n  He had nothing to do with the healing of the soul, for that belongs\n  to God only; Elisha had the same power to raise the dead; that man\n  being obedient to the spirit of God in him could arrive at as great,\n  or a greater, degree of righteousness than Jesus Christ; that 'Jesus\n  Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God; neither do I\n  think it robbery for man to be equal with God'; then endeavored\n  to show that by attending to that stone cut out of the mountain\n  without hands, or the seed in man, it would make man equal with God,\n  saying: for that stone in man was the entire God. On hearing which it\n  appeared to Friends a subject of such great importance and of such\n  deep welfare to the interest of our religious society as to require\n  an extension of care, in order that if any incorrect statement had\n  been made it should as soon as possible be rectified, or, if true,\n  thou might be possessed of the painful concerns of Friends and their\n  sense and judgment thereon. Two of the elders accordingly waited\n  on thee on the evening of the day of thy arriving in the city,\n  and although thou denied the statement, yet thy declining to meet\n  these two elders in company with those who made it left the minds\n  of Friends without relief. One of the elders who had called on thee\n  repeated his visit on the next day but one, and again requested thee\n  to see the two elders and the Friends who made the above statements\n  which thou again declined. The elders from the different Monthly\n  Meetings of the city were then convened and requested a private\n  opportunity with thee, which thou also refused, yet the next day\n  consented to meet them at a time and place of thy own fixing; but,\n  when assembled, a mixed company being collected, the elders could\n  not in this manner enter into business which they considered of a\n  nature not to be investigated in any other way than in a select,\n  private opportunity. They, therefore, considered that meeting a clear\n  indication of thy continuing to decline to meet the elders as by them\n  proposed. Under these circumstances, it appearing that thou art not\n  willing to hear and disprove the charges brought against thee, we\n  feel it a duty to declare that we cannot have religious unity with\n  thy conduct nor with the doctrines thou art charged with promulgating.\n\n  \"Signed, Twelfth month 19, 1822.\n\n                                        \"CALEB PIERCE,\n                                        \"LEONARD SNOWDEN,\n                                        \"JOSEPH SCATTERGOOD,\n                                        \"S. P. GRIFFITHS,\n                                        \"T. STEWARDSON,\n                                        \"EDWARD RANDOLPH,\n                                        \"ISRAEL MAULE,\n                                        \"ELLIS YARNALL,\n                                        \"RICHARD HUMPHRIES,\n                                        \"THOMAS WISTAR.\"\n\nTo this epistle Elias Hicks made the following reply, two days having\nintervened:\n\n  \"TO CALEB PIERCE AND OTHER FRIENDS:\n\n  \"Having been charged by you with unsoundness of principle and\n  doctrine, founded on reports spread among the people in an unfriendly\n  manner, and contrary to the order of our Discipline, by Joseph\n  Whitall, as charged in the letter from you dated the 19th instant,\n  and as these charges are not literally true, being founded on his\n  own forced and improper construction of my words, I deny them, and I\n  do not consider myself amenable to him, nor to any other, for crimes\n  laid to my charge as being committed in the course of the sittings\n  of our last Yearly Meeting, as not any of my fellow-members of that\n  meeting discovered or noticed any such thing--which I presume to\n  be the case, as not an individual has mentioned any such things to\n  me, but contrary thereto. Many of our most valued Friends (who had\n  heard some of those foul reports first promulgated by a citizen\n  of our city) acknowledged the great satisfaction they had with my\n  services and exercise in the course of that meeting, and were fully\n  convinced that all those reports were false; and this view is fully\n  confirmed by a certificate granted me by the Monthly and Quarterly\n  Meetings of which I am a member, in which they expressed their full\n  unity with me--and which meetings were held a considerable time\n  after our Yearly Meeting, in the course of which Joseph Whitall has\n  presumed to charge me with unsoundness of doctrine, contrary to the\n  sense of the Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly Meetings of which I am a\n  member, and to whom only do I hold myself amenable for all conduct\n  transacted within their limits. The other charges made against\n  me by Ezra Comfort, as expressed in your letter, are in general\n  incorrect, as is proved by the annexed certificate; and, moreover,\n  as Ezra Comfort has departed from gospel order in not mentioning his\n  uneasiness to me when present with me, and when I could have appealed\n  to Friends of that meeting to justify me; therefore, I consider Ezra\n  Comfort to have acted disorderly and contrary to the discipline, and\n  these are the reasons which induce me to refuse a compliance with\n  your requisitions--considering them arbitrary and contrary to the\n  established order of our Society.\n\n                                        \"ELIAS HICKS.\n\n  \"PHILADELPHIA, Twelfth month 21, 1822.\"\n\nAs already noted the charges in the letter of the ten elders were based\non statements made by Joseph Whitall, supplemented by allegations\nby Ezra Comfort, as to what Elias had said in two sermons, neither\nof which was delivered within the bounds of Philadelphia Quarterly\nMeeting. The matters complained of are mostly subject to variable\ninterpretation, and scarcely afford a basis for a religious quarrel,\nespecially considering that the alleged statements were at the best\ngarbled from quite lengthy discourses.\n\nOn the same day that Elias replied to the ten elders, three members\nof Southern Quarterly Meeting issued a signed statement regarding the\ncharges of Ezra Comfort. It is as follows:\n\n  \"We, the undersigned, being occasionally in the city of Philadelphia,\n  when a letter was produced and handed us, signed by ten of its\n  citizens, Elders of the Society of Friends, and directed to Elias\n  Hicks, after perusing and deliberately considering the charges\n  therein against him, for holding and propagating doctrines\n  inconsistent with our religious testimonies, and more especially\n  those said by Ezra Comfort and Isaiah Bell, to be held forth at a\n  meeting immediately succeeding the late Southern Quarterly Meeting,\n  and we being members of the Southern Quarter, and present at the\n  said meeting, we are free to state, for the satisfaction of the\n  first-mentioned Friends and all others whom it may concern, that we\n  apprehend the charges exhibited by the two Friends named are without\n  substantial foundation; and in order to give a clear view we think\n  it best and proper here to transcribe the said charges exhibited\n  and our own understanding of the several, viz., 'That Jesus Christ\n  was the first man that introduced the Gospel Dispensation, the Jews\n  being under the outward and ceremonial law or dispensation, it was\n  necessary there should be some outward miracles, as healing the\n  outward infirmities of the flesh and raising the outward dead bodies\n  in order to introduce the gospel dispensation;' this in substance\n  is correct. 'That he had no more power given him than man,' this\n  sentence is incorrect; and also, 'That he had nothing to do with\n  the healing of the soul, for that belongs to God only,' is likewise\n  incorrect; and the next sentence, 'That Elisha also had the same\n  power to raise the dead' should be transposed thus to give Elias's\n  expressions. 'By the same power it was that Elisha raised the dead.'\n  'That man being obedient to the spirit of God in him could arrive at\n  as great or greater degree of righteousness than Jesus Christ,' this\n  is incorrect; 'That Jesus Christ thought it not robbery to be equal\n  with God,' with annexing the other part of the paragraph mentioned by\n  the holy apostle would be correct. 'Neither do I think it robbery for\n  man to be equal with God' is incorrect. 'Then endeavouring to show\n  that by attending to that stone cut out of the mountain without hands\n  or the seed in man it would make men equal with God' is incorrect;\n  the sentence for that stone in man should stand thus: 'That this\n  stone or seed in man had all the attributes of the divine nature that\n  was in Christ and God.' This statement and a few necessary remarks\n  we make without comment, save only that we were then of opinion and\n  still are that the sentiments and doctrines held forth by our said\n  friend, Elias Hicks, are agreeable to the opinions and doctrines held\n  by George Fox and other worthy Friends of his time.\n\n                                        \"ROBERT MOORE,\n                                        \"THOMAS TURNER,\n                                        \"JOSEPH G. ROWLAND.[121]\n\n  \"12 mo., 21, 1822.\"\n\n[121] \"Cockburn's Review,\" p. 73.\n\nFirst month 4, 1823, the ten elders sent a final communication to Elias\nHicks, which we give in full:\n\n  \"On the perusal of thy letter of the 21st of last month, it was not a\n  little affecting to observe the same disposition still prevalent that\n  avoided a select meeting with the elders, which meeting consistently\n  with the station we are placed in and with the sense of duty\n  impressive upon us, we were engaged to propose and urge to thee as a\n  means wherein the cause of uneasiness might have been investigated,\n  the Friends who exhibited the complaint fully examined, and the whole\n  business placed in a clear point of view.\n\n  \"On a subject of such importance the most explicit candour and\n  ingenuousness, with a readiness to hear and give complete\n  satisfaction ought ever to be maintained; this the Gospel teaches,\n  and the nature of the case imperiously demanded it. As to the\n  certificate which accompanied thy letter, made several weeks after\n  the circumstances occurred, it is in several respects not only\n  vague and ambiguous, but in others (though in different terms) it\n  corroborates the statement at first made. When we take a view of\n  the whole subject, the doctrines and sentiments which have been\n  promulgated by thee, though under some caution while in this city,\n  and the opinions which thou expressed in an interview between Ezra\n  Comfort and thee, on the 19th ult., we are fully and sorrowfully\n  confirmed in the conclusion that thou holds and art disseminating\n  principles very different from those which are held and maintained by\n  our religious society.\n\n  \"As thou hast on thy part closed the door against the brotherly\n  care and endeavours of the elders here for thy benefit, and for\n  the clearing our religious profession, this matter appears of\n  such serious magnitude, so interesting to the peace, harmony, and\n  well-being of society, that we think it ought to claim the weighty\n  attention of thy Friends at home.\"[122]\n\n[122] \"Cockburn's Review,\" p. 76. As the signatures are the same as in\nthe previous letter, repeating them seems unnecessary.\n\nOne other communication closed the epistolary part of the controversy\nfor the time being. It was a letter issued by twenty-two members of\nSouthern Quarterly Meeting, concerning the ministerial service of Elias\nHicks, during the meetings referred to in the charge of Ezra Comfort:\n\n  \"We, the subscribers, being informed that certain reports have\n  been circulated by Ezra Comfort and Isaiah Bell that Elias Hicks\n  had propagated unsound doctrine, at our general meeting on the\n  day succeeding our quarterly meeting in the 11th month last, and\n  a certificate signed by Robert Moore, Joseph Turner and Joseph G.\n  Rowland being read contradicting said reports, the subject has\n  claimed our weighty and deliberate attention, and it is our united\n  judgment that the doctrines preached by our said Friend on the day\n  alluded to were the Truths of the Gospel, and that his labours of\n  love amongst us at our particular meetings as well as at our said\n  quarterly meeting were united with by all our members for aught that\n  appears.\n\n  \"And we believe that the certificate signed by the three Friends\n  above named is in substance a correct statement of facts.\n\n                                        \"ELISHA DAWSON,\n                                        \"WILLIAM DOLBY,\n                                        \"WALTER MIFFLIN,\n                                        \"DANIEL BOWERS,\n                                        \"WILLIAM LEVICK,\n                                        \"ELIAS JANELL,\n                                        \"JACOB PENNINGTON,\n                                        \"JONATHAN TWIBOND,\n                                        \"HENRY SWIGGITT,\n                                        \"MICHAEL OFFLEY,\n                                        \"JAMES BROWN,\n                                        \"GEORGE MESSECK,\n                                        \"WILLIAM W. MOORE,\n                                        \"JOHN COGWILL,\n                                        \"SAMUEL PRICE,\n                                        \"ROBERT KEMP,\n                                        \"JOHN TURNER,\n                                        \"HARTFIELD WRIGHT,\n                                        \"DAVID WILSON,\n                                        \"MICHAEL LOWBER,\n                                        \"JACOB LIVENTON,\n                                        \"JOHN COWGILL, JUNR.\n\n  \"LITTLE CREEK, 2 mo. 26th, 1823.\"\n\n  \"I hereby certify that I was at the Southern Quarterly Meeting in\n  the 11th month last, but owing to indisposition I did not attend\n  the general meeting on the day succeeding, and having been present\n  at several meetings with Elias Hicks, as well as at the Quarterly\n  Meeting aforesaid, I can testify my entire unity with the doctrines I\n  have heard him deliver.\n\n                                        \"ANTHONY WHITELY.\"[123]\n\n[123] \"Cockburn's Review,\" p. 78.\n\nAll of these communications, both pro and con, are presented simply\nfor what they are worth. When it comes to determining what is or is\nnot \"unsound doctrine,\" we are simply dealing with personal opinion,\nand not with matters of absolute fact. This is especially true of\na religious body that had never attempted to define or limit its\ndoctrines in a written creed.\n\nThe attempt of the Philadelphia elders to deal in a disciplinary way\nwith Elias Hicks on the score of the manner or matter of his preaching\nwas pronounced by his friends a usurpation of authority. It was held\nthat the elders in question had no jurisdiction in the case, in proof\nof which the following paragraph in the Discipline of the Philadelphia\nYearly Meeting was cited:\n\n  \"And our advice to all our ministers is that they be frequent in\n  reading the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and if any\n  in the course of their ministry shall misapply or draw unsound\n  inferences or wrong conclusions from the text, or shall misbehave\n  themselves in point of conduct or conversation, let them be\n  admonished in love and tenderness by the elders or overseers where\n  they live.\"[124]\n\n[124] Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in\nPhiladelphia, 1806, p. 62.\n\nIt is undoubtedly true that a certain amount of encouragement came to\nthe opponents of Elias Hicks in Philadelphia from some Friends on Long\nIsland, and from three or four residents of Jericho, but they did not\nat that time at least officially represent any meeting of Friends at\nJericho, either real or pretended. This far in the controversy the\naggressors were confined to those who at that time were considered the\n\"weight of the meeting,\" and who at best represented only the so-called\n\"select\" meeting and not the Society at large. At the beginning at\nleast the trouble was an affair of the ministers and elders. It later\naffected the whole Society, by the efforts of the leaders on both sides.\n\nIncidents are not wanting to show that up to the very end of the\ncontroversy the rank and file of Friends had little vital interest in\nthe matters involved in the trouble. It is related on good authority\nthat two prominent members of Nine Partners Quarterly Meeting in\nDutchess County, New York, husband and wife, made a compact before\nattending the meeting in Eighth month, 1828, feeling that the issue\nwould reach its climax at that time. They agreed that whichever side\nretained control of the organization and the meeting-house would be\nconsidered by them the meeting, and receive their support. We mention\nthis as undoubtedly representing the feeling in more than one case. The\nfact that it took practically a decade of excitement and manipulation,\nto create the antagonisms, personal and otherwise, which resulted in an\nopen rupture, shows how little disposed the majority of Friends were to\ndisrupt the Society.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nThe Time of Unsettlement.\n\n\nBetween the trouble related in the last chapter and the culmination\nof the disturbance in the Society of Friends, in 1827-1828, there was\nan interval of four or five years. This period was by no means one of\nquiet. On the other hand it was one of confusion, in the midst of which\nthe forces were at work, and the plans perfected which led up logically\nto the end.\n\nIt will be remembered that the last communication of the Philadelphia\nelders sent to Elias Hicks was dated First month 4, 1823. They had\nmanifestly failed to silence the preacher from Jericho, or to greatly\nalarm him with their charges of heresy. Just eleven days after the\nepistle in question was written, the Meeting for Sufferings of\nPhiladelphia Yearly Meeting assembled. This meeting issued a singular\ndocument,[125] said by the friends of Elias Hicks to have been intended\nas a sort of \"Quaker Creed,\" but this was vigorously denied by those\nresponsible for its existence. The statement of doctrine, which was as\nfollows, was duly signed by Jonathan Evans, clerk, \"on behalf of the\nmeeting:\"\n\n[125] The title of the production was as follows: Extracts from the\nWritings of Primitive Friends, concerning the Divinity of Our Lord and\nSaviour, Jesus Christ. Published by the direction of the Meeting for\nSufferings, held in Philadelphia. Solomon W. Conrad, printer.\n\n  \"At a Meeting for Sufferings held in Philadelphia the 17th of the\n  First month, 1823, an essay containing a few brief extracts from the\n  writings of our primitive Friends on several of the doctrines of the\n  Christian religion, which have been always held, and are most surely\n  believed by us, being produced and read; on solid consideration they\n  appeared so likely to be productive of benefit, if a publication\n  thereof was made and spread among our members generally, that the\n  committee appointed on the printing and distribution of religious\n  books are directed to have a sufficient number of them struck off and\n  distributed accordingly, being as follows:\n\n  \"We have always believed that the Holy Scriptures were written by\n  divine inspiration, that they are able to make wise unto salvation\n  through faith which is in Christ Jesus, for, as holy men of God\n  spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, they are therefore\n  profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction\n  in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly\n  furnished unto all good works. But they are not or cannot be\n  subjected to the fallen, corrupt reason of man. We have always\n  asserted our willingness that all our doctrines be tried by them,\n  and admit it as a positive maxim that whatsoever any do (pretending\n  to the Spirit) which is contrary to the Scriptures be accounted and\n  judged a delusion of the devil.\n\n  \"We receive and believe in the testimony of the Scriptures simply as\n  it stands in the text. 'There are three that bear record in heaven,\n  the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.'\n\n  \"We believe in the only wise, omnipotent and everlasting God, the\n  creator of all things in heaven and earth, and the preserver of all\n  that he hath made, who is God over all blessed forever.\n\n  \"The infinite and most wise God, who is the foundation, root and\n  spring of all operation, hath wrought all things by his eternal Word\n  and Son. This is that Word that was in the beginning with God and was\n  God, by whom all things were made, and without whom was not anything\n  made that was made. Jesus Christ is the beloved and only begotten\n  Son of God, who, in the fulness of time, through the Holy Ghost, was\n  conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; in him we have redemption\n  through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. We believe that he\n  was made a sacrifice for sin, who knew no sin; that he was crucified\n  for us in the flesh, was buried and rose again the third day by the\n  power of his Father for our justification, ascended up into heaven\n  and now sitteth at the right hand of God.\n\n  \"As then that infinite and incomprehensible Fountain of life and\n  motion operateth in the creatures by his own eternal word and power,\n  so no creature has access again unto him but in and by the Son\n  according to his own blessed declaration, 'No man knoweth the Father\n  but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.' Again, 'I am\n  the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but\n  by me.' Hence he is the only Mediator between God and man for having\n  been with God from all eternity, being himself God, and also in time\n  partaking of the nature of man; through him is the goodness and\n  love of God conveyed to mankind, and by him again man receiveth and\n  partaketh of these mercies.\n\n  \"We acknowledge that of ourselves we are not able to do anything that\n  is good, neither can we procure remission of sins or justification\n  by any act of our own, but acknowledge all to be of and from his\n  love, which is the original and fundamental cause of our acceptance.\n  'For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that\n  whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting\n  life.'\n\n  \"We firmly believe it was necessary that Christ should come, that by\n  his death and sufferings he might offer up himself a sacrifice to\n  God for our sins, who his own self bear our sins in his own body on\n  the tree; so we believe that the remission of sins which any partake\n  of is only in and by virtue of that most satisfactory sacrifice and\n  not otherwise. For it is by the obedience of that one that the free\n  gift is come upon all to justification. Thus Christ by his death and\n  sufferings hath reconciled us to God even while we are enemies; that\n  is, he offers reconciliation to us, and we are thereby put into a\n  capacity of being reconciled. God is willing to be reconciled unto us\n  and ready to remit the sins that are past if we repent.\n\n  \"Jesus Christ is the intercessor and advocate with the Father in\n  heaven, appearing in the presence of God for us, being touched with\n  a feeling of our infirmities, sufferings, and sorrows; and also by\n  his spirit in our hearts he maketh intercession according to the will\n  of God, crying abba, Father. He tasted death for every man, shed his\n  blood for all men, and is the propitiation for our sins; and not for\n  ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. He alone is our\n  Redeemer and Saviour, the captain of our salvation, the promised\n  seed, who bruises the serpent's head; the alpha and omega, the first\n  and the last. He is our wisdom, righteousness, justification and\n  redemption; neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no\n  other name under heaven given among men whereby we may be saved.\n\n  \"As he ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things,\n  his fulness cannot be comprehended or contained in any finite\n  creature, but in some measure known and experienced in us, as we are\n  prepared to receive the same, as of his fulness we have received\n  grace for grace. He is both the word of faith and a quickening spirit\n  in us, whereby he is the immediate cause, author, object and strength\n  of our living faith in his name and power, and of the work of our\n  salvation from sin and bondage of corruption.\n\n  \"The Son of God cannot be divided from the least or lowest appearance\n  of his own divine light or life in us, no more than the sun from\n  its own light; nor is the sufficiency of his light within set up\n  or mentioned in opposition to him, or to his fulness considered as\n  in himself or without us; nor can any measure or degree of light\n  received from Christ be properly called the fulness of Christ;\n  or Christ as in fulness, nor exclude him from being our complete\n  Saviour. And where the least degree or measure of this light and life\n  of Christ within is sincerely waited in, followed and obeyed there is\n  a blessed increase of light and grace known and felt; as the path of\n  the just it shines more and more until the perfect day, and thereby\n  a growing in grace and in the knowledge of God and of our Lord and\n  Saviour Jesus Christ hath been and is truly experienced.\n\n  \"Wherefore we say that whatever Christ then did, both living and\n  dying, was of great benefit to the salvation of all that have\n  believed and now do and that hereafter shall believe in him unto\n  justification and acceptance with God; but the way to come to that\n  faith is to receive and obey the manifestation of his divine light\n  and grace in the conscience, which leads men to believe and value\n  and not to disown or undervalue Christ as the common sacrifice and\n  mediator. For we do affirm that to follow this holy light in the\n  conscience and to turn our minds and bring all our deeds and thoughts\n  to it is the readiest, nay, the only right way, to have true, living\n  and sanctifying faith in Christ as he appeared in the flesh; and\n  to discern the Lord's body, coming and sufferings aright, and to\n  receive any real benefit by him as our only sacrifice and mediator,\n  according to the beloved disciple's emphatical testimony, 'If we walk\n  in the light as he (God) is in the light we have fellowship one with\n  another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all\n  sin.'\n\n  \"By the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ without us we, truly\n  repenting and believing, as through the mercy of God, justified from\n  the imputation of sins and transgressions that are past, as though\n  they had never been committed; and by the mighty work of Christ\n  within us the power, nature and habits of sin are destroyed; that\n  as sin once reigned unto death even so now grace reigneth through\n  righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.\"[126]\n\n[126] \"The Friend, or Advocate of Truth,\" Vol. I, pp. 152-154.\n\nThis deliverance is almost as theological and dogmatic as the\nWestminster Confession. It scarcely contains a reference to the\nfundamental doctrine of George Fox. It is not too much to say that if\nit was the belief of the \"primitive\" Friends, there was little reason,\ntouching points of doctrine, for the preaching of Fox, or the first\ngathering of the Society. All the ground covered by this doctrinal\nstatement was amply treated in the Articles of Religion of the Church\nof England, and the Confession of the Presbyterians.\n\nThe above document was issued without quotation marks, or any\nindication as to what \"primitive\" Friends were responsible for the\nsentiments contained in its various parts. By careful examination it\nwill be seen that one sentence, at least, is from Barclay's Apology,\n\"but it proves to be a garbled quotation.\" We refer to the following\nsentence in the second paragraph in the above article, relating to the\nScriptures: \"But they are not or cannot be subjected to the fallen,\ncorrupt reason of man.\" Barclay's complete statement is here given:\n\n  \"Yet, as the proposition itself concludeth, to the last part of\n  which I now come, it will not from thence follow that these divine\n  revelations are to be subjected to the examination either of the\n  outward testimony of Scripture or of the human or natural reason of\n  man, as to a more noble and certain rule or touchstone; for the\n  divine revelation and inward illumination is that which is evident\n  by itself, forcing the well-disposed understanding and irresistibly\n  moving it to assent by its own evidence and clearness, even as the\n  common principles of natural truths to bend the mind to a natural\n  assent.\"[127]\n\n[127] \"Barclay's Apology.\" Edition of Friends' Book Store, 304 Arch\nStreet, Philadelphia, 1877, p. 68.\n\nIt will be seen clearly that the reference in the document issued by\nthe Meeting for Sufferings was not only a misquotation from Barclay,\nbut also misrepresented his meaning. The latter is particularly true if\nwe refer to the top of the same page that contains the above extract,\nwhere he says: \"So would I not have any reject or doubt the certainty\nof that unerring Spirit which God hath given his children as that\nwhich can alone guide them into all truth, because some have falsely\npretended to it.\"[128] It will thus appear clear that Elias Hicks, and\nnot the Meeting for Sufferings, was supported by Barclay.\n\n[128] \"Barclay's Apology.\" Edition of 1877, p. 68.\n\nThe reference in the third paragraph in the foregoing \"declaration\" to\nthe \"three that bear record in heaven\" is a quotation from 1 John 5:7.\nIt is entirely omitted from the Revised Version, and thorough scholars\nin the early years of the nineteenth century were convinced that the\npassage was an interpolation.\n\nThe statement of belief prepared by the Meeting for Sufferings was not\napproved by the Yearly Meeting, so nothing was really accomplished by\nthe compilation, if such it was.\n\nConsidering the order of the events recorded, it is hard not to\nconceive that the attempt to promulgate a \"declaration of faith\" by the\nYearly Meeting was really intended for personal application to Elias\nHicks. Had the plan succeeded, the elders could easily have attempted\nto silence the Jericho preacher in Philadelphia, on the ground\nthat he was \"unsound\" touching the doctrine promulgated by the Yearly\nMeeting.\n\nThe task of detailing all of the doings of this period would be too\ndifficult and distasteful to be fully recorded in this book. That the\nunfriendly conduct was by no means all on one side is painfully true.\nStill, as the determination of the Philadelphia elders to deal with\nElias Hicks, and stop his ministry if possible, was continued, the\neffort cannot be ignored.\n\nIn First month, 1825, the elders presented a charge of unsoundness\nagainst Elias Hicks in the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders,\nthe intent being to have the charge forwarded to the monthly meeting,\nbut this action was not taken. With phenomenal persistence one of the\nelders introduced the subject in the monthly meeting, and secured the\nappointment of a committee to investigate the merits of the case. This\ncommittee made a report unfavorable to Elias Hicks, which report, his\nfriends claimed was improperly entered on the minutes. A vigorous,\nbut by no means a united effort was made to get this report forwarded\nto Jericho Monthly Meeting, but this failed. One of the incidents of\nthis attempt against Elias Hicks was the disownment of a member of the\nNorthern District Monthly Meeting, for remarks made in Western District\nMonthly Meeting. The report of the committee against Elias was under\nconsideration, when the visitor arose and said: \"If it be understood\nby the report--if it set forth and declare, that Elias Hicks, the\nlast time he was in this house, preached doctrines contrary to the\nHoly Scriptures, or contrary to our first or primitive Friends, being\npresent at that time, I stand here as a witness that it is utterly\nfalse.\"[129] Although this Friend was disowned by his monthly meeting\nhe was reinstated by the Quarterly Meeting. It should be said that the\nreport of unsoundness referred to, contained this specific charge: \"We\napprehend that Elias Hicks expressed sentiments inconsistent with the\nHoly Scriptures, and the religious principles our Society has held from\nits first rise.\"\n\n[129] \"Cockburn's Review,\" p. 95.\n\nThe trouble in Philadelphia was renewed in an aggravated form in First\nmonth, 1827, when Elias Hicks appeared in the city on another religious\nvisit. Of course the atmosphere had been charged with all sorts of\nattacks regarding the venerable preacher. Under such conditions no\nspecial advertising was necessary to get a crowd. The populace was\ncurious, not a few wanted to hear and see, for themselves, this man\nabout whom so many charges had been made. As a matter of course the\nmeeting-houses were crowded beyond their capacity. It was alleged by\nOrthodox Friends that the meetings were disorderly, which may have\nbeen literally true. But the tumult was increased by injecting an\nelement of controversy, into the First-day afternoon meeting in Western\nmeeting-house, on the part of an Orthodox elder. All the evidence goes\nto show that Elias attempted to quiet the tumult. He seems to have\nbeen willing to accord liberty of expression to his opponents. The\nmatter was taken into Western Monthly Meeting, a committee entering the\nfollowing charge: \"That a large and disorderly concourse of people were\nbrought together, at an unseasonable hour, and under circumstances that\nstrongly indicated a design to preoccupy the house to the exclusion\nof most of the members of our meeting, and to suppress in a riotous\nmanner any attempt that might be made to maintain the doctrine and\nprinciples of our religious society, in opposition to the views of\nElias Hicks.\"[130]\n\n[130] \"Cockburn's Review,\" p. 100.\n\nThe literal truthfulness of this charge in every particular may be at\nleast mildly questioned. It must be remembered that of the Friends in\nPhiladelphia at that time, the Orthodox were a minority of about one\nto three. The majority of Friends felt that much of the trouble was\npersonal, and they undoubtedly flocked to hear the traduced preacher.\nThe outside crowd that came could not rightfully or wisely have been\nkept from attending public meetings. Both parties had been sowing\nto the wind, and neither could validly object to the whirlwind that\ninevitably came. Still Western Monthly Meeting proposed to deal with a\nvisiting minister from another yearly meeting, on points of doctrine,\nand there can be little doubt that arbitrary proceedings of this sort\nhad quite as much, if not more, to do with kindling the fires of\n\"separation,\" as the preaching of Elias Hicks.\n\nRapidly the trouble ran back to the opposition raised by the elders\nin 1822. Eventually Green Street Monthly Meeting became the center of\nSociety difficulty. It will be remembered that in the year last written\nthat monthly meeting had enjoyed a family visitation from Elias Hicks,\nand had subsequently given him a minute of approval. After this one of\nthe elders, who acquiesced in this action, joined the other nine in\nwritten disapproval of Elias Hicks. The major portion of the monthly\nmeeting proposed to take the inconsistent conduct of this elder under\ncare, and the matter was handed over to the overseers. In thus hastily\ninvoking the discipline, Green Street Monthly Meeting made an apparent\nerror of judgment, even admitting that the spirit of the transaction\nwas not censurable. This brought the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers\nand Elders precipitously into the case. Finally Green Street Monthly\nMeeting released the Friend in question from his station as elder. A\nquestion arose on which there was a sharp discussion as to whether\nelders were independent of the overseers in the exercise of their\nofficial duties. A long line of conduct followed, finally resulting\nin the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders sending a report to\nthe general quarterly meeting, amounting to a remonstrance against\nGreen Street Monthly Meeting. This appeared to be a violation of\nDiscipline, which said: \"None of the said meetings of ministers and\nelders are in anywise to interfere with the business of any meeting for\ndiscipline.\"[131] These matters, with the remonstrance of the released\nGreen Street elder, would therefore seem to have been irregularly\nbrought before the quarterly meeting. It was claimed by the friends of\nElias Hicks that he had broken no rule of discipline; that the charge,\nthat he held \"sentiments inconsistent with the Scriptures, and the\nprinciples of Friends,\" was vague as to its matter, and purely personal\nas to the manner of its circulation. Up to this point it should be\nremembered, the controversy was almost entirely centered on Elias Hicks.\n\n[131] Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in\nPhiladelphia, 1806, p. 67.\n\nThis matter dragged along, a source of constant disturbance, appearing\nin perhaps a new form in the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders\nin Eighth month, 1826. The immediate action involved appointing a\ncommittee to assist the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders\nof Green Street Monthly Meeting, the assumed necessity in the case\nbeing the reported unsoundness of a Green Street minister, a charge to\nthis effect having been preferred by one member only. The situation,\nhowever, caused an abatement in answering the query relating to love\nand unity. While these transactions were going on among the ministers\nand elders, Green Street Monthly Meeting took action which removed\ntwo of its elders from that station in the Society. The two deposed\nelders took their grievances to the general quarterly meeting. While\nthe quarterly meeting would not listen to a statement of grievances,\nyet a committee to go over the whole case was appointed. The committee\nthus appointed, without waiting any action by the quarterly meeting,\ntransformed the removal of the aggrieved elders into an appeal, and\nthen demanded that Green Street Monthly Meeting turn over to that\ncommittee all the minutes relating to the case of the two elders.\nThis the Green Street Meeting refused to do. Although the case had\nnever been before the quarterly meeting, the committee of inquiry\nreported to the full meeting, that all of the action of Green Street\nMonthly Meeting relating to the two elders should be annulled. It was\nclaimed that, by virtue of the leadership which the Orthodox had in\nthe quarterly meeting, a precedent had been established which gave\ncommittees the right to exceed the power conferred upon them by the\nmeeting which appointed them. The committee had not been appointed to\ndecide a case, but to investigate a complaint.\n\nFollowing this experience, after much wrangling, and in the midst of\nmanifest disunity, and against what it was claimed was the manifest\nopposition of the major portion of the meeting, the quarterly meeting\nin Eleventh month, 1826, appointed a committee to visit the monthly\nmeetings. This committee was manifestly one-sided, but could have\nno possible disciplinary service from extending brotherly care.\nNevertheless at the quarterly meeting in Fifth month, 1827, this\ncommittee, for presumed gospel labor, reported that the large Green\nStreet Monthly Meeting should be laid down, and its members attached\nto the Northern District Monthly Meeting. It is not necessary to enter\ninto any argument as to the right of a quarterly meeting, under our\nsystem, to lay down an active monthly meeting, without that meeting's\nconsent. The laying down of Green Street Monthly Meeting followed, the\n\"separation\" in the yearly meeting. It should be said that in Second\nmonth, 1827, Green Street Monthly Meeting, attempted to secure consent\nfrom the quarterly meeting to transfer itself to Abington Quarterly\nMeeting, and subsequently this was done.\n\nThe claim was made, and with some show of reason, that the various\nlines of conduct taken against Green Street Monthly Meeting, were\nincited by a desire to punish this meeting for its friendly interest in\nElias Hicks.\n\nWe are rapidly approaching the point where the Society troubles in\nPhiladelphia ceased to directly relate to Elias Hicks. It will be\nremembered that there was trouble touching the preaching of Elias\ncoming by way of Southern Quarterly Meeting in 1822. The facts indicate\nthat a majority of that meeting was quite content to let matters rest.\nIt seems, however, that two members of the Meeting for Sufferings\nfrom that quarter had misrepresented their constituency in the Hicks\ncontroversy. Therefore in 1826 that quarterly meeting discontinued the\nservice of the two members of the Meeting for Sufferings, supplying\ntheir places with new appointments. This action was objected to by the\nfull meeting, the majority holding that members could not have their\nservice discontinued by the constituent bodies which appointed them.\nAn attempt was made to convince Southern Quarterly Meeting that it\nwas improper and illegal to appoint new representatives, if the old\nones were willing to serve. It was also claimed that it was \"never\nintended to release the representatives from a quarterly meeting to the\nMeeting for Sufferings, except at their own request.\"[132] Surely the\nDiscipline then operative gave no warrant for such an inference.[133]\nAssuming that the above contention was valid, the Meeting for\nSufferings would simply have become a small hierarchy in the Society,\nnever to be dissolved, except at its own request.\n\n[132] \"Cockburn's Review,\" p. 170.\n\n[133] Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends, held in\nPhiladelphia, 1806, p. 54-55.\n\nIt would seem, however, that the rules governing the Meeting for\nSufferings were especially made to guard against just such an exercise\nof power as has been mentioned. The Discipline under the heading,\n\"Meeting for Sufferings,\" contained this provision: \"The said meeting\nis not to meddle with any matter of faith or discipline, which has not\nbeen determined by the yearly meeting.\"[134] This will make it plain\nwhy there was such an anxiety that the statement of doctrine issued\nin 1823,[135] should be endorsed by the yearly meeting, and when that\nfailed, how utterly the statement was without authority or binding\nforce on the Society in general or its members in particular.\n\n[134] The same, p. 55.\n\n[135] See page 139 of this book.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nThree Sermons Reviewed.\n\n\nWe have reached the point where it would seem in order to consider the\nmatter contained in some of the sermons preached by Elias Hicks, in\norder to determine, if we can, what there was about the matter or the\nmanner of his ministry, which contributed to the controversy, personal\nand theological, which for several years disturbed the Society of\nFriends.\n\nThe trouble was initiated, and for some time agitated, by comparatively\nfew people. Two or three Friends began talking about what Elias said,\nfrom memory. Later they took long-hand notes of his sermons, in either\ncase using isolated and disconnected sentences and expressions. Taken\nfrom their association with the balance of the sermon, and passed from\nmouth to mouth by critics, they assumed an exaggerated importance, and\nstood out boldly as centers of controversy.\n\nAll of the evidence goes to show that little attempt was made to give\nprinted publicity to these discourses, until the preacher had been made\nfamous by the warmth and extent of the controversy over the character\nof his preaching.\n\nA volume of twelve sermons preached by Elias Hicks at various points in\nPennsylvania in 1824 was published the following year in Philadelphia\nby Joseph and Edward Parker. These discourses were taken in short-hand\nby Marcus T. C. Gould. Two years later, in 1827, Gould began the\npublication of \"The Quaker,\" which contained sermons by Elias, and a\nfew other ministers in the Society. In his advertisement of the first\nvolume of this publication, after stating the fact of the controversy\nwhich was rapidly dividing the Society of Friends in two contending\nparties, Gould says:\n\n  \"At this important crisis, the reporter and proprietor of the\n  following work was employed by the joint consent of both parties, to\n  record in meeting the speeches of the individual whose doctrines were\n  by some pronounced sound, and by others unsound. Since that period he\n  has continued to record the language of the same speaker, and others\n  who stand high as ministers in the Society, and the members have\n  continued to read his reports, as the only way of arriving at the\n  truth, in relation to discourses which were variously represented.\"\n\nIt is not our purpose in this chapter to give sermons or parts of\nsermons in detail. On the other hand, to simply review a few of these\ndiscourses as samples, because at the time of their delivery they\ncalled out opposition from Orthodox Friends. It may be fairly inferred\nthat they contained in whole or in part the points of doctrinal\noffending in the estimation of the critics of Elias Hicks.\n\nThe first of the series of sermons especially under review, was\ndelivered in the Pine Street meeting house, Philadelphia, Twelfth month\n10, 1826. At the conclusion of this sermon Jonathan Evans arose, and\nspoke substantially as follows:\n\n  \"I believe it to be right for me to say, that our Society has always\n  believed in the atonement, mediation, and intercession of our Lord\n  and Saviour Jesus Christ--that by him all things were created, in\n  heaven and in earth, both visible and invisible, whether they be\n  thrones, principalities, or powers.\n\n  \"We believe that all things were created by him, and for him; and\n  that he was before all things, and that by him all things consist.\n  And any doctrine which goes to invalidate these fundamental doctrines\n  of the Christian religion we cannot admit, nor do we hold ourselves\n  accountable for.\n\n  \"Great efforts are making to make the people believe that Jesus\n  Christ was no more than a man, but we do not believe any such thing,\n  nor can we receive any such doctrine, or any thing which goes to\n  inculcate such an idea.\n\n  \"We believe him to be King of kings, and Lord of lords, before whose\n  judgment seat every soul shall be arraigned and judged by him. We\n  do not conceive him to be a mere man; and we therefore desire, that\n  people may not suppose that we hold any such doctrines, or that we\n  have any unity with them.\"\n\n  Isaac Lloyd said: \"I unite with Jonathan Evans--we never have\n  believed that our blessed Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, came to the\n  Jews only; for he was given for God's salvation, to the ends of the\n  earth.\"[136]\n\n[136] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 72.\n\nTo these doctrinal statements Elias Hicks added: \"I have spoken; and I\nleave it for the people to judge--I do not assume the judgment seat.\"\n\nIt may be informing in this connection to examine this sermon\nsomewhat in detail, to see if we can find the definite doctrine which\naroused the public opposition. The text was, \"Let love be without\ndissimulation.\" Having declared that there could be no agreement\nbetween hatred and love; and that love could not promote discord, he\nindulged in what may be called a spiritual figure of speech, declaring\nthat a Christian must be in the same life, and live with the same blood\nthat Christ did, making the following explanation: \"As the support of\nthe animal life is the blood; so it is with the soul: the breath of\nlife which God breathed into it is the blood of the soul; the life of\nthe soul; and in this sense we are to understand it, and in no other\nsense.\"\n\nHe referred to the reprover of our sins, said that it is God who\nreproves us. \"Now, here is the great business of our lives,\" he\nremarked, \"not only to know this reprover, but to know that it is a\ngift from God, a manifestation of His own pure life, that was in his\nson Jesus Christ.\" Continuing he said:\n\n  \"As the apostle testifies: 'In him was life, and the life was the\n  light of men; and that was the true light, which lighteth every man\n  that cometh into the world.' Now can we hesitate a single moment, in\n  regard to the truth of this declaration? No sensible, reflecting mind\n  can possibly do it.\"[137]\n\n[137] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 51.\n\nTouching the outward and written as compared with the inner law of\nlife, he affirmed:\n\n  \"Here is a law more comprehensive than the law of Moses, and it is\n  clear to every individual of us, as the law was to the Israelites.\n  For I dare not suppose that the Almighty would by any means make\n  it a doubtful or mysterious one. It would not become God at all to\n  suppose this the case--it would be casting a deep reflection upon\n  his goodness and wisdom. Therefore I conceive that the law written\n  in the heart, if we attend to it and do not turn from it to build up\n  traditions, or depend on anything that arises from self, or that is\n  in our own power, but come to be regulated by this law, we shall see\n  that it is the easiest thing to be understood that can be, and that\n  all our benefits depend on our complying with this law.\n\n  \"Here now we see what tradition is. It is a departure from this law;\n  and it has the same effect now that tradition had upon the followers\n  of the outward law; as a belief in tradition was produced they were\n  bound by it, and trusted in it. And so people, nowadays, seem to be\n  compelled to believe in tradition, and thus they turn away from the\n  gospel dispensation, or otherwise the light and life of God's Spirit\n  in the soul, which is the law of the new covenant; for the law is\n  light and the commandment a lamp to show us the way to life.\"[138]\n\n[138] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 51.\n\nUsing the term, \"washed clean in the blood of the lamb,\" he proceeded\nto explain himself as follows:\n\n  \"And what is the blood of the lamb? It was his life, my friends; for\n  as outward, material blood was made use of to express the animal\n  life, inspired men used it as a simile. Outward blood is the life of\n  the animal, but it has nothing to do with the soul; for the soul has\n  no animal blood, no material blood. The life of God in the soul is\n  the blood of the soul, and the life of God is the blood of God; and\n  so it was the life and blood of Jesus Christ his son. For he was born\n  of the spirit of his heavenly Father, _and swallowed up fully and\n  completely in his divine nature, so that he was completely divine_.\n  It was this that operated, in that twofold state, and governed the\n  whole animal man which was the son of Abraham and David--a tabernacle\n  for his blessed soul. Here now we see that flesh and blood are not\n  capable of being in reality divine; for are they not altogether\n  under the direction and guidance of the soul? Thus the animal body\n  of Jesus did nothing but what the divine power in the soul told it\n  to do. Here he was swallowed up in the divinity of his Father while\n  here on earth, and it was this that was the active thing, the active\n  principle, that governed the animate earth. For it corresponds, and\n  cannot do otherwise, with Almighty goodness, that the soul should\n  have power to command the animal body to do good or evil; because\n  he has placed us in this probationary state, and in his wisdom has\n  set evil and good before us--light and darkness. He has made us free\n  agents, and given us opportunity to make our own election.\n\n  \"Here now we shall see what is meant by election, the election of\n  God. We see that those who choose the Lord for their portion and\n  the God of Jacob for the lot of their inheritance, these are the\n  elect. And nothing ever did or can elect a soul to God, but in this\n  choice.\"[139]\n\n[139] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 62.\n\nIt is not easy to see how any one can impartially consider the\nforegoing, especially the words printed in _italics_, and continue to\nclaim that Elias Hicks denied the divinity of Christ. Near the end of\nthis sermon we find the following paragraph:\n\n  \"I say, dearly beloved, my soul craves it for us, that we may sink\n  down and examine ourselves; according to the declaration of the\n  apostle: 'Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove your\n  own selves; know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in\n  you except ye be reprobates?' Now we cannot suppose that the apostle\n  meant that outward man that walked about the streets of Jerusalem;\n  because he is not in any of us. But what is this Jesus Christ? He\n  came to be a Saviour to that nation, and was limited to that nation.\n  He came to gather up, and look up the lost sheep of the house of\n  Israel. But as he was a Saviour in the outward sense, so he was an\n  outward shadow of good things to come; and so the work of the man,\n  Jesus Christ, was a figure. He healed the sick of their outward\n  calamities--he cleansed the leprosy--all of which was external and\n  affected only their bodies--as sickness does not affect the souls of\n  the children of men, though they may labour under all these things.\n  But as he was considered a Saviour, he meant by what he said, a\n  Saviour is within you, the anointing of the spirit of God is within\n  you; for this made the ways of Jesus so wonderful in his day that\n  the Psalmist in his prophecy concerning him exclaims: 'Thou hast\n  loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God\n  hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' He\n  had loved righteousness, you perceive, and therefore was prepared\n  to receive the fullness of the spirit, the fullness of that divine\n  anointing; for there was no germ of evil in him or about him; both\n  his soul and body were pure. He was anointed above all his fellows,\n  to be the head of the church, the top stone, the chief corner stone,\n  elect and precious. And what was it that was a Saviour? Not that\n  which was outward; it was not flesh and blood; for 'flesh and blood\n  cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven'; it must go to the earth from\n  whence it was taken. It was that life, that same life that I have\n  already mentioned, that was in him, and which is the light and life\n  of men, and which lighteth every man, and consequently every woman,\n  that cometh into the world. And we have this light and life in us;\n  which is what the apostle meant by Jesus Christ; and if we have not\n  this ruling in us we are dead, because we are not under the law\n  of the spirit of life. For the 'law is light and the reproofs of\n  instruction the way to life.'\"[140]\n\n[140] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 68.\n\nUnless the so-called heterodox doctrine can be found in the foregoing\nextracts, it does not exist in the sermon under discussion.\n\nTwo other sermons were evidently both considered offensive and\nobjectionable by the orthodox. One was preached at the Twelfth Street\nmeeting, Twelfth month 10, 1826, and the other the 12th of the same\nmonth at Key's Alley, both in Philadelphia. At the Twelfth Street\nmeeting, amid much confusion, Thomas Wistar attempted to controvert\nwhat Elias Hicks had said in certain particulars. While this Friend was\ntalking, Elias tried to persuade the audience to be quiet.\n\nAt Key's Alley, when Elias had finished, Philadelphia Pemberton, in\nthe midst of a disturbance that nearly drowned his voice, gave an\nexhortation in support of the outward and vicarious atonement. When\nFriend Pemberton ceased, Elias Hicks expressed his ideas regarding\ngospel order and variety in the ministry, for which Friends had always\nstood, in which he said:\n\n  \"My dear friends, God is a God of order--and it will do me great\n  pleasure to see this meeting sit quiet till it closes. We have, and\n  claim gospel privileges, and that every one may be persuaded in his\n  own mind; and as we have gifts differing, so ought every one to have\n  an opportunity to speak, one by one, but not two at once, that all\n  may be comforted. If any thing be revealed (and we are not to speak\n  except this is the case), if any thing be revealed to one, let others\n  hold their peace--this is according to order. And I desire it, once\n  for all, my dear friends, if you love me, that you will keep strictly\n  to this order: it will be a great comfort to my spirit.\"[141]\n\n[141] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 125.\n\nSpeaking of the fear of God, he said that he did not mean \"a fear that\narises from the dread of torment, or of chastisement, or anything of\nthis kind; for that may be no more than the fear of devils, for they,\nwe read, believe and tremble.\" His theory was that fear must be based\non knowledge, and the fear to displease God is not because of what he\nmay do to us, but what, for want of this knowledge, we lose.\n\nAgain, he practically repeated what was evidently considered a truism:\n\"My friends, we are not to look for a law in our neighbor's heart, nor\nin our neighbor's book; but we are to look for that law which is to be\nour rule and guide, in our consciences, in our souls; for the law is\nwhole and perfect.\" Continuing he remarked:\n\n  \"Now, how concordant this is with the testimony of Jesus, when he\n  queried with his disciples in this wise: 'Whom do men say that I the\n  son of man am?' They enumerated several characters, according to the\n  views of the people in that day. But until we come to this inward,\n  divine law, we shall know nothing rightly of that manifestation;\n  for none of us have seen him, nor any of his works which he acted\n  outwardly. But here we find some are guessing, one way, and some\n  another way, till they become cruel respecting different opinions\n  about him, insomuch that they will kill and destroy each other for\n  their opinions. This is the effect of men's turning away from the\n  true light, the witness for God in their own souls; it throws them\n  into anarchy and confusion.\"[142]\n\n[142] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 94.\n\nIn the opinion of Elias Hicks, it was not the man Peter that was to\nconstitute the rock upon which the church was to be built, but rather\nthe inner revelation, which enabled the disciple to know that the\nMaster was the Christ. \"When a true Christian comes to this rock, he\ncomes to know it, as before pointed out; and here every one must see,\nwhen they build on this divine rock, this revealed will of our Heavenly\nFather, there is no fear.\"\n\nTouching the vital matters of salvation, we make the following extracts\nfrom this sermon:\n\n  \"Nothing but that which is begotten in every soul can manifest God\n  to the soul. You must know this for yourselves, as nothing which\n  you read in the Scriptures can give you a sense of his saving and\n  almighty power. Now, the only begotten is what the power of God\n  begets in the soul, by the soul uniting with the visitations of\n  divine love. It becomes like a union--the soul submits and yields\n  itself up to God and the revelation of his power, and thus it becomes\n  wedded to him as its heavenly husband. Here, now, is a birth of the\n  Son of God; and this must be begotten in every soul, as God can be\n  manifested by nothing else.\n\n  \"Now, what was this Holy Ghost and spirit of truth, and where are we\n  to find it? He did not leave his disciples in the dark--'He dwelleth\n  with you, and shall be in you.' Mind it, my friends. What a blessed\n  sovereign God this is to be to the children of men--a God who has\n  placed a portion of himself in every rational soul--a measure of his\n  grace sufficient for every purpose, for the redemption of the souls\n  of men from sin and transgression, and to lead them to the kingdom\n  of heaven. And there is no other way. Then do not put it off any\n  longer; do not procrastinate any longer; do not say to-morrow, but\n  immediately turn inward, for the day calls aloud for it--everything\n  around us calls for us to turn inward, to that which will help us to\n  do the great work of our salvation.\"[143]\n\n[143] \"The Quaker,\" Vol. I, p. 97-98.\n\nThere seems to have been little, if any, public demonstration against\nthe preaching of Elias Hicks in meetings where he was present, except\nin Philadelphia. That is especially true before the coming of the\nEnglish preachers, and the strained conditions that existed just\npreceding and during the various acts of separation. It will thus be\nseen that the concern and purpose of the ten men elders of Philadelphia\nremained persistent until the end.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nThe Braithwaite Controversy.\n\n\nOne of the marked incidents during the \"separation\" period was the\ncontroversy between Elias Hicks and Anna Braithwaite,[144] and the\nstill more pointed discussion indulged in by the friends and partisans\nof these two Friends. From our viewpoint there seems to have been a\ncertain amount of unnecessary sensitiveness, which led both these\nFriends to exalt to the dignity of an insult, and positive impeachment\nof integrity, matters which probably belonged in the domain of\nmisunderstanding. It was apparently impossible for either to think in\nthe terms of the other, and so the contest went on and ended.\n\n[144] Anna Braithwaite, daughter of Charles and Mary Lloyd, of\nBirmingham, England, was born Twelfth month, 1788. She was married\nto Isaac Braithwaite, Third month 26, 1809, and removed to Kendal\nimmediately after. She sailed for America on her first visit, Seventh\nmonth 7th, 1823. She attended three meetings in New York, and then the\nQuarterly Meeting at Burlington, at which place she seems to have been\nthe guest of Stephen Grellet. She made two other visits to America, one\nin 1825 and the other in 1827. She returned to England after her first\nvisit to America in the autumn of 1824. The last two visits she made\nto America she was accompanied by her husband. Anna Braithwaite was a\nwoman of commanding presence, and was unusually cultured for one of her\nsex at that time. She was something of a linguist, speaking several\nlanguages. Her visits in America were quite extensive, taking her as\nfar south as North Carolina. She died Twelfth month 18th, 1859.\n\nWe shall let her friends state the beginning and progress of Anna\nBraithwaite's religious labor in America, and quote as follows: \"She\narrived in New York in Eighth month, 1823. For seven months she met\nwith no opposition. True, she always preached orthodox doctrines, but\nshe had made no pointed allusions to the reputed sentiments of Elias\nHicks.\"[145]\n\n[145] \"Calumny Refuted; or, Plain Facts _versus_ Misrepresentations.\"\nBeing reply to Pamphlet entitled, \"The Misrepresentations of Anna\nBraithwaite in Relation to the Doctrines Preached by Elias Hicks,\"\netc., p. 2.\n\nIt is interesting to note that the positive preaching of \"orthodox\ndoctrine,\" on its merits, caused no opposition, even from the friends\nof Elias Hicks, the trouble only coming when a personal application was\nmade, amounting to personal criticism. This is a fine testimony to the\nministerial liberty in the Society, and really a confirmation of the\nclaim that spiritual unity, and not doctrinal uniformity, was the true\nbasis of fellowship among Friends. We quote again:\n\n  \"She visited Long Island in the spring, and had some opportunities\n  of conversing with Elias Hicks on religious subjects, and also of\n  hearing him preach. They differed widely in sentiment, upon important\n  doctrines, and she soon had to conclude that his were at variance\n  with the hitherto well-established principles of the Society. With\n  these views, she returned to New York, and, subsequently, about the\n  time of the Yearly Meeting, in May, she considered it an act of duty\n  to warn her hearers against certain specious doctrines, which were\n  gradually spreading, and undermining what she believed to be the\n  'true faith.'\"[146]\n\n[146] The same, p. 6.\n\nIt seems that Anna Braithwaite was twice the guest of Elias Hicks in\nJericho, dining at his house both times. The first visit was in First\nmonth, 1824, and the other in Third month of the same year. They were\nboth good talkers, and apparently expressed themselves with commendable\nfrankness. The subject-matter of these two conversations, however,\nbecame material around which a prolonged controversy was waged. Before\nAnna Braithwaite sailed for England, she wrote a letter to an unnamed\nFriend in Flushing relative to the interviews with Elias Hicks. The\nletter was dated Seventh month 16, 1824.\n\nAfter Anna Braithwaite's departure from this country, the letter\nreferred to, with \"Remarks in Reply to Assertions of Elias Hicks,\" was\npublished and extensively circulated. It bore the following imprint:\n\"Philadelphia: Printed for the Reader, 1824.\"[147] In this collection\nwas a letter from Ann Shipley, of New York, dated Tenth month 15,\n1824, in which she declares she was present \"during the conversation\nbetween her [Anna Braithwaite] and Elias Hicks. The statement she\nleft was correct.\" While Ann Shipley's letter was published without\nher consent, it seemed to fortify the Braithwaite statement, and both\nwere extensively used in an attempt to cast theological odium on\nthe venerable preacher. The possibility that both women might have\nmisunderstood or misinterpreted Elias Hicks does not seem to have\nentered the minds of the Anti-Hicks partisans.\n\n[147] Most of the controversial pamphlets and articles of the\n\"separation\" period were anonymous. Except when the articles were\nprinted in regular periodicals, their publishers were as unknown as\ntheir authors.\n\nThis particular epistle of Anna Braithwaite does not contain much\nmaterial not to be found in a subsequent letter with \"notes,\" which\nwill receive later treatment. In her letter she habitually speaks of\nherself in the third person, and makes this observation: \"When at\nJericho in the Third month A. B. took tea with E. H. in a social way.\nShe had not been long in the house, when he began to speak on the\nsubject of the trinity, which A. B. considers a word so grossly abused\nas to render it undesirable even to make use of it.\"[148] One cannot\nwell suppress the remark that if a like tenacity of purpose regarding\nother theological terms had been held and followed by all parties to\nthe controversy, the history of the Society of Friends would have been\nentirely different from the way it now has to be written.\n\n[148] \"Remarks in Reply to Assertions of Elias Hicks,\" p. 7.\n\nTouching the two visits to Elias Hicks, we have direct testimony from\nthe visitor. We quote:\n\n  \"I thought on first entering the house, my heart and flesh would\n  fail, but after a time of inexpressible conflict, I felt a consoling\n  belief that best help would be near, and I think that every opposing\n  thing was in a great measure kept down.... He listened to my views,\n  which I was enabled to give with calmness. He was many times brought\n  into close quarters; but when he could not answer me directly, he\n  turned to something else. My mind is sorrowfully affected on this\n  subject, and the widespread mischief arising from the propagation of\n  such sentiments.\"[149]\n\n[149] \"Memoirs of Anna Braithwaite,\" by her son, J. Bevan Braithwaite,\np. 129-130.\n\nIn another letter, written to her family, she thus referred to her\ninterview with Elias Hicks:\n\n  \"I have reason to think that, notwithstanding the firm and honest\n  manner in which my sentiments were expressed, an open door is left\n  for further communication. We met in love and we parted in love. He\n  wept like a child for some time before we separated; so that it was\n  altogether a most affecting opportunity.\"[150]\n\n[150] The same, p. 140.\n\nWhile these two Friends undoubtedly were present in the same meeting\nduring the subsequent visits of Anna Braithwaite to this country, their\nrelations became so strained that they never met on common Friendly\nground after the two occasions mentioned.\n\nAfter the publication of the communication and comments referred to,\nElias Hicks wrote a long letter to his friend, Dr. Edwin A. Atlee, of\nPhiladelphia.[151] This letter became the subject of a good deal of\ncontroversy, and may have been the exciting cause of a letter which\nAnna Braithwaite wrote Elias Hicks on the 13th of Eleventh month,\n1824, from Lodge Lane, near Liverpool. This letter, with elaborate\n\"notes,\" was published and widely circulated on this side of the\nocean. The letter itself would have caused very little excitement, but\nthe \"notes\" were vigorous causes of irritation and antagonism. The\nauthorship of the \"notes\" was a matter of dispute. It was claimed that\nthey were not written by Anna Braithwaite, and the internal evidence\ngave color to that conclusion. They were not, in whole or in part,\nentirely in her spirit, and the temper of them was rather masculine.\nThere were persons who believed, but, of course, without positive\nevidence, that Joseph John Gurney was their author.\n\n[151] The text of this letter will be found listed as Appendix B in\nthis book.\n\nThe letter of Anna Braithwaite contains few points not covered by the\n\"notes.\" She charges that Elias had denied that the Scriptures were a\nrule of faith and practice, and it was also claimed that he repudiated\n\"the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.\"\nThis, she affirmed, was infidelity of a most pronounced type.\n\nThe \"notes\" attached to this letter constitute a stinging arraignment\nof the supposed sentiments of Elias Hicks. They were considered by his\nfriends such an unwarranted attack as to call for vigorous treatment,\nand in numerous ways they became points of controversy. They were mild\nat first, but personal and almost bitter at the last. The first \"note\"\nin the collection briefly, but fully, lays the foundation for arbitrary\nauthority in religion. It says:\n\n  \"It is a regulation indispensably necessary to the peace of society,\n  and to the preservation of order, consistency and harmony among\n  Christians, that the members of every religious body, and especially\n  those who assume the office of teachers or ministers, should be\n  responsible to the authorities established in the church, for the\n  doctrines which they hold and promulgate.\"[152]\n\n[152] A letter from Anna Braithwaite to Elias Hicks, on the Nature of\nHis Doctrines, etc., p. 9.\n\nThere is critical reference to a statement which Anna Braithwaite said\nElias Hicks made in the Meeting of Ministers and Elders in Jericho,\ntouching spiritual guidance in appointing people to service in the\nSociety. She says that Elias declared that \"if each Friend attended to\nhis or her proper gift, as this spirit is endued with prescience, that\nno Friend would be named for any appointment, but such as would attend,\nand during my long course of experience, I have never appointed any one\nwho was prevented from attending either by illness or otherwise.\"[153]\n\n[153] The same, p. 4.\n\nIn his letter to Dr. Atlee, Elias states his expression at the meeting\nas differing from Anna Braithwaite's in a material way. This is what\nhe declares he said: \"That I thought there was something wrong in\nthe present instance, for, as we profess to believe in the guidance\nof the Spirit of Truth as an unerring Spirit, was it not reasonable\nto expect, especially in a meeting of ministers and elders, that\nif each Friend attended to their proper gifts, as this Spirit is\nendued with prescience, that it would be much more likely, under its\ndivine influence, we should be led to appoint such as would attend on\nparticular and necessary occasions, than to appoint those who would not\nattend?\"\n\nWe make these quotations not only to show the difference in the two\nstatements, but to also make it plain what small faggots were used to\nbuild the fires of controversy regarding the opinions of Elias Hicks.\nIt looks in this particular citation like a case of criticism gone mad.\nThe following extracts are from the \"notes\":\n\n  \"We shall now notice the comparatively modern work of that\n  arch-infidel, Thomas Paine, called \"The Age of Reason,\" many of the\n  sentiments of which are so exactly similar to those of Elias Hicks,\n  as almost to induce us to suspect plagiarism.\"[154]\n\n[154] The same, p. 23-24.\n\n  \"We could adduce large quotations from authors of the same school\n  with Paine, showing in the most conclusive manner that the dogmas\n  of Elias Hicks, so far from being further revelations of Christian\n  doctrines, are merely the stale objections to the religion of the\n  Bible, which have been so frequently routed and driven from the\n  field, to the utter shame and confusion of their promulgators.\"[155]\n\n[155] The same, p. 26.\n\nThose who defended Elias Hicks saw in these criticisms an act of\npersecution, and a veiled attempt to undermine his reputation as a\nman and a minister. The latter effort was read into the following\nparagraph, which was presented as an effort at justifying the criticism\nof the Jericho preacher. We quote:\n\n  \"It was both Friendly and Christian to warn them of the danger of\n  listening with credulity to one whose high profession, reputed\n  morality, and popular eloquence, had given him considerable\n  influence; and if his opinions had been correct, the promulgation of\n  them would not have proved prejudicial to him.\"[156]\n\n[156] The same, p. 21-22.\n\nThe references to Thomas Paine will sound singularly overdrawn if\nread in connection with the reference of Elias Hicks to the same\nperson.[157] It may be asserted with some degree of safety that it is\ndoubtful if either Elias Hicks or his critics ever read enough of the\nwritings of Thomas Paine to be really qualified to judicially criticise\nthem.\n\n[157] See page 117 of this book.\n\nWhen Anna Braithwaite visited this country the second time, in 1825,\nshe found matters much more unsettled than on her first visit. Her\nown part in the controversy had been fully, if not fairly, discussed.\nAs showing her own feeling touching the second visit, we quote the\nfollowing from a sermon preached by her:\n\n  \"I have thought many times, while surrounded by my family and my\n  friends, and when I have bowed before the throne of grace, how very\n  near and how very dear were my fellow-believers, on this side of\n  the Atlantic, made unto my soul. It seemed to me, as if in a very\n  remarkable manner, their everlasting welfare was brought before me,\n  as if my fellow-professors of the same religious principles with\n  myself were in a very peculiar manner the objects of much solicitude.\n  How have I had to pour out my soul in secret unto the Lord, that he\n  would turn them more and more, and so let their light shine before\n  men, that all being believers in a crucified Saviour, they may be\n  brought to know for themselves that though 'Christ Crucified was to\n  the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto\n  them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God\n  and the wisdom of God.' I say my soul hath been poured out before\n  the Lord, that their light might shine in a still more conspicuous\n  manner, through their hearts being brought into deep prostration of\n  soul, that so their works might glorify their Father which is in\n  heaven. My heart was enlarged toward every religious denomination;\n  for surely, the world over, those who are believers in Christ have\n  one common bond of union--they are the salt of the earth--the little\n  flock to whom the Father in his good pleasure will give the Kingdom.\n  I have often greatly desired to be with you, while I am well aware\n  that to many it must appear a strange thing, that a female should\n  leave her home, her family, and her friends, and should thus expose\n  herself to the public, to preach the glad tidings of salvation\n  through Jesus Christ; yet I have thought, my beloved friends, that\n  though all may not see into these things, yet surely there is no\n  other way for any of us, but to yield up our thoughts unto the\n  Lord.\"[158]\n\n[158] Sermon and prayer by Anna Braithwaite, delivered in Friends'\nMeeting, Arch Street, Philadelphia, October 26, 1825. Taken in\nshort-hand by M. T. C. Gould, stenographer, p. 4-5.\n\nThere seem to have been some Friends desirous of producing a meeting\nbetween Anna Braithwaite and Elias Hicks during this visit. In Tenth\nmonth, 1825, she wrote him from Kipp's Bay, Long Island. She informed\nhim of her arrival, and then stated \"that if he wishes to have any\ncommunication with her, she is willing to meet him in the presence of\ntheir mutual friends, or to answer any letter he may write to her;\"\nthen she adds these remarkable words: \"Having written to thee sometime\nago, what I thought was right, I do not ask an interview.\"[159]\n\n[159] \"Christian Inquirer,\" new series, Vol. I, 1826, p. 57.\n\nTo this communication Elias Hicks made a somewhat full reply. He says\nthat her notes of the conversation, \"divers of which were without\nfoundation,\" led him to wonder why she should even think of having any\nfuture communication with him. He then says:\n\n  \"That I have no desire for any further communication with thee,\n  either directly or indirectly, until thou makest a suitable\n  acknowledgment for thy breach of friendship, as is required by the\n  salutary discipline of our Society; but as it respects myself, I\n  freely forgive thee, and leave thee to pursue thy own way as long as\n  thou canst find true peace and quiet therein.\"[160]\n\n[160] The same, p. 57.\n\nIt has to be said regretfully that during Anna Braithwaite's second\nvisit to this country, she met with both personal and Society rebuffs.\nIn some meetings her minute was read, but with no expression of\napprobation in the case. The Meeting of Ministers and Elders at Jericho\nappointed a committee,[161] to advise her not to appoint any more\nmeetings in that neighborhood during her stay. A good many Friends\nobjected to her family visits, and, taken altogether, her stay must\nhave been one of trial.\n\n[161] The same, p. 59.\n\nShe came again in the early part of the year 1827, and was here when\nthe climax came in that year and the year following.\n\nThe English Friends, who were so much in evidence in our troubles, went\nhome to face the Beacon controversy,[162] then gathering in England.\nThe Beaconite movement caused several hundred Friends to sever their\nconnection with the Society. But it did not reach the dignity of a\ndivision or a separation. Whether the English Friends profited by the\nexperiences suffered by the Society in America is not certain. At any\nrate, they seem to have been able to endure their differences without a\nrupture.\n\n[162] This controversy took its name from a periodical called the\n\"Beacon,\" edited by Isaac Crewdson. In this evangelical doctrines\nand methods were advocated. The Beaconites were strong in advocating\nthe doctrine of justification by faith, and practically rejected\nthe fundamental Quaker theory of the Inner Light. From the American\nstandpoint, the Beaconite position seems to have been the logical\ndevelopment of the doctrines preached by the English and American\nopponents of Elias Hicks.\n\nAfter the English trouble had practically subsided, in 1841, Anna\nBraithwaite made the following suggestive admission, which may well\nclose this chapter:\n\n  \"Calm reflection and observation of passing events, and of persons,\n  have convinced me that I took an exaggerated view of the state of\n  society with reference to Hicksism.... We have as great a horror of\n  Hicksism as ever, but we think Friends generally are becoming more\n  alive to its dangers, and that the trials of the last few years have\n  been blessed to the instruction of many.\"[163]\n\n[163] \"J. Bevan Braithwaite; a Friend of the Nineteenth Century,\" by\nhis children, p. 59-60.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nAnn Jones in Dutchess County.\n\n\nIn Fifth month, 1828, a year after the division had been accomplished\nin Philadelphia, a most remarkable round of experiences took place\nwithin the bounds of Nine Partners and Stanford Quarterly Meetings, in\nDutchess County, New York. Elias Hicks was past eighty years of age,\nbut he attended the series of meetings in the neighborhood mentioned.\nGeorge and Ann Jones, English Friends, much in evidence in \"separation\"\nmatters, were also in attendance, the result being a series of\ncontroversial exhortations, mingled with personal allusions, sometimes\ngently veiled, but containing what would now pass for bitterness and\nrailing. The \"sermons\" of this series were stenographically reported,\nand form a small book of ninety-eight pages.\n\nThe first meeting was held at Nine Partners, First-day, Fifth month\n4th. Elias Hicks had the first service in the meeting. After he had\nclosed, Ann Jones made the following remarks:\n\n  \"We have heard considerable said, and we have heard, under a\n  specious pretence of preaching, the Gospel, the Saviour of the world\n  denied, who is God and equal with the Father. And we have heard\n  that the Scriptures had done more hurt than good. We have also\n  heard the existence of a devil denied, except what arises from our\n  propensities, desires, &c.\"[164]\n\n[164] \"Sermons\" by Elias Hicks, Ann Jones and others of the Society of\nFriends, at the Quarterly Meeting of Nine Partners and Stanford, and\nfirst day preceding in Fifth month, 1828. Taken in short-hand by Henry\nHoag, p. 20.\n\nAfter this deliverance, Elias Hicks again arose and said:\n\n  \"I will just observe that my friends are acquainted with me in these\n  parts, and know me very well when I speak to them. I came not here as\n  a judge, but as a counsellor: I leave it for the people to judge. And\n  I would hope to turn them to nothing but a firm and solid conviction\n  in their minds. We may speak one by one, for that becometh order.\n  I thought I would add a word or two more. When I was young, I read\n  the Scriptures, and I thought that they were not the power, nor the\n  spirit, and that there was but very little in them for me; but I was\n  vain. But when I had once seen the sin in my heart, then I found that\n  this book pointed to the Spirit, but never convicted me of sin.\n\n  \"I believe that this was the doctrine of ancient Friends; for George\n  Fox declared that his Saviour never could be slain by the hands of\n  wicked men. I believe the Scriptures concerning Jesus Christ, and\n  David, too, and a host of others, who learned righteousness and were\n  united one with another. I believe that Jesus Christ took upon him\n  flesh made under the law, for all people are made under the law, and\n  Christ is this Light which enlighteneth every man that comes into the\n  world. And now, my friends, I would not have you believe one word of\n  what I say, unless by solid conviction.\"[165]\n\n[165] The same.\n\nIt will be in order to find out what was said by Elias Hicks which\ncalled for the personal allusion made by Ann Jones. We are not able\nto find in the remarks of Elias Hicks on this occasion anything that\nwould justify the strong language of his critic, especially as to the\nScriptures having done more hurt than good. It would seem that the\nsupplementary statement quoted must be accepted as containing his\nestimate of the book which he was charged with repudiating, rather than\nthe critical assertion of his doctrinal opponent.\n\nThere are various statements in the Hicks sermon which denied some of\nthe material claims of popular theology, but they did not class him\nwith those who denied the existence or spiritual office of Christ. In\nthe meetings under review, and at other times, the evidence is abundant\nthat his critics either did not want to or could not understand him. He\ndealt with the spirit of the gospel, and with the inner manifestation\nof that spirit in the heart. They stood for scriptural literalness,\nand for the outward appearance of Christ. It is not for us to condemn\neither side in the controversy, but to state the case.\n\nWe produce a few sentences and expressions from the sermon by Elias\nHicks, which might have created antagonism at the time. Speaking of the\n\"Comforter\" which was to come, he said:\n\n  \"And what was this Comforter? Not an external one--not Jesus Christ\n  outward, to whom there was brought diseased persons and he delivered\n  them from their various diseases.... Here, now, he told them how to\n  do: he previously made mention that when the Comforter had come,\n  he would reprove the world of sin--now the world is every rational\n  soul under heaven. And he has come and reproved them. I dare appeal\n  to the wickedest man present, that will acknowledge the truth, that\n  this Light has come into the world; but men love darkness better than\n  light, because their deeds are evil; yet they know the light by an\n  evidence in their hearts.\"[166]\n\n[166] The same, p. 9.\n\nNear the end of this discourse he elaborated his idea as to the\nineffectual character of all outward and formal soul cleansing, in the\nfollowing language:\n\n  \"Now can any man of common sense suppose that it can be outward blood\n  that was shed by the carnal Jews that will cleanse us from our sins?\n  The blood of Christ that is immortal, never can be seen by mortal\n  eyes. And to be Christians, we must come to see an immortal view.\n  After Christ had recapitulated the precepts of the law, 'Is it not\n  written in your law, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:\n  but I say unto you, if a man smite thee on one cheek turn to him the\n  other also: and if a man take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak\n  also.' Don't we see how different the precepts of the law of God are?\n  He tells us how we should do--we should take no advantage at all. The\n  Almighty visits us, to get us willing to observe his law; and if all\n  were concerned to maintain his law, all lawyers would be banished;\n  we should have no need of them; as well as of hireling Priests. We\n  should have no need of them to teach us, nor no need of the laws of\n  men, for each one would have a law in his own mind.\"[167]\n\n[167] The same, p. 17.\n\nThe other points in Dutchess County visited, and involved in the\nreports of sermons under consideration, were Chestnut Ridge, Stanford\nand Oblong. At some of these meetings the preachers spoke more than\nonce. It does not appear that in the brief communications of George\nJones he either directly or indirectly referred to statements made by\nElias Hicks, or particularly sought to antagonize them. Ann Jones,\nhowever, was not similarly considerate and cautious. Either directly\nor by inference, she quite generally attempted to furnish the antidote\nfor what she considered the pernicious doctrine of her fellow-minister.\nSpeaking at Nine Partners Quarterly Meeting, Fifth month 7th, she said:\n\n  \"I believe it to be right for me to caution the present company\n  without respect of persons--how they deny the Lord that bought\n  them--how they set at nought the outward coming of the Lord Jesus\n  Christ who died for them: they will have to answer it at the awful\n  tribunal bar of God, where it will be altogether unavailing to say\n  that such a one taught me to believe that there was nothing in this.\n  Oh! my friends! God hath not left us without a witness; Oh, then it\n  is unto the faithful and true witness, 'the testimony of Jesus, which\n  is the spirit of prophecy.' I am engaged in gospel love to recommend,\n  and to hold out unto you, that you meddle not with the things of God;\n  and that you cry unto him for help. For what hope can they have of\n  present or future good, or of everlasting happiness, if they reject\n  the only means appointed of God to come unto the Father through Jesus\n  Christ, the messenger of God, and of the new covenant?\"[168]\n\n[168] The same, p. 60.\n\nAt this meeting Elias Hicks followed Ann Jones in vocal communication.\nHe made no direct reference to what she said, the short sermon being\nlargely a reiteration touching the inner revelation to the souls of\nmen, as the reprover of sin, and the power which kept from sinning,\nas against the outward, sacrificial form of salvation. In closing his\nremarks, Elias Hicks made this statement:\n\n  \"I do not wish to detain this assembly much longer, but I want\n  that we should cast away things that are mysterious, for we cannot\n  comprehend mystery. 'Secret things belong to God, but those that are\n  revealed (that are understood), to us and our children.' And those\n  that are secret can never be found out by the prying of mortals. Do\n  we suppose for a moment--for it would cast an indignity upon God to\n  suppose that he had laid down any name except his own by which we can\n  have communion with him. It is a plain way, a simple way which all\n  can understand, and not be under the necessity to go to a neighbor,\n  and to say, 'Know thou the Lord? for all shall know me, from the\n  least of them unto the greatest of them,' as said Jeremy the prophet.\n  It is bowing down to an ignorant state of mind, to suppose that there\n  is no other power whereby we can come unto God, but by one of the\n  offspring of Abraham, and that we have need to go back to the law\n  which was given to the Israelites, and to no other people. He has\n  never made any covenant with any other people, but that which he made\n  with our first parents. That is the covenant that has been made with\n  all the nations of the earth.\n\n  \"He justifies for good and condemns for evil. And although every\n  action is to be from the operation of his power, yet he has given us\n  the privilege to obey or disobey; here now is a self-evident truth;\n  as they have the liberty to choose, so if they do that which is\n  contrary to his will, and so slay the Divine life in the soul: and\n  thus they have slain the innocent Lamb of God in the soul, which is\n  the same thing. All that we want, is to return to the inward light\n  in the soul. The Lord had declared beforehand unto them in plain\n  characters, that none need to say, 'Know ye the Lord? for I will be\n  merciful to them, I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember\n  their sin no more.' This was equally the case until the law was\n  abolished: until he blotted out the handwriting of the law, and put\n  an end to outward ordinances. The law was fulfilled when they had\n  crucified him, then it was that that law was abolished that consisted\n  in making their atonements which all had to make.\n\n  \"The people could not understand the doctrine delivered in the sermon\n  on the mount, although plainly preached to them. Jesus, when about\n  to take leave of his disciples, left this charge with them: 'Tarry\n  at Jerusalem until the Holy Ghost come upon you'; and then, and not\n  till then, were they to bear witness unto him. He told them that it\n  would bring everything to their remembrance: everything which is by\n  the preaching of the gospel brought to your remembrance; therefore he\n  says: 'All things shall be brought to your remembrance.' They would\n  not then be looking to anything outward, because he had filled them\n  with the Spirit of truth. What is this, but this Comforter which\n  reproves the world of sin? All that will obey the voice of this\n  reprover in the soul are in the way of redemption and salvation.\n  'By disobedience, sin entered into the world and death by sin:\n  but life and immortality is brought to light by the gospel.' I am\n  willing to leave you, and I recommend you to God, and the power of\n  his grace, which is able to build you up, as you are faithful to its\n  operation.\"[169]\n\n[169] The same, p. 71.\n\nThe last meeting of the series was held in connection with Nine\nPartners Quarterly Meeting, Fifth month 9th. This was evidently the\nclosing session of the Quarterly Meeting. From these published sermons\nit would seem that Elias Hicks and George Jones were the only Friends\nwho engaged in vocal ministry that day. There was nothing specially\nrelevant to the controversy going on in the Society in either of these\nshort discourses.\n\nIn reading this collection of sermons one cannot avoid the conclusion\nthat, apart from dissimilarity in phraseology, and the matters involved\nin interpreting Scripture, these Friends had much in common. Had they\nbeen minded to seek for the common ground, it is quite probable that\nthey would have found that they were really quarreling over the minor,\nrather than the major, propositions.\n\nIn Eighth month, 1828, Elias Hicks was on his last religious visit to\nthe Western Yearly Meetings. The \"separation\" in the New York Yearly\nMeeting had taken place in Fifth month, the trouble then passing to\nthe Quarterly and particular meetings. It reached Nine Partners at the\nQuarterly Meeting held as above. Ann Jones attended this meeting, the\nlast sermon in the little volume from which the extracts given in this\nchapter are taken having been preached by this Friend. There was little\nnew matter in this sermon. Much, by inuendo, was laid at the door of\nthose who were pronounced unorthodox, and who constituted a majority of\nthe meeting.\n\nSo far as the charge of persecution is concerned, it was repeatedly\nemployed by Elias Hicks and his sympathizers in describing the spirit\nand conduct of the orthodox party. In this particular, at least, the\ndisputants on both sides were very much alike. Ann Jones' reference\nto throwing down \"his elders and prophets\" contains more touching the\nanimus of the controversy than the few words really indicate. As will\nbe somewhat clearly shown in these pages, the trouble in the Society\nquite largely had reference to authority in the church, and its\narbitrary exercise by a select few, constituting a sort of spiritual\nand social hierarchy in the monthly meetings. It was this authoritative\nclass which had been \"thrown down,\" or was likely to be so repudiated.\n\nWe would by no means claim that with the \"separation\" an accomplished\nfact, the body of Friends not of the orthodox party thus gathered by\nthemselves became at once and continuously relieved of the arbitrary\nspirit. The history of this branch of the Society from 1827 to 1875,\nand in places down to date, would entirely disprove any such claim.\nIt would seem that wherever the Society lost ground numerically, and\nwherever its spiritual life dwindled, it was due largely because some\nsort of arbitrary authority ignored the necessity for real spiritual\nunity, and discounted the spiritual democracy upon which the Society of\nFriends was based.\n\nThe \"separation\" in the Quarterly Meetings in Dutchess County was\nperfected in Eighth month, 1828. Both Anna Braithwaite and Ann Jones\nwere in attendance, and evidently took part in the developments at\nthat time. Elias Hicks was on his last religious visit to the \"far\nwest.\" Informing partnership letters were sent to Elias, then in Mt.\nPleasant, Ohio, by Jacob and Deborah Willetts,[170] under date of\nEighth month 18, 1828. Jacob gave brief but explicit information as\nto the division in the several meetings. For instance, he says that\nin Oswego Monthly Meeting one-sixth of the members went orthodox. At\nCreek, about one-fourth left to form an orthodox meeting, about the\nsame proportion existing at Stanford. Nine Partners seems to have\nbeen the center of the difficulty, the orthodox leadership apparently\nhaving been more vigorous at that point. Still, about three-fourths of\nthe members refused to join the orthodox. A very brief appreciation\nof the transatlantic visitors is given in Jacob's letter. He says:\n\"The English Friends are very industrious, but I do not find that it\namounts to much. Friends have generally become acquainted with their\nmanoeuvring.\"\n\n[170] Jacob and Deborah Willetts were friendly educators in the first\nhalf of the nineteenth century. Jacob became principal of Nine Partners\nboarding school in 1803, when only 18 years of age, and Deborah Rogers\nprincipal of the girl's department in 1806, when at the same age.\nJacob Willetts and Deborah Rogers were married in 1812. At the time of\nthe \"separation,\" Nine Partners' school passed into the hands of the\nOrthodox, and Jacob and Deborah resigned their positions, and started\na separate school, which they conducted successfully for nearly thirty\nyears. Jacob was the author of elementary text books of arithmetic and\ngeography, and Deborah was an accomplished grammarian, and assisted\nGould Brown in the preparation of his once well-known English Grammar.\n\nDeborah's letter was both newsy and personal, and threw interesting\nsidelights on the \"separation\" experiences. At the close of a sermon by\nAnn Jones, Eighth month 5th, she made reference to the sudden death of\na woman Friend of the orthodox party, which is thus referred to in this\nletter:\n\n  \"Perhaps thou wilt hear ere this reaches thee of the death of Ann\n  Willis. She died at William Warings on her way home from Purchase\n  Quarterly Meeting, in an apoplectic fit. At our Quarterly Meeting Ann\n  Jones told us of the dear departed spirit of one who had lived an\n  unspotted life, who passed away without much bodily suffering, and\n  whose soul was now clothed in robes of white, singing glory, might\n  and majesty with angels forever and ever: which amounted nearly to a\n  funeral song.\"\n\nWe make the following extract from the letter of Deborah Willetts\nbecause of its interesting references and statements:\n\n  \"A week ago I returned from Stanford Quarterly Meeting held at\n  Hudson. All the English force was there save T. Shillitoe with a\n  large re-enforcement from New York, but they were headed by 15 men\n  and 25 women of the committee of Friends, and a great many attended\n  from the neighboring meetings, Coeymans, Rensalaerville, Saratoga,\n  &c. The city was nearly full. Anna Braithwaite and suite took\n  lodgings at the hotel. It was the most boisterous meeting I ever\n  attended. The clerks in each meeting were orthodox, but Friends were\n  favored to appoint others who opened the meeting. Anna Braithwaite\n  had much to say to clear up the charges against her in circulation\n  that their expenses had been borne by Friends, which she said was\n  false, and never had been done but in two instances, and mentioned\n  it twice or three times that her dear husband felt it a very great\n  pleasure to meet all expenses she might incur, and she would appeal\n  to those present for the truth of what she had said, and then Ann\n  Jones, Claussa Griffin, Ruth Hallock, Sarah Upton and some others\n  immediately attested to the truth of it. Oh, how inconsistent is all\n  this in a Friends' meeting. She also gave a long statement of the\n  separation at Yearly Meeting, but she was reminded of her absence at\n  the time, but she replied Ann Jones had informed her. She accused\n  Friends of holding erroneous doctrine and said Phebe I. Merritt did\n  not believe in the atonement for sin. Phebe said she denied the\n  charge, when Anna turning and looking stern in her face said, 'Did\n  thou not say, Phebe Merritt, all the reproof thou felt for sin was\n  in thy own breast?' Phebe then arose and was favored to express\n  her views in a clear way with an affecting circumstance that she\n  experienced in her childhood that brought such a solemnity over the\n  meeting that almost disarmed Anna of her hostile proceedings. She\n  stood upon her feet the while ready to reply but began in a different\n  tone of voice, and changed the subject, and very soon after, Ann\n  Jones made a move to adjourn when they could hold Stanford Quarterly\n  Meeting, which was seconded by several others and Friends in the\n  meantime as cordially and silently uniting with them in the motion.\n  They then retired without reading an adjournment, I afterwards\n  learnt, to the Presbyterian Conference room. I dined in company with\n  Willett Hicks, who said he was surprised to see so few go with them\n  after such a noble effort.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nThe Experience with T. Shillitoe.\n\n\nThe first day after his arrival in America, Thomas Shillitoe[171]\nattended Hester Street Meeting, in New York. He tells that \"it\nwas reported that he had come over to help the Friends of Elias\nHicks.\"[172] As this Friend came into collision with Elias several\ntimes, and was second to none in vigor and virulence among his\nantagonists, either domestic or foreign, it seems proper to review his\nconnection with the controversy, because some added light may thus be\nthrown on the spirit and purpose of the opposition to Elias Hicks.\n\n[171] Thomas Shillitoe was born in London \"about the Second month,\n1754,\" Elias Hicks being six years his senior. His parents were not\nFriends. At one time his father kept an inn. Joined Grace Church Street\nMonthly Meeting in London about 1775. Was acknowledged a minister at\nTottenham in 1790. He learned the grocery business, and afterward\nentered a banking house. Finally learned shoemaker's trade, and had\na shop. Was married in 1778. Came to America in 1826, arriving in\nNew York, Ninth month 8th. While here traveled extensively, visiting\ncertain Indian tribes. In 1827 he had an interview with President\nAndrew Jackson. He left New York for Liverpool in Eighth month, 1829,\nhaving been in this country nearly three years. Thomas Shillitoe died\nin 1836.\n\n[172] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 150.\n\nOf the experience on that first meeting in America the venerable\npreacher says: \"I found it hard work to rise upon my feet, but\nbelieving that the offer of the best of all help was made, I ventured\nand was favored to clear my mind faithfully, and in a manner I\napprehended would give such of the followers of Elias Hicks as were\npresent a pretty clear idea of the mistake they had been under of my\nbeing come over to help their unchristian cause.\"[173]\n\n[173] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 151.\n\nHe had not been seen at that time to converse with a single friend of\nElias Hicks, and there is no evidence that during the three years he\nwas in America he mingled at all with any Friends who were not of the\nso-called orthodox party.\n\nDuring the week following his arrival in this country, Thomas Shillitoe\nvisited Jericho by way of Westbury. Regarding his visit he says:\n\n  \"We took our dinner with G. Seaman; after which we proceeded to\n  Jericho, and took up our abode this night with our kind friend,\n  Thomas Willis. In passing through the village of Jericho, Elias\n  Hicks was at his own door; he invited me into his own house to take\n  up my abode, which I found I could not have done, even had we not\n  previously concluded to take up our abode with T. Willis. I refused\n  his offer in as handsome a manner as I well knew how. He then pressed\n  me to make him a call; I was careful to make such a reply as would\n  not make it binding upon me, although we had to pass his door on our\n  way to the next meeting. I believe it was safest for me not to comply\n  with his request.\"[174]\n\n[174] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 154.\n\nG. Seaman, mentioned above, became the first clerk of the Orthodox\nMonthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho, organized after the\n\"separation,\" and Thomas Willis was the Friend who should probably be\ncalled the father of the opposition to Elias Hicks. Had the English\nvisitor determined from the start to hear nothing, and know nothing but\none side of the controversy, he could not have more fully made that\npossible than by the intercourse he had with Friends on this continent.\n\nTo show how bent he was not to be influenced or contaminated by those\nnot considered orthodox, it may be noted that while in Jericho he was\nvisited by Friends in that neighborhood, who urged him to call on them.\nHe was at first inclined to acquiesce, but after \"waiting where the\ndivine counsellor is to be met with,\" he changed his mind, remarking,\n\"I afterwards understood some of these individuals were of Elias\nHicks's party.\"[175]\n\n[175] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 154.\n\nThe New York Yearly Meeting of 1827 was attended by all of the\nministering Friends and their companions from England, viz: Thomas\nShillitoe, Elizabeth Robson, George and Ann Jones, Isaac and Anna\nBraithwaite. There seems to have been a foreshadowing of trouble in\nthis yearly meeting. Elizabeth Robson asked for a minute to visit men's\nmeeting, which met with some opposition, and was characterized by\nconfusion in carrying out the purpose. Elias Hicks says nothing about\nthe matter in his Journal, and no reference was made to this Friend in\nhis personal correspondence. The English Friends left New York before\nthe close of the Yearly Meeting, to attend New England Yearly Meeting.\n\nIt is not our purpose to follow the wanderings of Thomas Shillitoe\nin America. He was at the New York Yearly Meeting again in 1828, at\nthe time of the \"separation.\" Touching this occasion, the minutes of\nthe meeting in question furnish some information, as follows: \"Thomas\nShillitoe, who is in this country on a religious visit from England,\nobjected to the company of some individuals who were present with us,\nand members of a neighboring yearly meeting, stating that they had\nbeen regularly disowned,\" etc.[176] For thus dictating to the yearly\nmeeting, Thomas Shillitoe presented this justification:\n\n[176] From Minute Book of New York Yearly Meeting, session of 1828.\n\n  \"I obtained a certificate from my own monthly meeting and quarterly\n  meeting, and also one from the Select Yearly Meeting of Friends held\n  in London, expressive of their concurrence with my traveling in the\n  work of the ministry on this continent, which certificates were read\n  in the last Yearly Meeting of New York, and entered in the records\n  of that Yearly Meeting; such being the case, it constitutes me as\n  much a member of this Yearly Meeting as any other member of it.\"[177]\n\n[177] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 311.\n\nThis may have been according to good society order and etiquette eighty\nodd years ago, but would hardly pass current in our time. For a visitor\nin a meeting to object to the presence of other visitors, on the ground\nof rumor and with no regular or official evidence of the charges\nagainst them, would probably put the objector into disfavor. But we\nare not warranted in passing harsh judgment in the nineteenth-century\ncase. The English Friends, right or wrong, came to this country under\nthe impression that they were divinely sent to save the Society of\nFriends in America from going to the bad. At the worst, it was a case\nof assuming the care of too many consciences.\n\nSoon after the close of the New York Yearly Meeting of 1828, both\nThomas Shillitoe and Elias Hicks started on a western trip. Elias seems\nto have preceded the English Friend by a few days. The two men met at\nWestland.[178] At this place Thomas says that Elias denied that Jesus\nwas the son of God, until after the baptism, and opposed the proper\nobservance of the Sabbath.[179] Of course, the statements of Elias were\ncontroverted by his fellow-preacher, or, at least, an attempt to do\nso was made. It should be understood that Elias denied that Jesus was\nthe son of God in the sense in which Thomas conceived he was, and he\nundoubtedly antagonized the observance of the Sabbath in the slavish\nway which considered that man was secondary to the institution.\n\n[178] See page 47 of this book.\n\n[179] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 328.\n\nPart of the mission of our English Friend from this time seems to\nhave been to oppose Elias Hicks, and turn the minds of the people\nagainst him. They both attended Redstone Monthly Meeting. Here Elias\npresented his minute of unity and the other evidences of good faith\nwhich he possessed. At this point Thomas says: \"Observing a disposition\nin most of the members of the meeting to have these minutes read\nin the meeting, I proposed to the meeting to consider how far with\npropriety they could read them; after their Meeting for Sufferings\nhad given forth a testimony against the doctrines of Elias Hicks. But\na determination to read his minutes being manifested, Friends were\nobliged to submit.\"[180]\n\n[180] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 330.\n\nTaken altogether, this is a remarkable statement. The \"testimony\"\nreferred to was the \"declaration of faith\"[181] published by the\nPhiladelphia Meeting for Sufferings. This document did not mention\nElias Hicks, and failed to secure the approval of the Yearly Meeting,\nbefore the \"separation.\" It is evident that \"most of the members\"\nwere with Elias Hicks on this occasion. Only the few opposers were\n\"Friends\"; so the statement infers.\n\n[181] See page 139 of this book.\n\nThe two preachers are next heard from at Redstone Quarterly Meeting,\nwhere Thomas was disposed to practice an act of self-denial. He told\nthe meeting that he preferred his own minute should not be read, if\nElias Hicks's was received. We have some evidence from Elias Hicks\nhimself regarding this incident, in a letter written to Valentine\nand Abigail Hicks, from Pittsburg, Eighth month 5, 1828, stating the\nproposition of Thomas Shillitoe regarding his minute. Elias says:\n\"Friends took him at his word, and let him know that they should not\nminute it, but insisted that mine should be minuted, expressing very\ngeneral satisfaction with my company and service, and reprobated his\nin plain terms, and charged him and his companion with breach of the\norder and discipline of the Society, and insisted that the elders and\noverseers should stop at the close of the meeting and see what could be\ndone to put a stop to such disorderly conduct.\"\n\nThomas then says that he exposed Elias Hicks as an impostor \"in\nattempting as he did to impose himself upon the public as a minister\nin unity with the Society of Friends; the Society having, by a printed\ndocument, declared against his doctrine, and himself as an approved\nminister.\"[182] Evidently this was another reference to the much-lauded\n\"declaration of faith,\" although this did not represent an actually\nauthoritative declaration of the Society. At its best, Philadelphia's\nMeeting for Sufferings was not the Society of Friends; but the people\nstill wanted to hear Elias. They apparently preferred to interpret him\nat first-hand.\n\n[182] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 331.\n\nThomas Shillitoe tells us that when they crossed the Ohio River he\ntalked with the woman at the ferry, who protested against the ideas of\nElias Hicks, and then remarks: \"She kept a tavern, and I left with her\none of the declarations, requesting her to circulate it amongst her\nneighbors.\"[183] Evidently the publican, in this case, was sound in the\nfaith as held by the English preacher.\n\n[183] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 332.\n\nMt. Pleasant was next visited by both Friends, preceding and at Ohio\nYearly Meeting. They do not seem to have come personally into collision\nat this point, and insofar as either makes reference to the occurrences\nthere, they are in substantial agreement.[184] Thomas Shillitoe bears\nmildly veiled testimony to the desire of the people to hear Elias\nHicks, in the following statement: \"From the great concourse of people\nwe passed in the afternoon on the way to Short Creek Meeting, where\nElias Hicks was to be, I had cherished a hope we should have had a\nquiet meeting at Mt. Pleasant.\"[185] But the contrary was the case; to\nwhom the blame was due, the reader may decide.\n\n[184] For other reference to this matter, see page 49 of this book.\n\n[185] \"Journal of Thomas Shillitoe,\" Vol. 2, p. 343.\n\nIt is to be presumed that these two Friends, both of whom performed\nvaluable service for the Society, according to their lights and gifts,\nnever met after their western experience. For the want of understanding\neach other, they went their way not as fellow-servants, but as\nstrangers, if not enemies. The unity of the spirit was obliterated in a\ndemand for uniformity of speculative doctrine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nDisownment and Doctrine.\n\n\nThe \"separation\" was accomplished in most meetings in the East by the\nwithdrawal of the orthodox party, after which they set up new meetings\nfor worship and discipline. In a minority of meetings the orthodox held\nthe property and the organization, and the other Friends withdrew. At\nJericho and Westbury the great majority of the members remained, and\ncontinued to occupy the old meeting-houses. The orthodox who separated\nfrom the Westbury and Jericho Monthly Meetings organized the Monthly\nMeeting of Westbury and Jericho, as has already been mentioned.\n\nIn 1829, when the new monthly meeting was formed, the membership of\nWestbury Monthly Meeting was as follows: Westbury Preparative Meeting,\n193; Matinecock Preparative Meeting, 121; Cow Neck (now Manhassett),\n65; total, 379. Of this number, accessions to the orthodox were: From\nWestbury Preparative Meeting, 32; Matinecock Preparative Meeting, 2;\nCow Neck Preparative Meeting, 5; total, 39. In Jericho the members of\nthe monthly meeting, Fifth month, 1829, numbered 225. Of this number,\nnine left to join the Monthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho, and\nfive were undetermined in their choice. Giving the latter meeting the\nbenefit of the doubt, and assigning to it the five uncertain members,\nthe meeting that disowned Elias Hicks was composed of fifty-three\nmembers, of whom thirteen were minors and five of only mild allegiance.\n\nA simple mathematical calculation will show that the Monthly Meeting\nof Westbury and Jericho contained 10 per cent. of the Friends who had\nbeen members of the two original monthly meetings, which meetings still\nsurvived, retaining 90 per cent. of the members. These figures will\nthrow suggestive light on what follows.\n\nIt was the Westbury and Jericho Monthly Meeting which, on the 29th of\nFourth month, 1829, adopted the \"testimony against Elias Hicks,\" called\nhis disownment. It contained specified charges, which may be condensed\nas follows: He denied the influence or existence of an evil spirit;\ndoubted the fall of man, and his redemption through Christ; endeavored\nto \"destroy a belief in the miraculous conception of our Lord and\nSaviour Jesus Christ\"; also rejected a \"belief in his holy offices, his\npropitiatory offering for the redemption of mankind; and has denied his\nresurrection and ascension into heaven\"; \"he also denied his mediation\nand intercession with the Father.\" He was charged with too much\nindustry in promulgating his views, causing great numbers to embrace\nthem, \"and has at length become the leader of a sect distinguished by\nhis name.\" He was also charged with meeting with, and countenancing by\nhis presence and conduct, those who had \"separated\" from Friends. This\nhad reference to many meetings of a large majority of the Society held\nat various places in 1828. The \"testimony\" also alleges that he had\nmany times been tenderly admonished and advised, but that he and his\nfriends \"prevented the timely exercise of the discipline in his case.\"\nIt all, without doubt, sounded very formidable to the little company of\nFriends who formulated and issued the document.\n\nThis was a remarkable document in more ways than one. The meeting which\nissued it assumed an authority in conduct hard now to understand, and\nasserted as facts mere assumptions, and yet we are bound to believe\nthat, in the main, they thought they were performing God's service.\nIt must be remembered that the orthodox Friends, in 1829, everywhere\noperated on the theory that those who considered themselves \"sound in\ndoctrine,\" no matter how few in numbers, were the Society of Friends,\nin direct descent from the founders of the faith. It was their\nreligious duty to excommunicate all whom they considered unsound, even\nthough those disowned might constitute the overwhelming portion of the\nmeeting. That this was the sincere conviction of the orthodox Friends\nall through the \"separation\" period, and also before and after it, is\na demonstrable fact of history. There was also a marked disposition\nto adhere to tradition and to cling to former precedents. If there\nhad ever been a time when Friends had been disowned on account of\ntheological opinions, the practice should be kept up, and practically\ncontinued forever.\n\nThat there was a considerable amount of precedent for disowning\nFriends on points of doctrine is undoubtedly true. In the famous New\nJersey Chancery trial, Samuel Parsons gave several cases of such\ndisownment.[186] They involved cases in half a dozen monthly meetings,\nand included charges as follows: Denying the miraculous conception;\ndenying the divinity of Jesus Christ; denying the authenticity of the\nScriptures; promulgating the belief that the souls of the wicked would\nbe annihilated.\n\n[186] \"Foster's Report,\" Vol. I, p. 171.\n\nThe orthodox Friends might have done still better, and cited the case\nof John Bartram,[187] the father of American botany, who was disowned\nby Darby Monthly Meeting in 1758, for deistical and other unorthodox\nopinions. It has been supposed that Bartram was disowned by Friends\nfor placing the following inscription over his door:\n\n[187] John Bartram, born near Darby, Pa., Third month 23, 1699. Was\nthe earliest native American botanist. He died Ninth month 22, 1777.\nBartram traveled extensively in the American colonies in pursuit of\nhis botanical studies and investigations. He established the Bartram\nBotanical Gardens near the Schuykill River, which are still often\nvisited.\n\n  \"'Tis God alone, Almighty Lord,\n  The Holy One by me adored.\n      John Bartram, 1770.\"\n\nAs this sentiment is dated twelve years after the disownment,[188] it\nis evident that it was not the primary cause of the action taken by\nDarby Monthly Meeting.\n\n[188] \"Memorials of John Bartram and Humphrey Marshall,\" by William\nDarlington, 1849, p. 42.\n\nDuring the period of repression in the Society, lasting from about\n1700 to 1850, it was not hard to find precedent for disowning members\non almost any ground, so that the treatment of Elias Hicks, on account\nof alleged \"unsound\" doctrine calls for no complaint on the score of\nregularity. Disowning members for that cause in one branch of Friends\nto-day would be practically inconceivable. Its wisdom at any time was\ndoubtful, and, in spite of precedents, the practice was not general.\n\nThe main point in this transaction, however, is that the meeting which\nissued the \"testimony\" against Elias Hicks had no jurisdiction in\nthe case. As a matter of fact, he was never a member of the meeting\nin question, unless it be assumed that 10 per cent. of two monthly\nmeetings can flock by themselves, organize a new meeting, and take over\nthe 90 per cent. without their knowledge or consent.\n\nIn the main, we do not care to consider or discuss the points in the\n\"testimony\" under consideration. Those who have followed the pages\nof this book thus far will be able to decide whether the main causes\nas stated by those who prepared and approved the document were true\nin fact, and whether they would have constituted a sufficient reason\nfor the action of the Monthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho, had it\npossessed any authority in the case.\n\nJust what Elias Hicks thought regarding the matter of Society and\ndisciplinary authority in his case, we have documentary evidence. In\na private letter he said: \"For how can they disown those who never\nattended their meetings, nor never had seen the inside of their\nnew-built meeting-houses, and who never acknowledged their little\nseparate societies? Would it not be as rational and consistent with\nright order for a Presbyterian or a Methodist society to treat with and\ndisown us for not attending their meetings, and not acknowledging their\ncreed?\"[189]\n\n[189] Letter to Johnson Legg, Twelfth month 15, 1829.\n\nThere is one point in the \"testimony\" which cannot so easily or\nreasonably be ignored. It says that Elias Hicks \"has at length become\nthe leader of a sect, distinguished by his name, yet unjustly assuming\nthe character of Friends.\" From the assumed standpoint of those who\nmade this statement of fact, it had no warrant. That body of Friends\nin, at least, the Yearly Meetings of New York, Philadelphia, and\nBaltimore, which at the time of the \"separation\" housed two-thirds of\nall the members, was as much entitled to be called Friends, and assume\ntheir \"character,\" as the minority. The distinguishing epithet was not\nof their selecting or adoption, and those who applied it could scarcely\nwith propriety force it upon those who did not claim it or want it. As\nfor leadership, the outcome in 1827-28 was accomplished without either\nthe presence or assistance of Elias Hicks in a majority of cases. If\nthose who left the parent meetings and set up meetings of their own\nwere the \"separatists,\" then, in a majority of cases, the name belonged\nto the party that opposed Elias Hicks, and not to that body of Friends\nwho objected to the Society being divided or perpetuated because of the\npersonality or the preaching of any one man.\n\nIt has to be said that the disowning at the time of the \"separation\"\nwas not all on one side. Jericho Monthly Meeting \"testified against\"\nat least four of the orthodox party. But in every such case, so far\nas we are aware, no charges regarding doctrine were made against any.\nThe disownments took place because the persons involved had become\nconnected with other meetings, and did not attend the gatherings of\nthat branch of Friends who issued disownments. Both sides undoubtedly\ndid many things at the time which later would have been impossible.\n\nElias Hicks evidently approved the general order of the Society in\nhis time touching disownments. In a letter directed to \"My Unknown\nFriend,\" but having no date, he deals with the disownment question. He\ngoes on to say that it had been the practice of the Society to disown\nmembers for more than a century, when such members had deviated \"from\nthe established order of Society,\" and he reaches the conclusion that\nnot to follow this course would lead to \"confusion and anarchy.\" He\nthen says: \"These things considered, it appears to me the most rational\nand prudent, when a particular member of any society dissents in some\nparticular tenet from the rest of that society, if such dissent break\ncommunion and render it necessary in the judgment of such society that\na separation take place between them, that it be done in the same way,\nand agreeable to the general practice of such society in like cases.\"\n\nIt is quite certain, however, that Elias Hicks did not think that\ndisputed points of doctrine offered a sufficient ground for disownment\nin the Society of Friends. In a letter to David Evans, written at\nJericho, Twelfth month 25, 1829, he says: \"I apprehend that if the\nFriends who took part in the controversy on the side of the miraculous\nconception, and those on the opposition, will fully examine both\nsides of the question, they will find themselves more or less in\nerror, as neither can produce sufficient evidence to enforce a\nrational conviction on others.... Surely, then, we who believe in the\nmiraculous conception ought not to censure our brethren in profession\nfor having a different opinion from ours, and especially as we have no\nknowledge of the subject in any wise, but from history and tradition.\nSurely, then, both parties are very far off the true Christian\nfoundation for keeping up the controversy, inasmuch as it never has had\nthe least tendency to gather on the one hand or the other, but always\nto scatter and divide, and still has the same baneful tendency.\"\n\nThe reader will not fail to consider that at this late period Elias\nHicks reiterates his personal belief in the miraculous conception,\nalthough the \"testimony\" of disownment against him charged that he\nwas \"endeavoring to destroy a belief in that doctrine.\" Whatever may\nhave been his belief regarding the matter, it is clear that he did not\nconsider acceptance or rejection of the doctrine a determining quality\nin maintaining a really Christian fellowship.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nAfter the \"Separation.\"\n\n\nA letter dated Solebury, Pa., Sixth month 21, 1828, told of some\nexperiences on his last western trip. It was addressed to his\nson-in-law, Valentine Hicks. On the journey from Jericho to New York,\nElias was very much annoyed, if not vexed, by the crowds of \"vain and\nfoolish people coming from the city and its suburbs to see horses\ntrot.\" \"How ridiculous and insignificant,\" he says, \"is such foolish\nconduct for professed rational beings! I can scarcely conceive in\nthought an epithet degrading enough to give a just estimate of such\nirrational conduct.\"\n\nThe \"separation\" had just been accomplished in the New York Yearly\nMeeting, and as this was the first visit he had made to the local\nmeetings and Friendly neighborhoods since that event, it is a matter\nof interest to learn from his own hand how he was received by Friends\nin the meetings. Rose and Hester Street Meetings, in New York, were\nattended the First-day after leaving home. Elias says, in the letter\nmentioned: \"They were both large, solemn meetings, showing evidently\nthe comfort and benefit Friends have derived from the orthodox\ntroubles, (they) having separated themselves from us.\" This may have\nbeen the superficial view of many who were prominent in sustaining\nElias Hicks. They failed to see, as did their opponents, that the\n\"separation\" no matter which side went off, was a violation of the real\nspirit of Quakerism. It was an unfortunate acknowledgment that \"unity\nof the spirit\" was a failure, if it required absolute uniformity of\ndoctrine for its maintenance.\n\nPassing over to New Jersey, he reports universal kindly treatment. In\nthis particular he remarks:\n\n  \"Indeed we have found nothing in the least degree to discourage or\n  impede our progress, unless it be an excess of kindness from our\n  friends, who can hardly give us up to pass on, without favoring\n  them with a visit in their own houses. And not only Friends, but\n  many who are not members manifest much friendly regard and respect.\n  On Fourth-day we attended Friends' Monthly Meeting for Rahway and\n  Plainfield held at Plainfield, Friends having given their neighbors\n  notice of our intention to be there, it was largely attended by those\n  of other professions, and some of the orthodox Friends', contrary\n  to the expectation of Friends also attended. It was truly a very\n  solemn and instructive good meeting, in which truth reigned. I was\n  truly comforted in the meeting for discipline in viewing Friends'\n  order, and the unity and harmony that prevailed, and the brotherly\n  condescension that was manifested in transacting their business.\"\n\nElias Hicks evidently possessed what might be called a grain of humor.\nIn Eleventh month, 1828, when practically all of the \"separations\" had\nbeen accomplished, he wrote to his wife from Redstone, Pa. He had not\nbeen getting letters from home as he desired, and especially was that\ntrue regarding the much-valued missives from Jemima. He, therefore,\nsays, toward the end of this particular epistle: \"If I do not\nreceive some direct account from home at one or both of these places\n(Alexandria or Baltimore), I shall be ready to conclude that my friends\nhave forgotten me or turned orthodox.\"\n\nEvidently there had been a readjustment of society conditions in this\nneighborhood. He says: \"Divers friends, whose names I have forgotten,\nand some who have never seen thee, but love thee on my account, desired\nto be affectionately remembered to thee. Indeed, love and harmony so\nabound among Friends in these parts, and the more they are persecuted,\nthe more love abounds, insomuch that I have observed to them in some\nplaces, that if they continued faithful to the openings of truth on the\nmind, that they would so exalt the standard of love and light, that the\nold adage would be renewed, 'See how the Quakers love one another.'\"\n\nReturning from the long western trip, considered in Chapter VI, Elias\nwas met in New York by his wife and daughter Elizabeth, where Westbury\nQuarterly Meeting was attended. Many near and dear Friends greeted the\naged minister, inwardly, if not outwardly, congratulating him upon his\nsafe return home, and the labors so faithfully performed. In mentioning\nthe event, Elias says: \"It was truly a season of mutual rejoicing,\nand my spirit was deeply humbled under a thankful sense of the Lord's\npreserving power and adorable mercy, in carrying me through and over\nall opposition, both within and without. He caused all to work together\nfor good, and the promotion of his own glorious cause of truth and\nrighteousness in the earth, and landed me safe in the bosom of my dear\nfamily and friends at home, and clothed my spirit with the reward of\nsweet peace for all my labor and travail. Praises, everlasting high\npraises be ascribed unto our God, for his mercy endureth forever.\"[190]\n\n[190] \"Journal,\" p. 425.\n\nDark days were approaching, and the heavy hand of a great sorrow was\nabout to be laid upon this strong man, who had buffeted many storms,\nand who seemed now to be feeling a period of calm and quiet. But we\nshall let Elias Hicks tell the details in his own words:\n\n  \"Soon after my return from the aforesaid journey, I had to experience\n  a very severe trial and affliction in the removal of my dearly\n  beloved wife. She was taken down with a cold, and although, for a\n  number of days, we had no anticipation of danger from her complaint,\n  yet about five days after she was taken, the disorder appeared\n  to settle on her lungs, and it brought on an inflammation which\n  terminated in a dissolution of her precious life, on the ninth day\n  from the time she was taken ill. She had but little bodily pain, yet\n  as she became weaker, she suffered from shortness of breathing; but\n  before her close, she became perfectly tranquil and easy, and passed\n  away like a lamb, as though entering into a sweet sleep, without sigh\n  or groan, or the least bodily pain, on the 17th of Third month, 1829:\n  And her precious spirit, I trust and believe, has landed safely on\n  the angelic shore, 'where the wicked cease from troubling, and the\n  weary are at rest.' To myself, to whom she was a truly affectionate\n  wife, and to our children, whom she endeavored, by precept and\n  example, to train up in the paths of virtue, and to guard and keep\n  out of harm's way, her removal is a great and irreparable loss: and\n  nothing is left to us in that behalf, but a confident belief and an\n  unshaken hope, that our great loss is her still greater gain; and\n  although the loss and trial, as to all my external blessings, are\n  the greatest I have ever met with, or ever expect to have to endure,\n  yet I have a hope, that, though separated, I may be preserved from\n  mourning or complaining; and that I may continually keep in view\n  the unmerited favour dispensed to us, by being preserved together\n  fifty-eight years in one unbroken bond of endeared affection, which\n  seemed if possible to increase with time to the last moment of her\n  life; and which neither time nor distance can lessen or dissolve; but\n  in the spiritual relation I trust it will endure for ever, where all\n  the Lord's redeemed children are one in him, who is God over all, in\n  all, and through all, blessed forever. She was buried on the 19th,\n  and on this solemn occasion, the Lord, who is strength in weakness,\n  enabled me to bear a public and, I trust, a profitable testimony to\n  the virtues and excellences of her long and consistent life.\"[191]\n\n[191] \"Journal,\" p 425.\n\nRegarding the funeral of Jemima Hicks, and its aftermath, rumor has\nbeen more or less busy. That Elias spoke on this occasion is certain.\nIt was his eighty-first birthday. His remarks were undoubtedly in\nharmony, both as to the matter and the hope of a future reunion, with\nthe extract printed above. There is in existence what purports to be\nmatter copied from a Poughkeepsie newspaper relating to this event. The\nstatement is supplemented by a \"poem,\" entitled \"Orthodox Reflections\non the Remarks Made by Elias Hicks at His Wife's Funeral.\" These verses\nare both theological and savage. Elias is assured that, because of his\nbelief, he cannot hope to \"rest in heaven,\" or meet his wife there.\nWhat is strange, however, is that verses, signed \"Elias Hicks,\" and in\nreply to the poetical attack, are also given. The first-mentioned rhyme\nmay be genuine, as it voices an opinionated brutality and boldness\nwhich was not uncommon in dealing with the future life eighty years\nago. But we can hardly imagine Elias Hicks being a \"rhymster\" under any\nsort of provocation. If the two \"poems\" were ever printed, touching the\nmatter in question, some one besides Elias, undoubtedly is responsible\nfor the rejoinder.\n\nNear the 1st of Sixth month, and a little more than three months after\nthe death of his wife, Elias Hicks started on his last religious\nvisit. His concern took him to the meetings and neighborhoods within\nthe limits of his own Yearly Meeting. Nothing unusual is reported on\nthis visit until Dutchess County was reached. All of the meetings\nwere reported satisfactory. Of the meetings at West Branch, Creek and\nCrum-Elbow, Elias says:\n\n  \"Although it was in the midst of harvest, such was the excitement\n  produced amongst the people by the opposition made by those of our\n  members who had gone off from us, and set up separate meetings, that\n  the people at large of other societies flocked to those meetings\n  in such numbers, that our meeting-houses were seldom large enough\n  to contain the assembled multitude; and we had abundant cause for\n  thanksgiving and gratitude to the blessed Author of all our mercies,\n  in condescending to manifest his holy presence, and causing it so to\n  preside as to produce a general solemnity, tendering and contriting\n  many minds, and comforting and rejoicing the upright in heart.\"[192]\n\n[192] \"Journal,\" p. 428.\n\nProceeding up the Hudson, arriving at Albany on Seventh-day, Eighth\nmonth 1st, that evening a large meeting was held in the statehouse.\nThose present represented the inhabitants generally of the capital\ncity. Many meetings were attended after leaving Albany, which have now\nceased to exist. In fact, few, if any, meetings then in existence were\nmissed on this journey. The 17th of Eighth month he was in Utica. Of\nthe meeting in that city, and at Bridgewater, he says:\n\n  \"These were not so large as in some other places, neither was there\n  as much openness to receive our testimony as had generally been the\n  case elsewhere. Our opposing Friends had filled their heads with\n  so many strange reports, to which they had given credit without\n  examination, by which their minds were so strongly prejudiced\n  against me, that many in the compass of these two last meetings\n  were not willing to see me, nor hear any reasons given to show them\n  their mistakes, and that the reports they had heard were altogether\n  unfounded: however, I was favored to communicate the truth to those\n  who attended, so that they generally went away fully satisfied, and I\n  left them with peace of mind.\"[193]\n\n[193] \"Journal,\" p. 430.\n\nIn 1829, under date of Seventh month 9th, in a letter written at\nOblong, in Westchester County, New York, he expresses the feeling that\nthe meeting at Jericho sustains important relations to the branch of\nFriends with which he was connected. The letter was written to his\nchildren, Valentine and Abigail Hicks. In it he says:\n\n  \"Although absent in body, yet my mind pretty often takes a sudden and\n  instantaneous excursion to Jericho, clothed with a desire that we\n  who constitute that monthly meeting, may keep our eye so single, to\n  the sure and immovable foundation of the light within, so as to be\n  entirely preserved from all fleshly reasonings, which if given way\n  to, in the least degree, ever has, and ever will, have a tendency to\n  divide in Jacob and scatter in Israel. I consider that much depends\n  upon the course we take in our monthly meeting, as we are much looked\n  up to as an example and if we make but a small miss, it may do much\n  harm.\"\n\nTwelfth month 15, 1829, Elias Hicks wrote to his friend Johnson Legg,\nevidently in reply to one asking advice in regard to his own conduct\nin relation to the \"separation.\" In this letter Elias says: \"In the\npresent interrupted and disturbed state of our once peaceful and\nfavoured Society, it requires great deliberation and humble waiting on\nthe Lord for counsel before we move forward on the right hand or the\nleft. Had this been the case with our brethren of this yearly meeting\nwho style themselves orthodox, I very much doubt if there would have\nbeen any separation among us. For although the chief cause thereof is\nplaced to my account, yet I am confident I have given no just cause for\nit.\"\n\nThis statement undoubtedly expresses the real feeling of Elias Hicks\nregarding the \"separation.\" He could not see why what he repeatedly\ncalled \"mere opinions\" should cause a rupture in the Society. It will\nbe noted that he still refers to the other Friends as \"our brethren,\"\nand he, apparently, had no ill-will toward them. The letter from which\nthis extract was taken was written only about two months before his\ndeath, and was undoubtedly his last written word on the unfortunate\ncontroversy, and the trouble that grew out of it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nFriendly and Unfriendly Critics.\n\n\nFew men in their day were more talked about than Elias Hicks. The\ninterest in his person and in his preaching continued for years after\nhis death. While the discussion ceased to be warm long years ago,\nhis name is one which men of so-called liberal thought still love to\nconjure with, without very clearly knowing the reason why. Some clearer\nlight may be thrown upon his life, labor and character by a brief\nreview of opinions of those who criticised him as friends, and some\nof them as partisans, and those who were his open enemies, for the\ntheological atmosphere had not yet appeared in which he could be even\napproximately understood by the men of the old school.\n\nWe shall begin the collection of criticisms by quoting Edward\nHicks,[194] who wrote a comparatively judicial estimate of his friend\nand kinsman. After stating that even the apostles had their weak side,\nthat Tertullian \"was led into a foolish extreme by the fanatical\nnotions of Montanus;\" and that Origen \"did immense mischief to the\ncause of primitive Christianity by his extreme attachment to the\nPlatonic philosophy, scholastic divinity and human learning,\" he\nremarks:\n\n[194] Edward Hicks, a relative of Elias Hicks, was born in Attleboro,\nPa., Fourth month 4, 1780. His mother passed away when he was an\ninfant, and he was cared for in his early youth by Elizabeth Twining,\na friend of his mother. When a young man, he became a member of\nMiddletown Monthly Meeting in Bucks County by request. He began\nspeaking in meeting when about thirty years of age, and was a little\nlater recorded as a minister. Edward Hicks for many years carried on\nthe business of carriage maker and painter at Newtown, Pa. Although\nmuch more orthodox in doctrine than his celebrated kinsman, he was one\nof the most ardent friends and defenders of Elias Hicks.\n\n  \"Therefore, it is among the possible circumstances that dear Elias\n  was led to an extreme in the Unitarian speculation, while opposing\n  the Trinitarian, then increasing among Friends, and now almost\n  established among our orthodox Friends. But I have no recollection\n  of ever hearing him in public testimony, and I have heard him\n  much, when his speculative views or manner of speaking, destroyed\n  the savour of life that attended his ministry, or gave me any\n  uneasiness. But I have certainly heard to my sorrow, too many of his\n  superficial admirers that have tried to copy after him, pretending\n  to wear his crown, without knowing anything of his cross, make\n  use of the naked term, Jesus, both in public and private, till it\n  sounded in my ears as unpleasant, as if coming from the tongue of\n  the profane swearer; and on the other hand, I have been pained to\n  hear the unnecessary repetition of the terms, our Lord and Saviour\n  Jesus Christ, from those I verily believed Elias's bitter enemies,\n  especially the English preachers, and have scarcely a doubt that\n  they were substantially breaking the third commandment. And I will\n  now add my opinion fearlessly, that Elias was wrong in entering into\n  that quibbling controversy with those weak Quakers, alluded to in\n  his letter, about the marvellous conception and parentage of Christ,\n  a delicate and inexplicable subject, that seems to have escaped the\n  particular attention of what we call the darker ages, to disgrace the\n  highest professors of the nineteenth century.\"[195]\n\n[195] \"Memoirs of Life and Religious Labors of Edward Hicks,\" p. 92.\n\nAn independent, and in the main, a judicial critic of Quakers\nand Quakerism is Frederick Storrs Turner, an Englishman. Some of\nhis estimates and observations of Elias Hicks, are both apt and\ndiscriminating. Of his preaching Turner says:\n\n  \"His great theme was the light within; his one aim to promote a\n  true living spiritual, practical Christianity. He was more dogmatic\n  and controversial than Woolman. There seems to have been in him a\n  revival of the old aggressive zeal, and something of the acerbity\n  of the early Quakers. 'Hireling priests' were as offensive in his\n  eyes as in those of George Fox. He would have no compromise with the\n  religions of the world, and denounced all new-fangled methods and\n  arrangements for religious work and worship in the will of man. He\n  was a Quaker to the backbone, and stood out manfully for the 'ancient\n  simplicity.'\"[196]\n\n[196] \"The Quakers;\" a study, historical and critical, by Frederick\nStorrs Turner, 1889, p. 292.\n\nWith still deeper insight Turner continues his analysis:\n\n  \"This was his dying testimony: 'The cross of Christ is the perfect\n  law of God, written in the heart ... there is but one Lord, one\n  faith, and but one baptism.... No rational being can be a real\n  Christian and true disciple of Christ until he comes to know all\n  these things verified in his own experience.' He was a good man, a\n  true Christian, and a Quaker of the Quakers. His very errors were\n  the errors of a Quaker, and since the generation of the personal\n  disciples of George Fox it would be difficult to point out any man\n  who had a simpler and firmer faith in the central truth of Quakerism\n  than Elias Hicks.\"[197]\n\n[197] The same, p. 293.\n\nRegarding some of the bitter criticisms uttered against Elias Hicks\nat the time of the controversy in the second decade of the nineteenth\ncentury, and repeated by the biographers and advocates of some of his\nopponents, Turner says:\n\n  \"This concensus of condemnation by such excellent Christian men would\n  blast Hicks's character effectually, were it not for the remembrance\n  that we have heard these shrieks of pious horror before. Just so did\n  Faldo and Baxter, Owen and Bunyan, unite in anathematizing George Fox\n  and the first Quakers. Turning from these invectives of theological\n  opponents to Hicks's own writings, we at once discover that this\n  arch-heretic was a simple, humble-minded, earnest Quaker of the old\n  school.\"[198]\n\n[198] The same, p. 291.\n\nJames Mott, Sr., of Mamaroneck, N. Y., was among the friendly, although\njudicial critics of Elias Hicks. In a letter written Eighth month 5,\n1805, to Elias, he said: \"I am satisfied that the master hath conferred\non thee a precious gift in the ministry, and I have often sat with\npeculiar satisfaction in hearing thee exercise it.\" He then continues,\nreferring to a special occasion:\n\n  \"But when thou came to touch on predestination, and some other\n  erroneous doctrines, I thought a little zeal was suffered to take\n  place, that led into much censoriousness, and that expressed in\n  harsh expressions, not only against the doctrines, but those who had\n  embraced them.... I have often thought if ministers, when treating on\n  doctrinal points, or our belief, were to hold up our principles fully\n  and clearly, and particularly our fundamental principle of the light\n  within, what it was, and how it operates, there would very seldom be\n  occasion for declamation against other tenets, however opposite to\n  our own; nor never against those who have through education or some\n  other medium embraced them.\"\n\nThis would seem to be as good advice at the beginning of the twentieth\ncentury as it was in the first years of the nineteenth.\n\nIn the matter of estimating Elias Hicks, Walt Whitman indulged in\nthe following criticism, supplementing an estimate of his preaching.\nDealing with some opinions of the contemporaries of Elias Hicks, he\nsays:\n\n  \"They think Elias Hicks had a large element of personal ambition,\n  the pride of leadership, of establishing perhaps a sect that should\n  reflect his own name, and to which he should give special form and\n  character. Very likely, such indeed seems the means all through\n  progress and civilization, by which strong men and strong convictions\n  achieve anything definite. But the basic foundation of Elias was\n  undoubtedly genuine religious fervor. He was like an old Hebrew\n  prophet. He had the spirit of one, and in his later years looked like\n  one.\"[199]\n\n[199] \"The Complete Works of Walt Whitman,\" Vol. 3, p. 269-270.\n\nIt is not worth while to deny that Elias Hicks was ambitious, and\ndesired to secure results in his labor. But those who carefully go over\nhis recorded words will find little to warrant the literal conclusion\nof his critics in this particular. He probably had no idea at any time\nof founding a sect, or perpetuating his name attached to a fragment\nof the Society of Friends, either large or small. He believed that he\npreached the truth; he wanted men to embrace it, as it met the divine\nwitness in their own souls, and not otherwise.\n\nAmong the severe critics of Elias Hicks is William Tallack, who in his\nbook \"Thomas Shillitoe,\" says that \"many of Elias Hicks' assertions\nare too blasphemous for quotation,\" while W. Hodgson, refers to the\n\"filth\" of the sentiments of Elias Hicks. But both these Friends use\nwords rather loosely. Both must employ their epithets entirely in a\ntheological, and not a moral sense. Having gone over a large amount of\nthe published and private utterances of the Jericho preacher, we have\nfailed to find in them even an impure suggestion. The bitterness of\ntheir attacks, simply illustrates the bad spirit in which theological\ndiscussion is generally conducted.\n\nThe fame of Elias Hicks as a liberalizing influence in religion seems\nto have reached the Orient. Under date, \"Calcutta, June 29, 1827,\" the\ncelebrated East Indian, Rammohun Roy,[200] addressed an appreciative\nletter to him. It was sent by a Philadelphian, J. H. Foster, of the\nship Georgian, and contained the following expressions:\n\n[200] Rammohun Roy was born in Bengal in 1772, being a high-class\nBrahmin. He was highly educated, and at one time in the employ of the\nEnglish Government. In comparatively early life he became a religious\nand social reformer, and incurred the enmity of his family. He\npublished various works in different languages, including English. In\n1828 he founded a liberal religious association which grew into the\nBrahmo Somaj. Roy visited England in 1831, and died there in 1833.\n\n  \"My object in intruding on your time is to express the gratification\n  I have felt in reading the sermons you preached at different\n  meetings, and which have since been published by your friends in\n  America.... Every sentence found there seems to have proceeded\n  not only from your lips, but from your heart. The true spirit of\n  Christian charity and belief flows from thee and cannot fall short of\n  making some impression on every heart which is susceptible of it. I\n  hope and pray God may reward you for your pious life and benevolent\n  exertion, and remain with the highest reverence.\n\n                    \"Your most humble servant,\n                                        \"RAMMOHUN ROY.\"\n\n\nA copy of what purports to be a reply to this letter is in existence,\nand is probably genuine, as the language is in accordance with the\nwell-known ideas of Elias Hicks. Besides, an undated personal letter\ncontains a direct reference to the East Indian correspondence. From it\nwe quote: \"I take my pen to commune with thee in this way on divers\naccounts, and first in regard to a letter I have recently received from\nCalcutta, subscribed by Rammohun Roy, author of a book entitled, 'The\nPrecepts of Jesus, a Guide to Peace and Happiness.'\"[201]\n\n[201] From letter written to William Wharton of Philadelphia.\n\nA request is made that William Wharton will find out if the\nship-master, Foster, mentioned above, would convey a letter to\nCalcutta. Then Elias expresses himself as follows:\n\n  \"I also feel a lively interest in whatever relates to the welfare and\n  progress of that enlightened and worthy Hindoo, believing that if he\n  humbly attends to that hath begun a good work in him, and is faithful\n  to its manifestations that he will not only witness the blessed\n  effects of it, in his own preservation and salvation, but will be\n  made an instrument in the divine hand of much good to his own people,\n  and nation, by spreading the truth, and opening the right way of\n  salvation among them, which may no doubt prove a great and singular\n  blessing not only to the present, but to succeeding generations. And\n  also be a means of opening the blind eyes of formal traditional\n  Christians, who make a profession of godliness, but deny the power\n  thereof, especially those blind guides, mere man-made ministers, and\n  self-styled missionaries, sent out by Bible and missionary societies\n  of man's constituting, under the pretence of converting those, who\n  in the pride of their hearts they call Heathen, to Christianity,\n  while at the same time, judging them by their fruits they themselves,\n  or most of them, stand in as great, or greater need, of right\n  conversion.\"\n\nAmong the present-day critics of Elias Hicks, is Dr. J. Rendell Harris,\nof England. In his paper at the Manchester Conference in 1895, this\nquotation from Elias Hicks is given: \"God never made any distinction\nin the manifestation of his love to his rational creatures. He has\nplaced every son and daughter of Adam on the same ground and in the\nsame condition that our first parents were in. For every child must\ncome clean out of the hands of God.\"[202] Doctor Harris says Elias\nHicks \"was wrong not simply because he was unscriptural, but because\nhe was unscientific.\"[203] Doctor Harris prefaces this remark by the\nfollowing comment on the quotation from Elias Hicks: \"Now suppose such\na doctrine to be propounded in this conference would not the proper\nanswer, the answer of any modern thinker, be (1) that we never had\nany first parents; (2) we were demonstrably not born good.\"[204] We\ndo not at all assume that Elias Hicks had no limitations, or that he\nwas correct at all points in his thinking, measured by the standards\nof present-day knowledge or any other standard. But we must claim that\nin holding that we had first parents, he was scriptural. The poor\nman, however, seems to have been, unconsciously, of course, between\ntwo stools. The orthodox Friends in the early part of the nineteenth\ncentury claimed that Elias was unsound because he did not cling to\nthe letter of the scripture, and his critic just quoted claims that\nhe was unscientific although he used a scriptural term. Doctor Harris\nthen concludes that \"a little knowledge of evolution would have saved\nhim (Hicks) all that false doctrine.\" But how, in his time, could he\nhave had any knowledge of evolution? A man can hardly be criticised\nfor not possessing knowledge absolutely unavailable in his day and\ngeneration. We are then informed \"that the world at any given instant,\nshows almost every stage of evolution of life, from the amoeba to the\nman, and from the cannibal to the saint. Shall we say that the love of\nGod is equally manifested in all these?\"[205] To use the Yankee answer\nby asking another question, may we inquire, in all seriousness, who is\nqualified to say with certainty that it is not so manifested? Who has\nthe authority, in the language of Whittier, to\n\n  ... \"fix with metes and bounds\n  The love and power of God?\"\n\n[202] \"Report of the Proceedings of the Conference of Members of\nthe Society of Friends, held by Direction of the Yearly Meeting in\nManchester,\" 1895, p. 220.\n\n[203] The same, p. 220.\n\n[204] We do not hesitate to say that had Elias Hicks made this\nstatement he would have suffered more at the hands of the Philadelphia\nElders in 1822 than is recorded in this book.\n\n[205] Report Manchester Conference, pp. 220-221.\n\nElias Hicks was given to using figures of speech and scriptural\nillustrations in a broad sense, and those who carefully read his\nutterances will have no trouble in seeing in the quotation used\nby Doctor Harris simply an attempt to repudiate the attribute of\nfavoritism on the part of the Heavenly Father toward any of his human\nchildren, and not to formulate a new philosophy of life, based on a\ntheory of the universe about which he had never heard.\n\nThe special labor of Elias Hicks, as we may now dispassionately review\nit, was not as an expounder of doctrine, or the creator of a new\ndogmatism, but as a rationalizing, liberalizing influence in the field\nof religion. He was a pioneer of the \"modern thinkers\" of whom Doctor\nHarris speaks, and did much, amid misunderstanding and the traducing\nof men, to prepare the way for the broader intellectual and spiritual\nliberty we now enjoy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nRecollections, Reminiscences and Testimonies.\n\n\nMany statements which have come down to us from the generation in which\nElias Hicks lived, warrant the conclusion that he was a natural orator.\nHe possessed in a large degree what the late Bishop Simpson, of the\nMethodist Episcopal Church, called \"heart power.\" We are able to give\nthe personal impression of a venerable Friend[206] now living, who as a\nboy of eleven heard Elias preach twice.\n\n[206] Dr. Jesse C. Green, of West Chester, Pa., now in his 93d year.\nDoctor Green almost retains the sprightliness of youth.\n\nOne of the sermons was delivered at Center, Del., on the 8th of Twelfth\nmonth, 1828, and the other the day before at West Chester. This was on\nhis last long religious visit, which took him to the then \"far west,\"\nOhio and Indiana.\n\nDoctor Green says that the manner of Elias Hicks when speaking was very\nimpressive. In person he is described by this Friend \"as above medium\nheight, rather slim, and with a carriage that would attract universal\nattention.\" He wore very plain clothes of a drab color.\n\nWith no education in logic, and no disposition to indulge in forensic\ndebate, he was, nevertheless a logician, and had he indulged in public\ndisputation, would have made it interesting if not uncomfortable for\nhis adversary.\n\nIf he occasionally became involved, or got into verbal deep water, he\nalways extricated himself, and made his position clear to his hearers.\nDoctor Green tells us that he had an uncle, not a member of meeting,\nbut a good judge of public speaking, who considered Elias Hicks the\nmost logical preacher in the Society of Friends. On one occasion he\nheard Elias when he became very much involved in his speaking, and as\nthis person put it, he thought Elias had \"wound himself up,\" but in a\nfew minutes he came down from his verbal flight, and made every point\nso clear that he was understood by every listener.\n\nHenry Byran Binns, Whitman's English biographer, gives the following\nestimate of the preaching of Elias Hicks:\n\n  \"With grave emphasis he pronounced his text: 'What is the chief end\n  of man?' and with fiery and eloquent eyes, in a strong, vibrating,\n  and still musical voice, he commenced to deliver his soul-awakening\n  message. The fire of his fervor kindled as he spoke of the purpose of\n  human life; his broad-brim was dashed from his forehead on to one of\n  the seats behind him. With the power of intense conviction his whole\n  presence became an overwhelming persuasion, melting those who sat\n  before him into tears and into one heart of wonder and humility under\n  his high and simple words.\"[207]\n\n[207] \"A Life of Walt Whitman,\" Henry Byran Binns, p. 16.\n\nWe have another living witness who remembers Elias Hicks. This Friend\nsays that she, with the members of her family, were constant attenders\nof the Jericho meeting. Speaking of Elias she remarks: \"His commanding\nfigure in the gallery is a bright picture I often see in my mind. His\nperson was tall, straight and firm; his manner dignified and noble\nand agreeable; his voice clear, distinct and penetrating--altogether\ngrand.\"[208]\n\n[208] Extract of letter from Mary Willis, of Rochester, N. Y., dated\nNinth month 7, 1910. This Friend is 92 years old. The letter received\nwas entirely written by her, and is a model of legible penmanship and\nclear statement.\n\nWe quote the following interesting incidents from the letter of Mary\nWillis:\n\n  \"One other bit I recall was a talk, or sermon, to the young\n  especially. He related that once he threw a stone and killed a bird,\n  and was struck with consternation and regret at killing an innocent\n  bird that might be a parent, and its young perish for the need of\n  care. He appealed feelingly to the boys to refrain from giving\n  needless pain.\n\n  \"He was guardian to my mother, sisters and brother, and they and\n  their mother returned his loving care with warm affection, always, as\n  did my father.\n\n  \"One of his characteristics was his kindness to the poor. Not far\n  from his home (three miles, perhaps) was a small colony of colored\n  people on poor land, who shared his bounty in cold, wintry weather,\n  in his wagon loads of vegetables and wood, delivered by his own hand.\"\n\nProbably one of the most appreciative, and in the main discriminative\nestimates of Elias Hicks, was made by Walt Whitman. The \"notes (such\nas they are) founded on Elias Hicks,\" for such the author called them,\nwere written in Camden, N. J., in the summer of 1888. Elias Hicks had\nbeen dead nearly half a century. Whitman's impressions of the famous\npreacher were based on the memory of a boy ten years old, for that\nwas Whitman's age when he heard Elias Hicks preach in Brooklyn. But\npersonal memory was supplemented by the statements of his parents,\nespecially his mother, as the preaching of their old Long Island\nneighbor was undoubtedly a subject of frequent conversation in the\nWhitman home.\n\nAs to the manner of the preacher Whitman says: \"While he goes on he\nfalls into the nasality and sing-song tone sometimes heard in such\nmeetings; but in a moment or two, more as if recollecting himself, he\nbreaks off, stops, and resumes in a natural tone. This occurs three or\nfour times during the talk of the evening, till he concludes.\"[209]\n\n[209] \"The Complete Works of Walt Whitman,\" Vol. 3, p. 259.\n\nThe \"unnamable something behind oratory,\" Whitman says Elias Hicks had,\nand it \"emanated from his very heart to the heart of his audience,\nor carried with him, or probed into, and shook or aroused in them a\nsympathetic germ.\"[210]\n\n[210] The same, p. 264.\n\nThere are a good many anecdotes regarding Elias Hicks current in\nJericho, going to show some of his characteristics. It is stated that\nat one time he found that corn was being taken, evidently through the\nslats of the crib. One night he set a trap in the suspected place.\nGoing to the barn in the morning he saw a man standing near where the\ntrap was set. Elias passed on without seeming to notice the visitor. On\nreturning to the house he stopped, spoke to the man, and released him\nfrom the trap. Elias would never tell who the man was.\n\nIllustrating his feeling regarding slavery, and his testimony against\nslave labor, the following statement is made: Before his death, and\nfollowing the fatal paralytic stroke, he noticed that the quilt with\nwhich he was covered contained cotton. He had lost the power of speech,\nbut he pushed the covering off, thus indicating his displeasure at the\npresence of an article of comfort which was the product of slave labor.\n\nThere is an anecdote which illustrates the spirit of the man in a\nstriking way. He is said to have had a neighbor with whom it did not\nseem possible to maintain cordial relations. One day Elias saw this\nneighbor with a big load of hay stalled in a marsh in one of his\nfields. Without a word of recognition Elias approached the man in the\nslough and hitching his own ox team to the load in front of the other\nteam proceeded to pull the load out of the slough. It was all done in\ncharacteristic Quaker silence. The result was the establishment of\ncordial relations between the two neighbors.\n\nIn bestowing his benefactions, he was exceedingly sensitive, not\nwishing to be known in the matter, and especially not desiring to\nreceive ordinary expressions of gratitude. His habitual custom was\nto take his load of wood or provisions, as the case might be, leave\nthem at the door or in the yard of the family in need, and without\nannouncement or comment silently steal away.\n\nDuring the Revolutionary War, Elias Hicks, in common with other\nFriends, had property seized in lieu of military service or taxes. The\nvalue does not seem to have been great in any of the cases which were\nreported to the monthly meeting. We copy the following cases from the\nrecords:\n\n  \"On the 28th of Eighth month, 1777, came Justice Maloon, Robert\n  Wilson, Daniel Wilson, and Daniel Weeks, sergeant under the above\n  Captain (Youngs) and took from me a pair of silver buckles, worth\n  18 shillings; two pair of stockings worth 15 shillings; and two\n  handkerchiefs worth 5 shillings, for my not going at the time of an\n  alarm.--Elias Hicks, Jericho, 24th of Ninth month, 1777.\"[211]\n\n[211] Westbury Monthly Meeting: \"A Record of Marriages, Deaths,\nSufferings, etc.,\" p. 231.\n\nThe \"silver buckles\" were either for the shoes or the knees. They were\nevidently more ornamental than useful, and how they comported with the\nowner's rather severe ideas of plainness is not for us to explain.\nThe price put on these stockings may surprise some twentieth century\nreader, but it should be remembered that they were long to reach to the\nknees, and went with short breeches called in the vernacular of the\ntime, \"small clothes.\"\n\n  \"The 3d of Twelfth month, 1777, there came to my house George Weeks,\n  sergeant under said Captain (Thorne) with a warrant, and demanded\n  twelve shillings of me toward paying some men held to repair the\n  forts near the west end of the island, and upon my refusing to pay,\n  took from me a great coat, worth one pound and six shillings.--Elias\n  Hicks.\"[212]\n\n[212] The same, p. 234.\n\nWe continue the \"sufferings,\" only remarking that the \"great coat\" was\nan overcoat, the price at the equivalent of about six dollars and a\nhalf was not overdrawn.\n\n  \"The Sixth month, 1778, taken from Elias Hicks by order of Captain\n  Daniel Youngs, for refusing to pay toward hiring of men to work on\n  fortifications near Brooklyn Ferry, a pair of stockings worth 5\n  shillings; razor case and two razors, worth 4 shillings.\"[213]\n\n[213] The same, p. 242.\n\nThe next record of \"suffering\" is more than ordinarily interesting in\nthat it shows that the seizures of property were very arbitrary, and it\nalso gives the price of wheat on Long Island at that time. We quote:\n\n  \"About the middle of Tenth month, 1779, came George Weeks, by order\n  of Captain Daniel Youngs, and I being from home demanded from my wife\n  three pounds, for not assisting to build a fort at Brooklyn Ferry,\n  for which he took two bags with three bushels of wheat, worth one\n  pound, ten shillings.\"[214]\n\n[214] The same, p. 254.\n\nAt this rate the market price of wheat was $2.50 per bushel. Possibly\nthis was during the period of scarcity, referred to in the introduction.\n\nIn 1794 Elias Hicks was influential in establishing in Jericho an\norganization, the scope of which was described in its preamble as\nfollows: \"We, the subscribers, do hereby associate and unite into a\nSociety of Charity for the relief of poor among the black people, more\nespecially for the education of their children.\"[215]\n\n[215] This organization has been in continuous existence since its\ninception. Meets regularly every year, and distributes the proceeds of\nan invested fund in accordance with its original purpose.\n\nThis society was almost revolutionary at the time of its inception,\nshowing how far-seeing its projectors were. Its constitution declared\nthat the society was rendered necessary because of the injustice and\nlack of opportunity which the colored people suffered. The hope was\nexpressed that the time would come when the black people would cease\nto be a submerged and oppressed race. It was provided that in case the\noriginal need for the society should disappear, its benefits might be\ndistributed in any helpful way. It may be interesting to note that at\nthe meetings of the society the scarcity of colored children attending\nthe school was mentioned with regret. So far as we know, the Jericho\nsociety was the first organized Friendly effort in negro education.\nElias Hicks contributed $50 to the invested funds of the organization.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nPutting Off the Harness.\n\n\nDuring the series of visits, reported in the twenty-second chapter,\nElias was ill a number of times, and was forced to rest from his\nlabors. On the return trip from central and western New York, he\nvisited for the last time the Hudson Valley meetings which he attended\non his first religious journey in 1779.\n\nHe arrived in New York the 8th of Eleventh month, attending the\nmid-week meeting at Hester Street that day. On First-day, the 15th,\nhe attended the Rose Street meeting in the morning and Hester Street\nin the afternoon. Second-day evening, the 16th, a largely attended\nappointed meeting was held in Brooklyn. He then proceeded toward\nJericho, arriving home on Fourth-day, the 18th of Eleventh month, 1829.\n\nThe \"Journal\" is singularly silent regarding this Brooklyn meeting.\nHenry Byran Binns, on what he considers good authority, says, \"Elias\nHicks preached in the ball-room of Morrison's Hotel on Brooklyn\nHeights.\" To this statement he has added this bit of realistic\ndescription:\n\n  \"The scene was one he (Whitman) never forgot. The finely fitted\n  and fashionable place of dancing, the officers and gay ladies in\n  that mixed and crowded assembly, the lights, the colors and all the\n  associations, both of the faces and of the place, presenting so\n  singular contrast with the plain ancient Friends seated upon the\n  platform, their broad-brims on their heads, their eyes closed; with\n  silence, long continued and becoming oppressive; and most of all,\n  with the tall, prophetic figure that rose at length to break it.\"[216]\n\n[216] \"A Life of Walt Whitman,\" p. 16.\n\nWhitman's own reference to this meeting is still more striking. He says\nthat he, a boy of ten, was allowed to go to the Hicks meeting because\nhe \"had been behaving well that day.\" The \"principal dignitaries of the\ntown\" attended this meeting, while uniformed officers from the United\nStates Navy Yard graced the gathering with their presence. The text\nwas, \"What is the chief end of man?\" Whitman says: \"I cannot follow the\ndiscourse, it presently becomes very fervid and in the midst of its\nfervor, he takes the broad-brim hat from his head and almost dashing\nit down with violence on the seat behind, continues with uninterrupted\nearnestness. Though the differences and disputes of the formal division\nof the Society of Friends were even then under way, he did not allude\nto them at all. A pleading, tender, nearly agonizing conviction and\nmagnetic stream of natural eloquence, before which all minds and\nnatures, all emotions, high or low, gentle or simple, yielded entirely\nwithout exception, was its cause, method and effect. Many, very many,\nwere in tears.\"[217]\n\n[217] \"The Complete Writings of Walt Whitman.\" Issued under the\neditorial supervision of his Literary Executors, 1902, Vol. 3, p. 258.\n\nWith the account of this journey of 1829 his narrative in the \"Journal\"\nclosed. This paragraph formed a fitting benediction:\n\n  \"The foregoing meetings were times of favor, and as a seal from the\n  hand of our gracious and never-failing helper, to the labor and\n  travail which he has led me into, and enabled me to perform, for the\n  promotion of this great and noble cause of truth and righteousness in\n  the earth, as set forth in the foregoing account, and not suffering\n  any weapon formed against me to prosper. 'This is the heritage of\n  the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith\n  the Lord.' For all these unmerited favors and mercies, in deep\n  humiliation my soul doth magnify the Lord, and return thanksgiving\n  and glory to his great and excellent name; for his mercy endureth\n  forever.\"[218]\n\n[218] \"Journal,\" p. 438.\n\nIt should be remembered that Elias Hicks was then past his eighty-first\nyear. He started on this last long religious visit, Sixth month 24th,\nand was therefore absent from home one week less than five months.\nHe says himself, in the last sentence of the \"Journal\": \"We traveled\nin this journey nearly fifteen hundred miles.\" These are words as\nimpressive as they are simple.\n\nDuring this trip many families were visited from the Valley of the\nGenesee to the City of New York, where he tarried several days that he\nmight see his friends in their homes. Whatever may have been their mind\nin the case, he doubtless felt that they would look upon his face no\nmore.\n\nBut Elias Hicks was not yet free from his religious concerns, for on\nFirst month 21, 1830, he asked for a minute, which was granted by\nJericho Monthly Meeting, and is as follows:\n\n  \"Our beloved Friend, Elias Hicks, presented a concern to make\n  a religious visit to the families of Friends and some Friendly\n  people (as way may open), within the compass of this and Westbury\n  Monthly Meeting, which claimed the solid attention of this meeting,\n  was united with, and he left at liberty to pursue his prospect\n  accordingly.\"\n\nThis is the last minute ever asked for by Elias Hicks. But evidently\nthe visits contemplated were never undertaken, for about that time he\nhad a slight attack of paralysis, which affected his right side and\narm. Still the next day he attended a meeting at Bethpage, and a little\nlater quarterly and monthly meetings in New York. In both he performed\nministerial service with his usual power and clearness. From a little\nbrochure printed in 1829, we quote:\n\n  \"In the Monthly Meeting, he took a review of his labors in the city\n  for many years; and then expressed a belief that his religious\n  services were brought nearly to a close.\n\n  \"After adverting to the great deviations that had taken place in the\n  Society, from that plainness and simplicity into which our principles\n  would lead us, he added, 'but if I should live two or three years\n  longer, what a comfort it would be to me to see a reformation in\n  these respects.' He then spoke in commemoration of the goodness of\n  his Heavenly Father, and closed with these memorable words: 'As\n  certainly as we are engaged to glorify him in all our works, he will\n  as certainly glorify us.'\"[219]\n\n[219] \"Life, Ministry, Last Sickness and Death of Elias Hicks,\"\nPhiladelphia, J. Richards, printer, 130 North Third Street.\n\nBut the time of putting off the harness was near at hand. On the 14th\nof Second month, 1830, he suffered a severe attack of paralysis which\ninvolved the entire right side, and deprived him of the use of his\nvoice. When attacked he was alone in his room, but succeeded in getting\nto his family in an adjoining apartment. He declined all medical aid.\nIn a condition of helplessness he lingered until Seventh-day the 27th,\nwhen he quietly passed away. Although he could only communicate by\nsigns, consciousness remained until near the end.\n\nThe funeral was held in the meeting house at Jericho, on Fourth-day,\nThird month 3d. Without a storm raged in strange contrast to the\npeace and quiet within. A large company braved the elements, to\npay their respects to his worth, as a man and a minister, while a\nnumber of visiting ministering Friends had sympathetic service at the\nfuneral, after which the burial took place in the ground adjoining the\nmeeting-house, where he had long worshipped and ministered.\n\nThe last act performed by Elias Hicks before the fatal stroke came, was\nto write a letter to his friend Hugh Judge,[220] of Barnesville, Ohio.\nBetween the two men a singular sympathy had long existed, and to Hugh,\nElias unburdened his spirit in this last word to the world. In fact the\nletter fell from the hand of the writer, after the shock. It was all\ncomplete with signature and postscript.\n\n[220] Hugh Judge was born about 1750 of Catholic parents. Joined\nFriends in his young manhood in Philadelphia. Removed to Ohio in 1815.\nDied Twelfth month 21, 1834. He died while on a religious visit to\nFriends in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Was buried at Kennett Square.\nHe was a recorded minister for many years.\n\nThis letter really summarizes the doctrine, and states the practical\nreligion which inspired the ministry and determined the life and\nconduct of this worthy Friend. It may be well, with its suggestive\npostscript, to close this record of the life and labors of Elias Hicks:\n\n\n                                   \"Jericho, Second month 14th, 1830.\n\n  \"Dear Hugh: Thy very acceptable letter of the 21st ultimo was\n  duly received, and read with interest, tending to excite renewed\n  sympathetic and mutual fellow-feeling; and brought to my remembrance\n  the cheering salutation of the blessed Jesus, our holy and perfect\n  pattern and example, to his disciples, viz: 'Be of good cheer, I have\n  overcome the world.' By which he assured his disciples, that, by\n  walking in the same pathway of self-denial and the cross, which he\n  trod to blessedness, they might also overcome the world; as nothing\n  has ever enabled any rational being, in any age of the world, to\n  overcome the spirit of the world, which lieth in wickedness, but the\n  cross of Christ.\n\n  \"Some may query, what is the cross of Christ? To these I answer, it\n  is the perfect law of God, written on the tablet of the heart, and in\n  the heart of every rational creature, in such indelible characters\n  that all the power of mortals cannot erase nor obliterate. Neither is\n  there any power or means given or dispensed to the children of men,\n  but this inward law and light, by which the true and saving knowledge\n  of God can be obtained. And by this inward law and light, all will\n  be either justified or condemned, and all be made to know God for\n  themselves, and be left without excuse; agreeably to the prophecy\n  of Jeremiah, and the corroborating testimony of Jesus in his last\n  counsel and command to his disciples, not to depart from Jerusalem\n  until they should receive power from on high; assuring them that they\n  should receive power when they had received the pouring forth of the\n  spirit upon them, which would qualify them to bear witness to him in\n  Judea, Jerusalem, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth;\n  which was verified in a marvellous manner on the day of Pentecost,\n  when thousands were converted to the Christian faith in one day. By\n  which it is evident that nothing but this inward light and law, as\n  it is heeded and obeyed, ever did, or ever can make a true and real\n  Christian and child of God. And until the professors of Christianity\n  agree to lay aside all their non-essentials in religion, and rally\n  to this unchangeable foundation and standard of truth, wars and\n  fightings, confusion and error will prevail, and the angelic song\n  cannot be heard in our land, that of 'glory to God in the highest,\n  and on earth peace and good will to men.' But when all nations are\n  made willing to make this inward law and light the rule and standard\n  of all their faith and works, then we shall be brought to know and\n  believe alike, that there is but one Lord, one faith, and but one\n  baptism; one God and Father, that is above all, through all, and\n  in all; and then will all those glorious and consoling prophecies,\n  recorded in the scriptures of truth, be fulfilled. Isaiah 2:4. 'He,'\n  the Lord, 'shall judge among the nations, and rebuke many people; and\n  they shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears\n  into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation;\n  neither shall they learn war any more.' Isaiah 11. 'The wolf also\n  shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the\n  kid; and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together;\n  and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall\n  feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall\n  eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole\n  of the asp, and the weaned child put his hand on the cockatrice's\n  den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for\n  the earth,' that is our earthly tabernacles, 'shall be full of the\n  knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.'\n\n  \"These scripture testimonies give a true and correct description\n  of the gospel state, and no rational being can be a real Christian\n  and true disciple of Christ until he comes to know all these things\n  verified in his own experience, as every man and woman has more or\n  less of all those different animal propensities and passions in their\n  nature; and they predominate and bear rule, and are the source and\n  fountain from whence all wars, and every evil work, proceed, and\n  will continue as long as man remains in his first nature, and is\n  governed by his animal spirit and propensities, which constitute the\n  natural man, which Paul tells us, 'receiveth not the things of the\n  spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know\n  them, because they are spiritually discerned.' This corroborates the\n  declaration of Jesus to Nicodemus, that 'except a man be born again\n  he cannot see the kingdom of God;' for 'that which is born of the\n  flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.'\n\n  \"Here Jesus assures us, beyond all doubt, that nothing but spirit\n  can either see or enter into the kingdom of God; and this confirms\n  Paul's doctrine, that 'as many as are led by the spirit of God are\n  the sons of God, and joint heirs with Christ.' And Jesus assures us,\n  by his declaration to his disciples, John 14:16-17; 'if ye love me\n  keep my commandments; and I will pray the Father and he shall give\n  you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the\n  spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive;' that is, men and\n  women in their natural state, who have not given up to be led by\n  this spirit of truth, that leads and guides into all truth; 'because\n  they see him not, neither do they know him, but ye know him, for he\n  dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.' And as these give up to be\n  wholly led and guided by him, the new birth is brought forth in them,\n  and they witness the truth of another testimony of Paul's, even that\n  of being 'created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works,' which God\n  had foreordained that all his new-born children should walk in them,\n  and thereby show forth, by their fruits and good works, that they\n  were truly the children of God, born of his spirit, and taught of\n  him; agreeably to the testimony of the prophet, that 'the children of\n  the Lord are all taught of the Lord, and in righteousness they are\n  established, and great is the peace of his children.' And nothing can\n  make them afraid that man can do unto them; as saith the prophet in\n  his appeal to Jehovah: 'Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose\n  mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in thee.' Therefore let\n  every one that loves the truth, for God is truth, 'trust in the Lord\n  forever, for in the Lord Jehovah there is everlasting strength.'\n\n  \"I write these things to thee, not as though thou didst not know\n  them, but as a witness to thy experience, as 'two are better than\n  one, and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.'\n\n  \"I will now draw to a close, with just adding, for thy\n  encouragement, be of good cheer, for no new thing has happened to\n  us; for it has ever been the lot of the righteous to pass through\n  many trials and tribulations in their passage to that glorious,\n  everlasting peace and happy abode, where all sorrow and sighing come\n  to an end; the value of which is above all price, for when we have\n  given all that we have, and can give, and suffered all that we can\n  suffer, it is still infinitely below its real value. And if we are\n  favored to gain an inheritance in that blissful and peaceful abode,\n  'where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest,'\n  we must ascribe it all to the unmerited mercy and loving kindness of\n  our Heavenly Father, who remains to be God over all, blessed forever!\n\n  \"I will now conclude, and in the fulness of brotherly love to thee\n  and thine, in which my family unite, subscribe thy affectionate\n  friend,\n\n                                        \"ELIAS HICKS.\n\n  \"To Hugh Judge:\n\n  \"Please present my love to all my friends as way opens.\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nA\n\nDESCENDANTS OF ELIAS HICKS.\n\nThe only lineal descendants of Elias Hicks are through his daughters,\nAbigail and Sarah. Abigail's husband, Valentine, was her cousin, and\nSarah's husband, Robert Seaman, was a relative on the mother's side.\n\n\nDescendants of Valentine and Abigail Hicks.\n\nCHILDREN OF THE ABOVE.\n\nGRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.--Caroline, married Dr. William Seaman;\nPhebe, married Adonijah Underhill (no children); Elias Hicks, married\nSarah Hicks; Mary (unmarried).\n\nGREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.\n\nCHILDREN OF DR. WILLIAM SEAMAN AND CAROLINE HICKS.--Valentine Hicks\nSeaman, married Rebecca Cromwell; Sarah Seaman, married Henry B.\nCromwell; Samuel Hicks Seaman, married Hannah Husband.\n\nCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS AND SARAH HICKS.--Mary, married Peter B.\nFranklin; Elias Hicks (unmarried), deceased; Caroline (unmarried),\ndeceased.\n\nGREAT-GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.\n\nCHILDREN OF VALENTINE H. AND REBECCA C. SEAMAN.--William, married\nAddie W. Lobdell; Caroline (infant);[221] Henry B.,[222] married Grace\nDutton; Edwin H. (infant); Howard (unmarried), deceased; Valentine H.\n(unmarried); Emily C. (unmarried); Frederic C., married Ethel Lobdell.\n\n[221] Note--Those marked \"(infant)\" died in infancy. Those without\nnotation are under age and living.\n\n[222] Henry B. Seaman is a graduate of Swarthmore College, class\nof 1881, and received degree of C. E. in 1884. Was for three years\nChief Engineer of the Public Service Commission of Greater New York.\nHe resigned this position Tenth month 1, 1910, because he could\nnot approve estimates desired by the authorities. Since then these\nestimates have been held up as excessive.\n\nCHILDREN OF HENRY B. AND SARAH SEAMAN CROMWELL.--George[223]\n(unmarried); Henry B. (unmarried), deceased.\n\n[223] When Greater New York was incorporated George Cromwell was\nelected President of the Borough of Richmond. Although this borough\nis normally Democratic in its politics, George Cromwell has been\nre-elected, and is the only president the borough has ever had. He and\nHenry B. Seaman are double first cousins.\n\nCHILDREN OF SAMUEL H. AND HANNAH H. SEAMAN.--Joseph H. (unmarried);\nCaroline Hicks, married William A. Read; Mary T. (unmarried); Franklin\n(unmarried), deceased; Sarah, married Lloyd Saltus.\n\nCHILDREN OF PETER B. AND MARY HICKS FRANKLIN.--Anne M., married Walter\nA. Campbell.\n\nGREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.\n\nCHILDREN OF WILLIAM AND ADDIE SEAMAN.--Howard L. (unmarried); Jessie M.\n(unmarried).\n\nCHILDREN OF HENRY B. AND GRACE D. SEAMAN.--Ayres C.; Henry Bowman.\n\nCHILDREN OF FREDERIC C. AND ETHEL L. SEAMAN.--Esther....\n\nCHILDREN OF WILLIAM A. AND CAROLINE SEAMAN READ.--William Augustus;\nCurtis Seaman; Duncan Hicks; R. Bartow; Caroline Hicks; Bancroft\n(infant); Bayard W.; Mary Elizabeth; Kenneth B. (infant).\n\nCHILDREN OF LLOYD AND SARAH SEAMAN SALTUS.--Mary Seaman; Ethel S.;\nSeymour; Lloyd.\n\nCHILDREN OF WALTER ALLISON AND ANNE M. FRANKLIN CAMPBELL.--Franklin\nAllison; Mary Elizabeth.\n\n\nDescendants of Robert Seaman and Sarah, Daughter of Elias Hicks.\n\nCHILDREN OF THE ABOVE.\n\nGRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.--Phebe (died); Hannah, married Matthew\nF. Robbins; Willet (died); Elizabeth, married Edward Willis; Elias H.,\nmarried Phebe Underhill; Willet H., married Mary Wing; Mary H., married\nIsaac Willis.\n\nGREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.\n\nCHILDREN OF HANNAH AND MATTHEW F. ROBBINS.--Caroline, married Sidney W.\nJackson; Walter, married Sarah E. Hubbs.\n\nCHILDREN OF ELIZABETH AND EDWARD WILLIS.--Sarah R.; Mary S. (died);\nCaroline H. (died); Henrietta, married Stephen J. Underhill.\n\nCHILDREN OF ELIAS H. AND PHEBE SEAMAN.--Mary (died); Samuel J., married\nMatilda W. Willets; Sarah (died); Anna; Robert, married Hannah W.\nWillets; William H., married Margaret J. Laurie; James H., married (1)\nBessie Bridges; (2) Florence Haviland.\n\nCHILDREN OF WILLET H. AND MARY SEAMAN.--Edward W.; Willet H.; Frank W.\n\nCHILDREN OF MARY H. AND ISAAC WILLIS.--Henry, married June Barnes;\nRobert S.\n\nGREAT-GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.\n\nSON OF CAROLINE AND SIDNEY W. JACKSON.--M. Franklin, married Annie T.\nJackson.\n\nCHILDREN OF WALTER AND SARAH E. JACKSON.--Caroline J., married William\nG. Underhill; Annie H., married Thomas Rushmore; Cora A., married John\nMarshall.\n\nCHILDREN OF HENRIETTA AND STEPHEN J. UNDERHILL.--Edward W., married\nEmeline Kissam; Hannah W.; Henry T., married Dorothy Vernon; Arthur.\n\nCHILDREN OF SAMUEL J. AND MATILDA W. SEAMAN.--Mary W., married Leon A.\nRushmore; Samuel J., married Ethelena T. Bogart; Anna Louise; Frederick\nW.; Lewis V. (died).\n\nDAUGHTER OF ROBERT AND HANNAH W. SEAMAN.--Phebe U.\n\nCHILDREN OF WILLIAM H. AND MARGARET L. SEAMAN.--William Laurie; Faith\nFrances (died).\n\nCHILDREN OF JAMES H. AND BESSIE B. SEAMAN.--George B.; Elias Haviland.\n\nCHILDREN OF JAMES H. AND FLORENCE H. SEAMAN.--Bertha Lucina; Willard\nH.; Helen U.\n\nGREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN OF ELIAS HICKS.\n\nDAUGHTER OF M. FRANKLIN AND ANNIE T. JACKSON.--Marion F.\n\nCHILDREN OF CAROLINE J. AND WILLIAM G. UNDERHILL.--Mildred; Irene;\nMargaret.\n\nCHILDREN OF ANNIE H. AND THOMAS RUSHMORE.--Lillian A.; Elizabeth A.\n\nSON OF CORA A. AND JOHN MARSHALL.--John W.\n\nDAUGHTER OF HENRY T. AND DOROTHY UNDERHILL.--Winifred.\n\nSON OF MARY S. AND LEON A. RUSHMORE.--Leon A.\n\n\nB\n\nLetter to Dr. Atlee.[224]\n\n[224] See page 164 of this book.\n\nCopy of a letter from Elias Hicks to Dr. Edwin A. Atlee, of\nPhiladelphia:\n\n\n                                        \"JERICHO, Ninth mo. 27, 1824.\n\n                                        \"MY DEAR FRIEND:\n\n  \"Thy very acceptable letter of the 29th ultimo came duly to hand,\n  and I have taken my pen not only to acknowledge thy kindness, but\n  also to state to thee the unfriendly and unchristian conduct of Anna\n  Braithwaite toward me, not only as relates to that extract, but in\n  her conversation among Friends and others, traducing my religious\n  character, and saying I held and promulgated infidel doctrines,\n  etc.--endeavoring to prejudice the minds of Friends against me,\n  behind my back, in open violation of gospel order. She came to my\n  house, as stated in the extract thou sent me, after the quarterly\n  meeting of ministers and elders at Westbury in First month last.\n  At that meeting was the first time I saw her, which was about five\n  or six months after her arrival in New York. And as I had heard\n  her well spoken of as a minister, I could have had no preconceived\n  opinion of her but what was favorable, therefore, I treated her with\n  all the cordiality and friendship I was capable of. She also, from\n  all outward appearance, manifested the same; and, after dinner, she\n  requested, in company with A. S., a female Friend that was with her,\n  a private opportunity with me. So we withdrew into another room,\n  where we continued in conversation for nearly two hours. And being\n  innocent and ignorant of any cause that I had given, on my part, for\n  the necessity of such an opportunity, I concluded she had nothing\n  more in view than to have a little free conversation on the state of\n  those select meetings.\n\n  \"But, to my surprise, the first subject she spoke upon, was to call\n  in question a sentiment I had expressed in the meeting aforesaid,\n  which appeared to me to be so plain and simple, that I concluded the\n  weakest member in our society, endued with a rational understanding,\n  would have seen the propriety of. It was a remark I made on the\n  absence of three out of four of the representatives appointed by\n  one of the preparative meetings to attend the quarterly meeting.\n  And I having long been of the opinion, that much weakness had been\n  introduced into our society by injudicious appointments, I have\n  often been concerned to caution Friends on that account. The remark\n  I made was this: that I thought there was something wrong in the\n  present instance--for, as we profess to believe in the guidance of\n  the Spirit of Truth as an unerring Spirit, was it not reasonable\n  to expect, especially in a meeting of ministers and elders, that\n  if each Friend attended to their proper gifts, as this Spirit is\n  endued with prescience, that it would be much more likely, under its\n  divine influence, we should be led to appoint such as would attend on\n  particular and necessary occasion, than to appoint those who would\n  not attend?\n\n  \"This idea, she contended, was not correct; and the sentiments she\n  expressed on this subject really affected me. To think that any,\n  professing to be a gospel minister, called from a distant land to\n  teach others, and to be so deficient in knowledge and experience, in\n  so plain a case, that I could not well help saying to her, that her\n  views were the result of a want of religious experience, and that I\n  believed if she improved her talent faithfully, she would be brought\n  to see better, and acknowledge the correctness of my position. But\n  she replied, she did not want to see better. This manifestation of\n  her self-importance, lowered her character, as a gospel minister,\n  very much in my view; and her subsequent conduct, while she was\n  with us, abundantly corroborated and confirmed this view concerning\n  her. As to her charge against me, in regard to the Scriptures,\n  it is generally incorrect, and some of it false. And it is very\n  extraordinary, that she should manifest so much seeming friendship\n  for me, when present, and in my absence speak against me in such an\n  unbecoming manner. Indeed, her conduct toward me, often reminds me of\n  the treachery of Judas, when he betrayed his Master with a kiss. And,\n  instead of acting toward me as a friend or a Christian, she had been\n  watching for evil.\n\n  \"As to my asserting that I believe the Scriptures were held in too\n  high estimation by the professors of Christianity in general, I\n  readily admit, as I have asserted it in my public communications\n  for more than forty years, but, generally, in opposition to those\n  that held them to be the only rule of faith and practice; and my\n  views have always been in accordance with our primitive Friends on\n  this point. And at divers times, when in conversation with hireling\n  teachers, (and at other times) I have given it as my opinion, that\n  so long as they held the Scriptures to be the only rule of faith\n  and practice, and by which they justify wars, hireling ministry,\n  predestination, and what they call the ordinances, viz: water\n  baptism and the passover supper, mere relics of the Jewish law,\n  so long the Scriptures did such, more harm than good; but that the\n  fault was not in the Scriptures, but in their literal and carnal\n  interpretation of them--and that would always be the case until they\n  came to the Spirit that gave them forth, as no other power could\n  break the seal, and open them rightly to us. Hence I have observed,\n  in my public communications, and in conversation with the members of\n  different denominations, and others, who held that the Scriptures are\n  the primary and only rule of faith and practice--that, according to\n  the true analogy of reasoning, 'that for which a thing is such--the\n  thing itself is more such'--as the Spirit was before the Scriptures,\n  and above them, and without the Spirit they could not have been\n  written or known. And with this simple but conclusive argument,\n  I have convinced divers of the soundness of our doctrine in this\n  respect--that not the Scriptures but the Spirit of Truth, which Jesus\n  commanded his disciples to wait for, as their only rule, they would\n  teach them all things, and guide them into all truth, is the primary\n  and only rule of faith and practice, and is the only means by which\n  our salvation is effected.\n\n  \"The extract contains so much inconsistency, and is so incorrect,\n  that, as I proceed, it appears less and less worthy of a reply, and\n  yet it does contain some truth. I admit that I did assert, and have\n  long done it, that we cannot believe what we do not understand. This\n  the Scripture affirms, Deut. xxix. 29--'The secret things belong\n  unto the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong unto\n  us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this\n  law'--and all that is not revealed, is to us the same as a nonentity,\n  and will forever remain so, until it is revealed; and that which\n  is revealed, enables us, agreeably to the apostle's exhortation,\n  to give a reason of the hope that is in us, to honest inquirers. I\n  also assert, that we ought to bring all doctrines, whether written\n  or verbal, to the test of the Spirit of Truth in our minds, as the\n  only sure director relative to the things of God; otherwise, why is\n  a manifestation of the Spirit given to every man if it not to profit\n  by; and, if the Scriptures are about the Spirit, and a more certain\n  test of doctrines, why is the Spirit given, seeing it is useless?\n  But this doctrine, that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith\n  and practice, is a fundamental error, and is manifested to be so\n  by the Scriptures themselves, and also by our primitive Friends'\n  writings. It would seem that Anna Braithwaite has strained every\n  nerve in exaggerating my words, for I have not said more than R.\n  Barclay, and many others of our predecessors, respecting the errors\n  in our English translation of the Bible. Hence it appears, that she\n  was determined to criminate me at all events, by striving to make\n  me erroneous for saying that the Gospel handed to us, was no more\n  authentic than many other writings. Surely a person that did not\n  assent to this, must be ignorant indeed.\n\n  \"Are not the writings of our primitive Friends as authentic as\n  any book or writing, and especially such as were written so many\n  centuries ago, the originals of which have been lost many hundred\n  years? And are not the histories of passing events, written by candid\n  men of the present age, which thousands know to be true, as authentic\n  as the Bible?\n\n  \"Her assertions, that I asked if she could be so ignorant as to\n  believe in the account of the creation of the world, and that I had\n  been convinced for the last ten years, that it was only an allegory,\n  and that it had been especially revealed to me at a meeting in\n  Liberty Street about that time; that I asked her if she thought Adam\n  was any worse after he had eaten the forbidden fruit than before, and\n  that I said I did not believe he was; and also her asserting, that I\n  said that Jesus Christ was no more than a prophet, and that I further\n  said, that if she would read the Scriptures attentively she would\n  believe that Jesus was the son of Joseph: these assertions of hers,\n  are all false and unfounded, and must be the result of a feigned\n  or forced construction of something I might have said, to suit her\n  own purpose. For those who do not wish to be satisfied with fair\n  reasoning, there is no end to their cavilling and misrepresentation.\n  As to what she relates as it regards the manner of our coming into\n  the world in our infant state, it is my belief, that we come into\n  the world in the same state of innocence, and endowed with the same\n  propensities and desires that our first parents were, in their\n  primeval state; and this Jesus Christ has established, and must be\n  conclusive in the minds of all true believers; when he took a little\n  child in his arms and blessed him, and said to them around him that\n  except they were converted, and become as that little child, they\n  should in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Of course, all\n  the desires and propensities of that little child, and of our first\n  parents in their primeval state, must have been good, as they were\n  all the endowments of their Creator, and given to them for a special\n  purpose. But it is the improper and unlawful indulgence of them that\n  is evil.\n\n  \"I readily acknowledge, I have not been able to see or understand,\n  how the cruel persecution and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, by the\n  wicked and hard-hearted Jews, should expiate my sins; and never\n  have known anything to effect that for me, but the grace of God,\n  that taught me, agreeably to the apostle's doctrine, to deny all\n  ungodliness and the world's lusts, and do live soberly, righteously,\n  and godly in this present world; and as I have faithfully abode\n  under its teachings, in full obedience thereto, I have been brought\n  to believe that my sins were forgiven, and I permitted to sit under\n  the Lord's teaching, as saith the prophet: 'that the children of\n  the Lord are all taught of the Lord, and in righteousness they are\n  established, and great is the peace of his children.' And so long\n  as I feel this peace, there is nothing in this world that makes me\n  afraid, as it respects my eternal condition. But if any of my friends\n  have received and known benefit from any outward sacrifice, I do not\n  envy them their privilege. But, surely, they would not be willing\n  that I should acknowledge as a truth, that which I have no kind of\n  knowledge of. I am willing to admit, that Divine Mercy is no doubt\n  watching over his rational creation for their good, and may secretly\n  work at times for their preservation; but, if, in his infinite wisdom\n  and goodness, he sees meet to hide it from us, as most consistent\n  with his wisdom and our good, let us have a care that we do not, in\n  the pride of our hearts, undertake to pry into his secret counsels,\n  lest we offend; but be content with what he is pleased to reveal to\n  us, let it be more or less, and, especially, if he is pleased to\n  speak peace to our minds. And when he graciously condescends to do\n  this, we shall know it to be a peace that the world cannot give, with\n  all its enjoyments, neither take away, with all its frowns.\n\n  \"I shall now draw to a close, and, with the salutation of gospel\n  love, I subscribe myself thy affectionate and sympathizing friend and\n  brother.\n\n                                        \"ELIAS HICKS.\"\n\n  To Edwin A. Atlee.\n\n\nC\n\nThe Portraits.\n\nThe cut facing page 121 is a photograph from the painting by Henry\nKetcham. This was sketched by the artist who was in the public gallery\nof the meeting house at different times when Elias Hicks was preaching,\nhis presence being unknown to the preacher. It was originally a\nfull-length portrait, but many years ago was injured by fire, when it\nwas cut down to bust size. For some time it was in the home of the\nlate Elwood Walter, of Englewood, N. J. For many years it has been in\nthe family of Henry B. Seaman. It is believed that the pictures made\nunder direction of the late Edward Hopper, had this portrait as their\noriginal. The engravings in the \"History of Long Island\" and in the\n\"Complete Works of Walt Whitman,\" are probably based on this portrait.\nThey have passed through such a \"sleeking-up\" process, however, as to\nlack the individuality of the more crude production.\n\nThe frontispiece is from a photograph of the bust of Elias Hicks, by\nthe sculptor, William Ordway Partridge, and was made for Henry B.\nSeaman. In making the bust the artist used the oil painting referred\nto above, and all of the other pictures of Elias Hicks in existence,\nincluding the full-length silhouette. He also had the bust, said to\nhave been taken from the death mask, and from them all attempted to\nconstruct what may be termed the \"ideal\" Elias Hicks.\n\n\nD\n\nThe Death Mask.\n\nMuch has been written about the death mask of Elias Hicks, from which\nthe bust in Swarthmore College, in the New York Friend's Library and\nother places was made. That such a mask was taken admits of no doubt,\nand the only clear statement regarding the matter is given below. The\nbust is in the possession of Harry B. Seaman. The issue of \"Niles\nRegister\" referred to was published only six weeks after the death of\nElias Hicks.\n\n  \"We understand an Italian artist of this city, has secretly\n  disinterred the body of Elias Hicks, the celebrated Quaker preacher,\n  and moulded his bust. It seems he had applied to the friends of\n  the deceased to take a moulding previous to his interment, but was\n  refused. Suspicion being excited that the grave had been disturbed,\n  it was examined, and some bits of plaster were found adhering to the\n  hair of the deceased. The enthusiastic Italian was visited, and owned\n  that, as he had been denied the privilege of taking a bust before\n  interment, he had adopted the only method of obtaining one. We have\n  heard nothing more on the subject, except that the bust is a most\n  excellent likeness.\"[225]\n\n[225] Quoted from New York Constellation, in \"Niles Weekly Register,\"\nApril 10, 1830, p. 124.\n\n\nE\n\nA Bit of Advertising.\n\nAs showing the way the presence of ministering Friends was advertised\nin Philadelphia eighty-eight years ago, we reproduce the following,\nwhich appeared in some of the papers[226] of that period:\n\n[226] The Cabinet, or Works of Darkness Brought to Light. Philadelphia,\n1824, p. 33.\n\n  \"Arrived in this city on the 7th inst., Elias Hicks, a distinguished\n  minister of the gospel, the Benign Doctrines of which he is a\n  faithful embassador, has for many years past practically endeavored\n  (both by precept and example) to promulgate in its primeval\n  beauty and simplicity, without money and without price. Those who\n  are Friends to plain truth and evangelical preaching, that have\n  heretofore been edified and comforted under his ministry, will\n  doubtless be pleased to learn of his arrival, and avail themselves of\n  the present opportunity of attending such appointments as he, under\n  the direction of Divine influence, may see proper to make in his tour\n  of Gospel Love, to the inhabitants of this city and its vicinity.\n\n                                        \"A CITIZEN.\"\n\n  PHILADELPHIA, December 9, 1822.\n\n\nF\n\nAcknowledgment.\n\nThe author of this book acknowledges his indebtedness in its\npreparation to the following, who either in furnishing data, or\notherwise assisted in its preparation: William and Margaret L. Seaman,\nand Samuel J. Seaman, Glen Cove, N. Y.; Robert and Anna Seaman,\nJericho, N. Y.; Henry B. Seaman, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Dr. Jesse H. Green,\nWest Chester, Pa.; Mary Willis, Rochester, N. Y.; Ella K. Barnard and\nJoseph J. Janney, Baltimore, Md.; Henry B. Hallock, Brooklyn, N. Y.;\nJohn Comly, Philadelphia, Pa.\n\n\nG\n\nSources of Information.\n\nIn making this book the following are the main sources of information\nthat have been consulted; which are referred to those who may wish to\ngo into the details of the matter involved:\n\n  Journal of Elias Hicks, New York, 1832. Published by Isaac T. Hopper.\n\n  The Lundy Family. By William Clinton Armstrong. New Brunswick, 1902.\n\n  The Quaker; A Series of Sermons by Members of the Society of Friends,\n  Philadelphia, 1827-28. Published by Marcus T. C. Gould.\n\n  A Series of Extemporaneous Discourses, etc., by Elias Hicks.\n  Philadelphia, 1825. Published by Joseph and Edward Parker.\n\n  Letters of Elias Hicks. Philadelphia, 1861. Published by T. Ellwood\n  Chapman.\n\n  An Account of the Life and Travels of Samuel Bownas. Edited by J.\n  Besse. London, 1756.\n\n  Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. II. Buffalo, N. Y., 1885. The Christian\n  Literature Publishing Company.\n\n  The Quakers. By Frederick Storrs Turner. London, 1889. Swan,\n  Sounenschein & Co.\n\n  A Review of the General and Particular Causes Which Have Produced the\n  Late Disorders in the Yearly Meeting of Friends Held in Philadelphia.\n  By James Cockburn. Philadelphia, 1829.\n\n  Foster's Report. Two volumes. By Jeremiah J. Foster, Master and\n  Examiner in Chancery. Philadelphia, 1831.\n\n  Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends Held in\n  Philadelphia, 1806.\n\n  The Friend; or Advocate of Truth. Philadelphia, 1828. Published by M.\n  T. C. Gould.\n\n  An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, etc. By Robert Barclay.\n  Philadelphia, 1877. Friends' Book Store.\n\n  Memoirs of Anna Braithwaite. By her son, J. Bevan Braithwaite.\n  London, 1905. Headley Brothers.\n\n  The Christian Inquirer. New York, 1826. Published by B. Bates.\n\n  J. Bevan Braithwaite; A Friend of the Nineteenth Century. By His\n  Children. London, 1909. Hodder & Stoughton.\n\n  Sermons by Elias Hicks, Ann Jones and Others of the Society of\n  Friends, etc. Brooklyn, 1828.\n\n  Journal of Thomas Shillitoe. London, 1839. Harvey & Darton.\n\n  Memorials of John Bartram and Humphrey Marshall. By William\n  Darlington. Philadelphia, 1849.\n\n  The American Conflict. By Horace Greeley. Hartford, Conn., 1864. O.\n  D. Case & Co.\n\n  Memoirs of Life and Religious Labors of Edward Hicks. Philadelphia,\n  1851.\n\n  Life of Walt Whitman. Henry Bryan Binns.\n\n  Complete Works of Walt Whitman. 1902.\n\n  History of Long Island.\n\n  Proceedings of the Manchester Conference. 1895.\n\n  Stephen Grellett. By William Guest. Philadelphia, 1833. Henry\n  Longstreth.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n  Abolitionists, Garrisonian, 87\n\n  After the \"Separation,\" 195\n\n  Aldrich, Royal, reference to, 69\n\n  Ancestry and Boyhood, 17\n\n  Apostolic Christian, an, 7\n\n  Appendix, 226\n\n  Apprenticeship of E. H., 22\n\n  Atlee, Dr. Edwin A., E. H.'s letter to, Appendix B;\n    reference to, 166\n\n\n  Baltimore Y. M., E. H. attends, 44\n\n  Baptists, Southern, reference to, 94\n\n  Barclay's Apology, quotation from, 143-144\n\n  Bartram, John, reference to, 190;\n    sketch of, 190;\n    his supposed deism, 190-191\n\n  Beacon Controversy, the, 169-170\n\n  Berry, Mary, at Easton, Md., 37\n\n  Binns, Henry Byran, describes E. H.'s preaching, 212-218\n\n  Black people commended, 37\n\n  Bownas, Samuel (note), 18\n\n  Braithwaite, Anna, referred to, 49;\n    sketch of (note), 161;\n    writes to E. H., 162;\n    writes to Friend in Flushing, 163;\n    writes to E. H. from England, 165;\n    writes to E. H. from Kipp's Bay, 168;\n    advised by Jericho ministers and elders, 169;\n    late reference to \"Hicksism,\" 170\n\n  Braithwaite, Isaac, reference to (note), 161;\n    reference to, 179-183\n\n  Braithwaite, J. Bevan (note), 164-170\n\n\n  Camp meetings, E. H. condemns, 104\n\n  Carpenter. E. H. apprenticed as, 22\n\n  Christ, Divinity of, 115, 116, 156\n\n  Christ as saviour, 156-157\n\n  Clarkson, Thomas, receives Hicks' pamphlet, 90\n\n  Clement of Alexandria, reference to, 106\n\n  Conflict, The American (note), 94\n\n  Cotton gin, invention of, 94\n\n  Court Crier, E. H. imitates, 62\n\n  Cropper, James (note), 89;\n    letter from E. H., 90\n\n\n  Dancing, opinion of, 22\n\n  Discipline, E. H.'s regard for, 29\n\n  Disownment and doctrine, 188\n\n  Disownments for doctrine, 190;\n    E. H. on, 191-193;\n    during slavery agitation, 87-88\n\n  Division, before the, 121\n\n  Doctrine, statement of by Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings, 139\n\n  Dutchess County, separation in, 178\n\n\n  Early labors in ministry, 32\n\n  Easton, Md., letter from, 37\n\n  Election, E. H. on, 110\n\n  Evans, Jonathan, opposes E. H., 127;\n    clerk Meeting for Sufferings, 139;\n    expounds orthodox doctrine, 153\n\n  Exeter, Pa., E. H. writes letter from, 38\n\n\n  Family, the Hicks, 71;\n    E. H.'s statement about, 71;\n    children in, 72-73\n\n  First Trouble in Philadelphia, 126\n\n  Fisher, Samuel R., entertains E. H., 44\n\n  Flushing, O., E. H. meets opposition in, 50;\n    also (note), 50\n\n  Free Masonry, E. H. on, 103\n\n  Friends, Progressive (note), 88\n\n\n  Garrison, William Lloyd, on Society of Friends, 87\n\n  Gibbons, James S., is disowned, 87\n\n  Goldsmith, Oliver, extract from \"Deserted Village,\" 68\n\n  Gould, Marcus T. C., publisher \"The Quaker,\" 152-153\n\n  Greeley, Horace, quotation from, 94\n\n  Green, Dr. Jesse C., reference to, 211;\n    recollections of E. H., 211-212\n\n  Green Street Monthly Meeting, center of difficulty, 147-149\n\n  Grellett, Stephen, sketch of (note), 123;\n    questions orthodoxy of E. H., 123\n\n  Gurney, Joseph John, reference to, 165\n\n\n  Harris, Dr. J. Rendell, criticises E. H., 208\n\n  Heaven and hell, E. H. on, 110-111\n\n  Hicks, Abigail, daughter of E. H., 72;\n    picture of, facing, 97\n\n  Hicks, David, son of E. H., 72\n\n  Hicks, Edward, sketch of (note), 202;\n    estimate of E. H., 203\n\n  Hicks, Elias, apostolic Christian, 7;\n    his type of Quakerism, 7;\n    reading Scriptures, 12;\n    reference to old folks, 13;\n    objects to flower bed, 13;\n    sells wheat at low price to neighbors, 14;\n    favors disciplinary equality for women, 15;\n    birth, 18;\n    reference to parents, 11, 19;\n    death of mother, 20;\n    reference to singing and running horses, 20;\n    apprenticed to learn carpenter's trade, 22;\n    on dancing, 22-23;\n    on hunting, 23-24;\n    reference to possibly lost condition, 23;\n    statement regarding his marriage, 24;\n    marriage application in monthly meeting, 25;\n    takes up residence in Jericho, 26;\n    a surveyor, 27;\n    appears in the ministry, 28-29;\n    regard for discipline, 29;\n    recorded a minister, 30;\n    passes through military lines in Revolutionary War, 31;\n    makes first long religious journey, 32;\n    visits Nine Partners, Vermont, etc., 34;\n    visits New England, 35;\n    visits Philadelphia and Baltimore Yearly Meetings, 36;\n    first sermon against slavery, 36;\n    letter from Easton, Md., 37;\n    visit to states south of New York, 38;\n    visit to Canada, 40;\n    visit New England meetings, 42;\n    goes to Ohio, 43;\n    at Baltimore Y. M., 44;\n    starts on last long religious journey, 46;\n    meets opposition at Westland, 47;\n    experience at Brownsville, 47;\n    at Mt. Pleasant, O., 48-49;\n    attends Ohio Y. M., 49-50;\n    disturbance at Flushing, O., 50;\n    attends Indiana Y. M., 52;\n    trouble at West Grove, Pa., 53;\n    extent of his travels, 56;\n    ideas about the ministry, 57;\n    speaks of his own ministry, 58;\n    against premeditation, 59;\n    measuring the ministry, 60-61;\n    imitates court crier, 62;\n    advice touching meetings and ministry, 63;\n    is frequently indisposed, 64;\n    his Jericho property, 69;\n    statement about his wife, 71;\n    as a father, 72;\n    letters to his wife, 76-83;\n    on the slavery question, 84-94;\n    various opinions, 95;\n    on the joys of labor, 97;\n    ideas regarding railroads, 98;\n    ideas about Thanksgiving, 102;\n    opposes Freemasonry, 103;\n    some points of doctrine, 107-120;\n    has trouble in Philadelphia, 126-128;\n    writes letter to Philadelphia elders, 132;\n    in the time of unsettlement, 139-151;\n    three sermons reviewed, 152-160;\n    is visited by Anna Braithwaite, 162;\n    writes to Dr. Atlee, 164;\n    writes to Anna Braithwaite, 169;\n    in Dutchess County with Ann Jones, 171-176;\n    contact with T. Shillitoe, 184-185;\n    at Mt. Pleasant and Short Creek, O., 186-187;\n    disowned by Westbury and Jericho Monthly Meeting, 189;\n    ideas about disownment, 193-194;\n    at Rose and Hester Streets, New York, 195;\n    remarks on reception by Friends, 196;\n    assumes the humorous role, 196;\n    received by Friends after long western trip, 197;\n    death of wife, 198;\n    visits Dutchess County, 199;\n    preaches in statehouse, Albany, 200;\n    letter to Johnson Legg, 201;\n    his dying testimony, 204;\n    critics of, 202-210;\n    a logical thinker, 211;\n    his kindness to poor, 213-214;\n    deals with corn thief, 214;\n    his dying testimony against slavery, 214;\n    sufferings for peace principles, 215-216;\n    helps organize charity society, 216-217;\n    putting off harness, 218-225;\n    his last traveling minute, 220;\n    attends his last monthly meeting, 220-221;\n    suffers stroke of paralysis, 221;\n    his death, 221;\n    his funeral, 221;\n    last letter to Hugh Judge, 222\n\n  Hicks, Elias, Jr., son of E. H., 73\n\n  Hicks, Elizabeth, daughter of E. H., 72;\n    picture of, facing, 97 ...\n\n  Hicks, Sir Ellis, reference to, 17\n\n  Hicks Family, the, 71\n\n  Hicks, Jonathan, son of E. H., 73\n\n  Hicks, John, son of E. H., 72\n\n  Hicks, Jemima, wife of E. H., estimate of, 74-75;\n    letters to, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82;\n    death of, 198;\n    funeral of, 198-199\n\n  Hicks, Martha, daughter of E. H., 72;\n    picture of, facing, 97\n\n  Hicks, Sarah, daughter of E. H., 72\n\n  Hicks, Judge Thomas, great-grandfather E. H., 18;\n    befriends S. Bownas, 18\n\n  Hicksville, reference to, 66\n\n  Hicks, Valentine, son-in-law of E. H., reference to, 66;\n    President Long Island Railroad, 100;\n    picture of, facing, 97\n\n  Hodgson, W., reference to E. H.'s sentiments, 206\n\n  Home at Jericho, the, 66\n\n  Hopper, Isaac T., reference to disownment of, 87\n\n  Humor, E. H. indulges in, 196\n\n\n  Immortality, E. H. on, 112-114\n\n  Indiana Y. M., E. H. attends, 51\n\n  Inquirer, The Christian (note), 102\n\n  Introduction, 11\n\n\n  Jackson, Halliday, arrested at Ohio Y. M., 49;\n    statement about (note), 49\n\n  Jericho, home at, 66\n\n  Jericho Monthly Meeting, members at time of \"separation,\" 188;\n    E. H. advises, 200\n\n  Jesus, death and resurrection of, 118-120\n\n  Johnson, Oliver, on abolition claims of Friends, 88\n\n  Jones, Ann, in Dutchess County, 171;\n    extracts from sermons, 171-172\n\n  Jones, George, reference to, 174-176\n\n  Judge, Hugh, sketch of (note), 221-222;\n    reference to, 221;\n    E. H.'s letter to, 222-225\n\n\n  Keith, George, sketch of (note), 19\n\n  Kennett Monthly Meeting, extract from minutes, 88\n\n  Kingston, Canada, E. H. writes letter from, 40\n\n\n  Labor, ideas about, 96-98\n\n  Lamb, blood of, 155\n\n  Lewis, Evan (note), 89\n\n  Liberator, the, quotations from, 87-88\n\n  Lloyd, Isaac, statement by, 154\n\n  Lost condition, reference to, 23\n\n  Lundy, Benjamin, sketch of (note), 86\n\n\n  Manchester Conference, proceedings of (note), 208;\n    quotation from, 208\n\n  Marriage of E. H., 25\n\n  Marriott, Charles, his disownment, 87\n\n  Meeting ministers and elders, a visiting committee, 36\n\n  Meeting for Sufferings, to control membership, 150\n\n  Merritt, Jesse, travels with E. H., 54;\n    is homesick, 54\n\n  Mifflin, Daniel, emancipates slaves, 84\n\n  Mifflin, Warner, emancipates slaves, 84;\n    presents memorial to Congress, 84;\n    reference to, 85\n\n  Mind, effect on body, 100\n\n  Minister, E. H. recorded as, 30\n\n  Ministry, E. H.'s first appearance in, 28;\n    ideas about, 57;\n    speaks of his own, 58;\n    measuring the, 60-61\n\n  Minute, E. H.'s last traveling, 220\n\n  Miraculous conception, the, 114, 194\n\n  Monthly Meeting, E. H. attends his last, 220-221\n\n  Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, reference to, 105\n\n  Mott, Adam (note), 35\n\n  Mott, James, Sr., reference to (note), 35;\n    writes E. H., 123;\n    criticises E. H., 205\n\n  Mott, James and Lucretia, reference to, 35\n\n  Mt. Pleasant, O., disturbance in meeting at, 48-49;\n    Yearly Meeting 1828 at, 49-50;\n    E. H. and T. Shillitoe at, 186\n\n\n  New England Y. M. visited by E. H., 35;\n    attended by English Friends, 183\n\n  New Jersey, Friends in, approve E. H., 196\n\n  New York Y. M., attended by English Friends, 183;\n    by T. Shillitoe, 1828, 183;\n    extract from minute of, 183;\n    T. Shillitoe objects to visitors in, 183\n\n  Nine Partners, sermon at, 123\n\n\n  Ohio Y. M. attended by E. H., 48-49, 186\n\n  Osborn, Charles, prays and preaches two hours, 50\n\n\n  Paine, Thomas, referred to, 117;\n    E. H. on, 117;\n    E. H. compared with, 167\n\n  Parker's, Hicks's sermons, extracts from, 92-93\n\n  Philadelphia Elders write E. H., 130-131\n\n  Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings starts charge of E. H.'s\n      unsoundness, 129;\n    issues statement of doctrine, 139-143\n\n  Pine Street Monthly Meeting offers affront to E. H., 126-127\n\n  Property, E. H.'s views about, 95-96\n\n\n  Quakerism, type of, 7\n\n  Quaker,\" \"The, extracts from, 91, 96\n\n  Quaker creed, a sort of, 139, 143\n\n\n  Railroad, E. H. opposes, 99;\n    the Long Island, 99;\n    Baltimore and Ohio, 98-99;\n    the first (note), 99\n\n  Recollections, reminiscences and testimonies, 211-217\n\n  Religious journeys in 1828, 46\n\n  Routh, Martha, writes letter to E. H., 90\n\n  Roy, Rammouhan, sketch of (note), 206;\n    writes E. H., 207\n\n\n  Salvation, universal, 108-109\n\n  Salvation, vital, 159\n\n  Satan, 116\n\n  Schools, public, ideas about, 101\n\n  Seaman, Gideon, reference to, 50, 182\n\n  Seaman, Jemima, reference to, 24;\n    marries E. H., 25\n\n  Seaman, Captain John, moves to Long Island, 26\n\n  Seaman, Jonathan, father of Jemima, 26\n\n  Seaman, Lazarus, Puritan divine, 26\n\n  Sermons, length of, 65\n\n  Shillitoe, Thomas, reference to, 47;\n    sketch of (note), 181;\n    declines to visit E. H., 182;\n    refers to his traveling minute, 183-184;\n    goes west, 184;\n    converses with ferry keeper, 186;\n    at Mt. Pleasant, 186\n\n  Sin and transgression, 107\n\n  Singing, reference to, 20\n\n  Slavery, first sermon against, 36\n\n  Slavery question, the, 84-94;\n    Friends on, 85-94;\n    pamphlet by E. H. on, 93\n\n  Southern Q. M. members of, on E. H., 133-136\n\n  Stabler, Deborah and James, sketch of (note), 98\n\n\n  Tallack, William, refers to E. H.'s assertions, 206\n\n  Thanksgiving, E. H. on, 102-103\n\n  Thomas, Philip E., reference to, 98;\n    sketch of (note), 98\n\n  Three sermons reviewed, 152\n\n  Time of unsettlement, 139\n\n  Titus, Daniel, traveling companion of E. H., 40\n\n  Turner, Frederick Storrs, reference to, 122;\n    on E. H., 203-204\n\n\n  Unitarianism, E. H. on, 117;\n    in New England, 121\n\n  Unsoundness, charge of, 146\n\n\n  War, Revolutionary, E. H. passes military lines, 31;\n    E. H.'s \"sufferings\" during, 215-216\n\n  Westbury Monthly Meeting, members at the time of \"separation,\" 188\n\n  Westbury and Jericho Monthly Meeting (note), 50;\n    orders E. H. home, 50;\n    reference to, 188;\n    membership of, 188;\n    disowns E. H., 189\n\n  Wharton, William, reference to, 207\n\n  Wheat, E. H. sells at low price, 14\n\n  Whitall, Joseph, reports E. H. unsound, 128\n\n  White, George F., influential in disownment of Isaac T. Hopper, 87;\n    on slave labor, 87;\n    attacks various organizations, 87\n\n  Whitman, Walt, estimation of E. H., 205;\n    reference to, 218-219;\n    hears E. H. preach, 219;\n    describes E. H.'s preaching, 213\n\n  Willets, Deborah (note), 178;\n    extract from letter, 179-180\n\n  Willets, Jacob (note), 178;\n    statement about division in meetings, 178\n\n  Willets, Joshua, son-in-law of E. H., 70\n\n  Willis, Edmund, traveling companion of E. H., 38\n\n  Willis, John, traveling companion of E. H., 32\n\n  Willis, Mary, reference to, 212;\n    her recollections of E. H., 212-213\n\n  Willis, Thomas and Phebe, oppose E. H., 124;\n    dealt with by Jericho Monthly Meeting, 125;\n    reference to, 182\n\n  Women, equality of, 15\n\n  Woolman, John, on slavery, 84\n\n  World, the, against mixing with, 103-104\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n  A, Descendants of Elias Hicks, 226-228\n\n  B, Letter to Dr. Atlee, 229-233\n\n  C, The Portraits, 234\n\n  D, The Death Mask, 234\n\n  E, A Bit of Advertising, 235\n\n  F, Acknowledgment, 235\n\n  G, Sources of Information, 236-237\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTE.\n\n\nAlphabetization has been fixed in the index and page order in the List\nof Illustrations was also fixed; however no content was changed, and\nthe changes are not noted in the detailed changes.\n\nArchaic, unusual and inconsistent spellings have been maintained as in\nthe original. Obvious typos have been fixed, as detailed below.\n\n  Page 4:     Transcriber's Note\n  Added to Table of Contents by Transcriber.\n\n  Page 25:    \"At a monthly meeting held in the meeting house\n  Originally: \"At a monthly meting held in the meeting house\n\n  Page 25:    appearing to obstruct their proceedings in\n  Originally: appearing to obestruct their proceedings in\n\n  Page 29:    kept sweet and clean, consistent with\n  Originally: kept sweet and clean, consitent with\n\n  Page 36:    some present who were slaveholders were\n  Originally: some present who were slave-holders were\n\n  Page 53:    which had divided the Society of Friends.\n  Originally: which had divided the Soicety of Friends.\n\n  Page 65:    his willingness to \"famish the people from words,\"\n  Originally: his willingess to \"famish the people from words,\"\n\n  Page 66:    from cellar wall to ridge-pole\n  Originally: from celler wall to ridge-pole\n\n  Page 72:    She passed away in 1871.\n  Originally: She passed away in 1781.\n\n  Page 76:    one wishes for more description, relating to the\n  Originally: one wishes for more discription, relating to the\n\n  Page 86:    Of this Address, Horace Greeley says,\n  Originally: Of this Address, Horace Greely says,\n\n  Page 97:    more delightful and profitable instruction\n  Originally: more delightful and profitable instructtion\n\n  Page 101:   Observation, he said, led him to believe\n  Originally: Observation, he said, lead him to believe\n\n  Page 106 (note): \"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" Vol. II, p. 305.\n  Originally:      \"Anti-Nicene Fathers,\" Vol. II, p. 305.\n\n  Page 122:   from change in Zion.\n  Originally: from change in zion\n\n  Page 128:   in the early part of Twelfth month,\n  Originally: in the early part of Twefth month,\n\n  Page 129:   believing that Elias succeeded in measurably\n  Originally: believing that Elias succeeded in measureably\n\n  Page 131:   who made the above statements which\n  Originally: who made the above statments which\n\n  Page 131:   \"THOMAS WISTAR.\"\n  Originally: \"THOMAS WISTER.\"\n\n  Page 133:   within the bounds of Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting\n  Originally: within the bounds of Philadelphia Quartely Meeting\n\n  Page 141:   satisfactory sacrifice and not otherwise.\n  Originally: satisfactory sacrifice and no otherwise.\n\n  Page 160:   is to be to the children of men\n  Originally: is to be the children of men\n\n  Page 165:   the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour\n  Originally: the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord and Savious\n\n  Page 171 (note):  Taken in short-hand by Henry Hoag, p. 20.\n  Originally:       Taken in shorthand by Henry Hoag, p. 20.\n\n  Page 173:   The blood of Christ that is immortal\n  Originally: The blood of Chirst that is immortal\n\n  Page 179: acquainted with their manoeuvring\n  Originally the oe ligature was used.\n\n  Page 206:   many of Elias Hicks' assertions are too blasphemous\n  Originally: many of Elias Hick's assertions are too blasphemous\n\n  Page 206 (note): and incurred the enmity of his family.\n  Originally:      and incurred the emnity of his family.\n\n  Page 209: from the amoeba to the man\n  Originally the oe ligature was used.\n\n  Page 224:   his disciples, John 14:16-17;\n  Originally: his diciples, John 14:16-17;\n\n  Page 231:   the Spirit given to every man if it not to profit by;\n  Originally: the Spirit given to every man if it it not to profit by;\n\n  Page 233:   undertake to pry into his secret\n  Originally: undertake to prey into his secret\n\n  Page 235:   Acknowledgment.\n  Originally: Acknowledgement.\n\n  Page 240:   Marriott, Charles, his disownment, 87\n  Originally: Marriot, Charles, his disownment, 87\n\n  Page 241:   Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, reference to, 105\n  Originally: Mosheim's Ecclesiatical History, reference to, 105\n\n  Page 241:   Tallack, William, refers to E. H.'s assertions, 206\n  Originally: Tallock, William, refers to E. H.'s assertions, 206\n\n  Page 242:   E, A Bit of Advertising, 235\n  Originally: E, A Bit of Advertisting, 235\n\n  Page 242:   G, Sources of Information, 236-237\n  Originally omitted from index.","title":"The Life and Labors of Elias Hicks","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":75264}