served, he was not free to meet them alone," but "ready to hear any charge they had to bring in the presence of these Friends."

This candid offer and the defeat of their plan to hold a secret conclave appear to have produced "some confusion and evident irritation on the part of some of the elders, several of them rising to go out; and one of them said, The ministers are answerable to the elders,' in a tone of voice evincing some excitement." To which Elias mildly replied, "I am answerable to my Friends at home. I have their certificate. God makes ministers, but man elders"-and some few words more, which the narrator says, "I did not hear, owing to the noise."

He adds, "The elders now all left the house, except Isaac Lloyd and Samuel Noble. Isaac Lloyd had, while all were together, expressed his disapprobation of the whole proceeding, in thus calling Elias before the elders: he did not understand what authority or right they had to act thus.

"After the others retired, there was a short pause, when Elias said, if those Friends who had just retired were to have the whole rule and government of ministers, and others were to be bound to submit to them in all things, it was time for Friends to take care of their rights, and not suffer themselves to be imposed upon." The persons present expressed " great unity and sympathy with Elias Hicks, as a Gospel Minister, and a desire that he might be encouraged;" and also, "that no resentment or hardness might be suffered to get in towards those Friends who had retired." Before they separated, "Elias observed, that he felt thankful in saying he felt as much love for those Friends who had left us as he ever had done; and that if they had been actuated by any improper motives, (which he did not charge them with,) his prayer for them was, that they might be forgiven."

About two months before this, a MS., which nearly fills fourteen pages of "The Cabinet," intended privately to prejudice the leading Friends and elders of Philadelphia against Elias Hicks, was annexed to a letter addressed by Thomas Eddy to John Warder, of Philadelphia, dated "New York, 10 Mo. (Oct.) 18, 1822.

"My dear Friend,

"I send the annexed to thee in hopes it may be useful for such Friends as thee thinks proper to offer it, for their perusal; if approved by thee, it may be handed to any other Friends. Please see William Evans; shew it to him; and if he or any others wish to copy it, please permit them. If it would be more extensively useful, I have no objection that ten copies be printed. It was done in a hurry, and might have been improved, if I had time to copy it; however, it can be corrected with you. It may be of more use if it should not be known to be written by me, or that it came from New York. Elias gave large notice to have a public meeting at Newark, but the people knew his sentiments, and would not attend, except about a dozen of the lower class. Please see William Evans or Thomas Evans soon. I wish thee to write me soon. Thy son Benjamin will perhaps copy the annexed, so as it may not be read in my hand-writing. Letters addressed to me, as usual, at New York, will be handed me next day. "Thy affectionate Friend,"

་

"THOMAS EDDY."

The MS. annexed to the above letter was entitled by its author, "Facts and Observations illustrative of the present State [of the] Society in New York." The writer first attempts to shew, that, from the time of George Fox, the Society in Europe and America were uniformly preserved in a wonderful manner in love and amity. "This happy state of things lasted," says he, till the time of Hannah Barnard's going to England, in the year [1799]. During her visit to Ireland, she introduced sentiments of unbelief as to some parts of the Holy Scriptures, on the weak ground that we are not obliged to believe what we cannot understand or comprehend; and finding a disposition in many to unite with her, she very soon manifested that she did not unite with the Society respecting a belief in the divinity of Christ." How, then, did it happen that no such accusation was taken up by any of the Committees or Meetings to whom her case was referred? It is true an elder, a supposed convert from the Wesleian Methodists, openly accused her before the Morning Meeting of Ministers and Elders in London

in the year 1800, with holding Unitarian sentiments; but his proposal, not being seconded, fell to the ground.

Hannah Barnard was silenced in England, as a minister, for her testimony against war, with the aid of several supplementary charges, irregularly and improperly introduced, none of which had any connexion with Unitarianism. Nor was she disowned as a member of the Society in America on any such ground. Thomas Eddy next refers to the cases of "William Rathbone and Thomas Foster," each of whom he incorrectly asserts "published a book, taking part with Hannah Barnard, and advocating Unitarian doctrines, on which account they were both disowned."

He should have said the latter only, as no charge of the kind was alleged against William Rathbone, though he was well known to have been a member of the same Unitarian Book Society, eight or nine years before Thomas Foster became one of its members. It is not clear what Thomas Eddy means by his next accusation against Thomas Foster, whether it refers to his sober and serious remarks on the Yearly Meeting Epistle for 1810; or to his "Tract," entitled "Doctrinal and Devotional Extracts" from each of those Epistles from 1675 to 1810. The deputies of Ratcliff Monthly Meeting, as well as those of the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, to whom his case was referred, alike declined to examine the conclusive evidence these Extracts contained of the collective sense of the Church, from the uniform manner in which it had annually expressed itself for so long a series of years. Nor has any direct attempt been yet made, that I am aware of, to weaken or overturn this evidence. Erroneously as Thomas Eddy has stated many circumstances relative to the case of Thomas Foster, when before the Yearly Meeting of 1814, which "he afterwards published," whether Thomas Eddy had ever seen the publication or not, he says, "It is allowed to be a tolerable candid and accurate statement of the whole proceedings," including "the whole that was said by himself, the respondents, and every Friend that spoke on the subject be fore the Meeting." If there be any truth in this statement, Thomas Eddy's account of the matter is wholly inde

fensible. But his overcharged picture of the Separatists in Ireland, and of the case of T. Foster, was drawn, "in order to shew how decidedly the Society have shewn their abhorrence of the doctrines advanced by them; and also" that it "may be compared with the present state of society, within the limits of the Quarterly Meeting of Westbury," where Elias Hicks resides and has long been well known, and highly esteemed as a distinguished member and approved minister of the Society. By Thomas Eddy's account of the members of this Quarterly Meeting, they are mostly heretical enough to say, "We are not bound to believe what our reason cannot comprehendtill at length they boldly denied the divinity of Christ, and openly declared that his death and sufferings were not to be considered as a propitiatory offering for the sins of mankind, &c. &c. It may be truly said that within the Yearly Meeting of New York, as well as the adjacent Yearly Meetings, Friends were remarkably preserved in love and unity, until Elias Hicks disturbed that harmony."

66

How did he do this? Thomas Eddy, under the mask he had assumed, says, by lessening the divine authenticity of the Holy Scriptures"the common but groundless aspersion against Unitarians. "And then," adds he, "when he (Elias Hicks) supposed he had sufficiently prepared the ininds of the people, he came out with his Unitarian principles or doctrine, and shewed a wonderful fondness for speculation and reasoning." In proof of which, it seems, he "frequently asserted that he was not obliged to believe what our reason could not comprehend." The effect of his thus preaching the doctrines of the gospel in much plainness, as an intelligible revelation addressed to the reason of man, and not an unrevealed revelation, as some others represent it, is thus described by his accuser:

"The multitude always being fond of something new, run after him wherever it was known he was to be at Meeting, as they were confident he could not be silent, owing to his having a remarkable acute memory," well stored I presume with a knowledge of the Scriptures," diligent in the exercise of his gift," and having "by nature or rather by the gift of

God, the advantage of a great flow of words, and [a] ready utterance-he acquired great popularity; and in a little time his influence," says Thomas Eddy, "became so extensive that he dictated and completely directed all the business of the Yearly Meeting, and every other meeting of discipline he attended." The next accusation is much more credible. Following closely the example of the four evangelists, of the apostles, and their great Master, "he began by speaking of Christ as a great prophet," or the greatest of the prophets, "who had suffered martyrdom for his principles, as other prophets had done before his time."

66

was

His accuser adds, "At this period his principles were discovered by a number of Friends, but there were many that were so closely attached to him, that any person who passed censure on him," [for preaching the aforesaid scriptural doctrines,] sure to incur the frowns of his supporters. Some valuable Friends now regret that he was not checked at that period, but they are fearful it is now too late." It is much to be lamented, says Thomas Eddy, "that this step was not timely adopted, as it would have prevented the present unhappy divisions in New York and other places. He went on-printing and speaking of Christ as a mere man, and lessening the Scriptures on every occasion.” After much irrelevant and not very credible matter, his accuser adds, "At length he ventured more openly to speak against the divinity of Christ, by stating, that he might have fallen as Adam did." It appears that " 'some worthy Friends of New York," and "other Yearly Meetings, and from Europe," have stated to Elias Hicks their objections to "his sentiments relative to the divinity of Christ," which, according to them, "went to the destruction of the Christian religion, and to produce divisions in [the] Society. But owing to his inordinate fondness for reasoning," says Thomas Eddy, this has not "been of any use." And that “although many Friends in New York, as well as some on Long Island, are convinced he is unsound in the Christian faith, yet most of them are secretly afraid of him." Such is the account given, as illustrative of the present state of the Society of Friends

in New York and the adjacent Yearly Meetings. "We may tremble,” adds Thomas Eddy on behalf of himself and his confidential friends, "when we find such a man" as Elias Hicks "countenanced in advancing doctrines that go," in their estimation, "to destroy the foundation of our Society, and lay waste its first principles; and that he should be permitted to go to other places," where he is heard gladly by the multitude, and his doctrines generally approved and received as sound and scriptural, "to produce the same divisions that he has already produced at New York. The injury received through the conduct of this man has been very great. Highly respectable persons of other [reputedly Orthodox] denominations, charge our Society with being Unitarians: when they are told" by the comparatively few persons in the Society who oppose his ministry, that “this charge is untrue, they reply, they have heard Elias Hicks openly and publicly avow this doctrine, and as he is an acknowledged minister in the Society of Friends, and as they allow him to go about the country to hold meetings, of course the doctrines delivered by him must be considered as held by the Society."

In order to shew that "it is not so very extraordinary as might at first appear, that a great proportion of the people so educated and so instructed should submit to be led, and be so entirely influenced by such a man as Elias Hicks," and to account for "so many of the members of his Quarterly Meeting being so blind as not to discover the unsoundness of his principles," Thomas Eddy does not hesitate to say, "the leading cause is the want of a proper or suitable education; the writings of early Friends (except some journals) are scarce, and little read, all kinds of school learning, except reading, writing, and the first rules of arithmetic, are discouraged, as well as general history, and books written by persons who are not members." To read the Scriptures daily or at fixed hours, is declared to be "mere formality;" and he asserts, I hope also mistakenly, that in many families "they are very little read;" and with equal confidence declares, that "if Friends in Philadelphia," of whose religious education and instruction he makes no

complaint, "should allow this man" (Elias Hicks) to visit families," which he afterwards did to very general satisfaction, "and in this way to spread his poisonous principles, divisions among them will assuredly be the consequence." The quotation from Pennington may possibly prove that he adopted the indwelling scheme, or the Sabellian system, but nothing more, in relation to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.

Thomas Eddy says, lastly, that "during the time George Witby," a minister from this country, was "in New York, many of those who have uniformly appeared as zealous supporters of Elias Hicks, shewed themselves highly displeased with George, and charged him with preaching wrong [or uncriptural] doctrines." They were exceedingly disturbed," says Thomas Eddy, "that George should have told Elias that his sentiments went to destroy the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. In order to support Elias, they published one thousand copies of William Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken, as they said, to shew that the Unitarian doctrine held by Elias Hicks, agreed with what was advanced by Penn" That these persons so published this celebrated work of Penn's, may be safely credited on the testimony of Thomas Eddy. He disapproved its publication, yet bears witness to the fact, in a circular specially intended for his particular friends, and others holding similar sentiments, and alike intolerant.

Many of your readers are so well acquainted with the strong, clear, definite, and scriptural character of this work, as to enable them readily and decisively to judge what doctrines alone it is calculated to support. I may hereafter send you another paper relative to this controversy among the American Friends, their reception or rejection of those doctrines, for openly avowing which, Penn suffered imprisonment at the suit of the Bishop of London, but for promulgating which, he never was, that I can find, exposed even to a breath of censure from the Society of Friends, with whom he was then, and long after, in the nearest religious unity and fellowship. BEREUS.

SIR,

July 12, 1824. READ with equal pain and sur prise, a letter in your Repository, (pp. 201, 202,) dated from Bristol, and signed A Friend to SundaySchools, in which the writer charges the Unitarian body with a manifest indifference, if not aversion, to the instruction of the poor-in other words, to Sunday-Schools. This he maintains to be a fact, and a lamentable fact. Many strange observations respecting the inconsistency of Unitarians are offered by him to the public, and particularly in connexion with the causes of what he is pleased to call the tardy progress of Unitarianism. This tardy progress he ascribes in a great measure to "negligence in the education and in the purity of the education of the youthful poor," amongst us. We are, then, accused of aversion to, and neglect in, the momentous duty of education as it relates to the poor, and an impure method besides, in the management of it.

This, Sir, is a heavy charge, and yet appears to carry inconsistency upon its face. But, the author proceeds to make the following appeal to the Unitarian public:-"How is it, I would ask, that so few of our magnificent and spacious places of worship can boast of having spacious school-rooms appended to them? How is it that our public donation lists teem with items in favour of ministers and chapels, and almost every other praiseworthy object, and not a solitary one applicable to that of Sunday-Schools? Does not this seem to indicate that the Unitarian grants, tacitly at least, to his Trinitarian brethren the pre-occupation of the vulgar minds of the lower classes of society to implant and cherish those very stamina which constitute his chief complaint, whose eradication is his greatest difficulty? Or, that he permits the most vigorous portion of their existence to run out in the debasing, unregenerative torpor of

blessed ignorance,' until they are incapacitated for the reception of any thing opposed to that prevalent but pseudo-proverb, Vox populi vox Dei'? And is not the large expendi ture in the erection of chapels, and the education and support of ministers, like the providing of hospitals