Glimpses of Christian History Presents Pastwords #177: Quaker's Friendly Persuasion Gives Way to Serious Backbiting and Fracture by James Cockburn ©2007

COCKBURN, JAMES. A Review of the General and Particular Causes which have Produced the Late Disorders and Divisions in the Yearly Meeting of Friends, Held in Philadelphia: With Introductory Remarks on the State of the Primitive Churches, Their Gradual Declension and Subsequent Advancement in Reformation, to the Rise of the Society of Friends. By James Cockburn. Philadelphia: Printed for the Author by Philip Price, Jr., and sold by John Townsend, No. 346 Market Street. 1829.

This work regards the Hicksite separation among the American Friends. Elias Hicks (1748-1830) 'a noted preacher, traveling extensively among the Yearly Meeting of American Friends. When the more liberal element of the Society broke off from the more conservative wing in 1827 they were called Hicksites... Many were Unitarians, and some of Hick's statements undoubtedly tend in this direction' --Isaac Sharpless in New Schaff-Herzog Ency. Rel. Knowl. V:274. Cockburn responds to a 'Declaration' by the orthodox party of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, assigning the cause of their disunion from the Phila. Yearly Meeting as 'an open denial of the fundamental doctrines of the christian religion, as they are laid down by our blessed Redeemer and his apostles, in the Holy Scriptures' Having made this grievous charge, they further declare, 'we cannot unite with them in church fellowship, nor own them to be of our communion.'' --pp iii-iv, Preface. Cockburn defends the liberal party.

CAUSES OF THE LATE DISORDERS IN THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, WITHIN THE YEARLY MEETING, HELD IN PHILADELPHIA.

hatever may appear to be the immediate cause of present difficulties and disorder, deviation from the leadings and guidance of the fundamental principle of the society, is the true and real cause. We have seen this principle leading the society into that beautiful and efficient order, that hath been blessed for the help, strength, and preservation of the body to the present time. The recent disorders that have occurred in the administration of discipline, must have sprung from a different root of cause, than that from which the society took its rise. If we take a review of the society for the last forty years, it will appear that the same causes which produced declension in its previous stages, have been operating with accumulating force.

The confederation of the United States into a national government, paved the way for bringing all the resources and energies of the country into active operation, and opened the door for general commercial intercourse. The subsequent French revolutionary war engrossing the general care and attention of Europe, left the United States in the almost unrivalled enjoyment of lucrative commerce. Unexampled prosperity for many years, shed its radiance on the United States, enlightening and cheering the path of every class of citizens, and the means of increasing wealth were placed within the reach of almost every one. The society of Friends was generally in a position to share in the public prosperity, and with the means already acquired, many by successful business obtained independent competence and wealth, while their influence and power were advancing in religious society.

Wealth and power entwine themselves deeply round the human heart, and have often involved individuals and societies, in proceedings at variance with their own principles.

The society of Friends, by a long course of persevering virtue, justly gained a respectable standing in the world, especially in Pennsylvania. They were the original settlers, legislators, and magistrates of the colony. They have generally patronized virtuous public institutions, obtained the confidence of their fellow citizens, and even praise of enemies.

All the members are required to be of respectable deportment; many of them are rich and wealthy; and the society as a body has accumulated, by the donations and legacies of individuals, a very large estate, and under these circumstances cannot fail to have considerable influence in the public community. It is not improbable that the high character, and respectable standing of the society, have proved a snare to it. Individuals, without coming under the power of the cross, may have become members of the society from no higher motives than a love of popularity. The influence of the reputation of the society, acting on individuals engaged in the administration of the discipline upon offenders, has too often induced them to look more at the blot brought on the society, than to the restoration of the offender; unwisely supposing that the infliction of the penalty obliterates the stain, more than turning a delinquent from the error of his way would add lustre to the virtue and efficacy of religious principle. Many exercised minds believe, ,that this has greatly tended to produce a superficial zeal in unmortified tempers, and has introduced great deadness and spiritual desolation into the society.

It may be queried, how unmortified tempers have come to bear rule in a society, whose principle is spiritual, and whose discipline is professed to be administered under the influence of the spirit?

It is perhaps by degrees, that members who are not qualified come to busy themselves with the spiritual functions of discipline. The pecuniary concerns of the society of course devolve on individuals conversant in the busy scenes of active life. Competent external knowledge and circumstances, are thought essential qualification. These qualifications often meet in individuals deeply engaged in the pursuit and spirit of the world. Success in extensive concerns, clothes the agent with corresponding importance. The operation of his will and power becomes habitual. He is accustomed to take the lead, and those around him, to obey. Individuals thus circumstanced, clothed with all the respectability of social and domestic life, coming to be entrusted with the concerns of religious society, can hardly fail to consider themselves of importance in the body. In the direction and promotion of the interests of society, the same policy will naturally be preferred, which in other cases has proved successful. Individuals of this description becoming associated for years in the control and direction of the affairs of the society, naturally prefer one another. The expression of their opinions or sentiments is listened to with attention -- they are appointed on business of importance; they are looked up to with deference, and by degrees they come to suppose that the welfare of the society depends on their guardian care, although the subjugation of the natural temper never has been habitually experienced. The ardour and restiveness of such individuals, will be in proportion as their importance and standing seem to be affected; and hence, we may see the germinating root of those particular causes producing the unseemly and painful disorders, that have lately been witnessed in the society.

The progress of a superficial and overbearing spirit has deeply exercised many faithful minds who have been removed from works to rewards. The venerable and self denying Thomas Scattergood; the pious and philanthropic William Savery; the feeling and upright Arthur Howell, saw in their days of probation, the current and tide of those causes setting in, that have threatened to overwhelm the living with the dead.

They saw with painful concern, the prevalence of that superficial policy, which was mingling itself with the administration of the affairs and interests of the society, bringing the true seed and innocent life under a yoke of bondage.

This yoke may be said, to use a familiar figure, to have been broken by the multitude of rivets driven in to strengthen it. The event seems a mercy to all concerned. It is a mercy to those individuals, who, in their eagerness to grasp and hold power, have often repressed and crushed the feelings of visited children, that the means of injuring themselves by oppressing others, are now very much limited and circumscribed. It is a mercy to those who have been 'grinding as in the prison house,' that enlargement has come by the over-ruling power of Divine Providence, setting an open door before the 'oppressed in Israel, and gathering the dispersed in Judea.' It is a mercy to the church at large, affording a renewed evidence that the 'Lord reigneth;' and that his mercy and goodness still embrace his truth, ministering a way for it in the earth.

It is mortifying and humbling to recur to those public disorders that have marked the progress of a few individuals, who have risen up in the bosom of the society of Friends, disturbing the peace and unity of the body, and so far interrupting the legitimate operation of the discipline, as to render it indispensable for the society, by recurrence to first principles, to re-organize the Yearly Meeting of Friends for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the eastern shore of Maryland, in order quietly to disentangle itself from those incumbrances which had obstructed the proper exercise of its functions. The unceasing misrepresentations of those individuals, against the great body of Friends, render this painful task necessary.

A late declaration, purporting to be prepared in a meeting for sufferings in the fourth month last, got up by the principal actors of those measures which have produced the late disorders and commotions in the Society, seems to require that a true statement of facts should be exhibited, that the yearly meeting of Friends may be cleared from the defamatory aspersions of those individuals, who, for years past, have been assuming to themselves unjustifiable power in the society, and are now censuring those who have been instrumental in the hand of Providence, to rescue it from their usurpation.

As far as appears, the first public manifestation of disorder connected with the present difficulties, occurred in a monthly meeting held at Pine street, where Elias Hicks was in attendance in the tenth month 1819. After having relieved his mind in the men's, he asked and obtained liberty to visit the womens' meeting. In his absence, the mens' meeting adjourned, although their business was not completed. This was an uncommon occurrence, and excited considerable sensation among many members of that meeting. It appears to have been done by a few influential individuals as a mark of disrespect to Elias Hicks; or rather, it exhibited evidence of their resenting the application of his testimony respecting the produce of slave labour. Speaking on this subject, Elias had said

'there were some who had gone retrograde, some who, on obedience to the clear openings of the light of truth felt bound to deny themselves in that particular, had by giving way to the deceivableness of unrighteousness, fallen from the tenderness of feeling once witnessed so far as again to use without restraint articles produced by the labour of slaves.'

An influential individual of that meeting, who for twenty years had abstained from the use of the produce of slave labour, had lately discovered that this part of self-denial had been taken up in his own will, and now felt so irritable on the subject, as to take great offence at Elias Hicks' faithful testimony. Hence a prejudice against Elias was excited in the mind of this individual, that became the spring of this, and many other unseemly actions.

Although adjourning the meeting in the absence of a travelling minister, may seem a trivial circumstance, it is believed to have been unprecedented amongst Friends. It exhibited a marked disrespect to a stranger engaged with general acceptance in the work of the ministry -- it was unkind in itself, and set an example of insubordination to the accustomed relations of society. At this period it is nor understood that there were direct charges made of unsoundness against Elias Hicks. There were murmurs raised and whispered against the close character of his testimonies, which were supposed to bear hard on particular classes. It was alledged that his practical instruction was too sever; that he was too much in advance of the age; and that society was not prepared for the acceptation of his views.

These murmurs and whispers appear to have been encouraged, and cherished by those individuals who felt themselves rather lessened by the light of his testimonies respecting the product of slave labour, and unwisely lessened themselves yet more in the eyes of their brethren by an injudicious act of public disrespect, inconsistent with Christian kindness and comity.

Previous to this occurrence Elias Hicks had for many years made full proof of his ministry, confirming by example by example the testimony given him to bear. He was born on Long Island, in the year 1748, and educated in that plain and simple manner which was customary at that time in the society of Friends. Faithful to the unfoldings of truth in his own mind, his understanding became opened in its light, and his judgment settled in a close adherence to its manifestations, which by degrees qualified him to comprehend the workings of evil in many of its mysterious forms, and to stand even to the present time at the advanced age of eighty years, as a faithful watchman on the walls of Zion, notwithstanding the united exertions of erring brethren to lessen his usefulness.

The next disorderly transaction that is recollected, occurred in the 8th Mo. 1822, at a meeting for sufferings. A number of the members previously requested by some individuals, who in a private caucus appear to have resolved on the measure, remained in conference, when, according to the testimony of Abraham Lower, it was stated in substance by Jonathan Evans, 'that Elias Hicks had obtained from his Monthly meeting a certificate to visit Friends in this city, and as it was well known that he held doctrines that are not the doctrines of Friends, some steps ought to be taken to prevent him from disseminating them among us.' This vague allegation appears by the letter of the ten elders to Elias Hicks, dated 12th Mo. 19th, 1822, to have been predicated on the representation, of Joseph Whithall, arising from his misconstruction of some expressions of Elias Hicks at New York Yearly meeting in the 5th Mo. preceding. 'Detached sentences may be taken from any writer or speaker, and by the help of constructions be made to convey an idea altogether different from that intended by the writer or speaker. If we would understand his sentiments we must take into view his whole design.' Upon this ex parte evidence, these selected members of the meeting for sufferings agreed to act as if Elias Hicks was unsound, and appointed a committee to take an early opportunity with him on his arrival in the city, and it was advised 'not to dispute with him, for he was full or words, but in a prompt way put a stop to his travelling in the ministry.' His influence in New York Yearly meeting was said to be so great that Friends there could do nothing with him, and that Friends in Philadelphia could only stop him.

At a period of Christian society enlightened as the present, a calm review of this transaction excites blushes for humanity. Here we see a man, venerable for his age and experience, and who has uniformly sustained for fifty years of public life the most unexceptionable character and reputation, clandestinely arraigned before self-appointed judges, and upon the most vague allegations, treated as an offender for expressions said to be uttered three months before in his own Yearly meeting. It seems as if those persons thought that they had not only an exclusive right to judge and act for the society of Friends in Philadelphia, but for the society at large; and that they were competent to achieve what no other department of it could perform.

Previous to Elias Hicks' entering Philadelphia in the 12th Mo. 1824, Ezra Comfort, and Isaiah Bell, who were in attendance with him at the Southern Quarterly meeting, conceived exceptions against some of his expressions, much in the same way that Joseph Whithall had done, which, with the help of a little imaginary construction, made the appearance of a formidable charge.

These Friends without due consideration, or taking a seasonable opportunity with Elias Hicks, unwisely communicated their apprehensions to his secret accusers, who had already prejudged his case. This additional show of testimony was laid hold of with avidity, and those Friends drawn into great perplexity and trouble, by putting their signatures to a written representation, of the tendency of which they did not appear to be fully aware, as twenty two members of the southern Quarter subsequently signed a correction of their statement, which entirely nullified the charge unkindly drawn from them. 'When the rulers of the people cause them to err,' the most distressing consequences ensue. When these Friends made their representations to a favourite ruler, instead of encouraging them to violate the discipline, he ought to have directed them into the path of gospel order, so as to have avoided those unnecessary afflictions, which this circumstance brought on them and their families.

Soon after Elias Hicks arrived in the city, to proceed on a visit to the families of Green street Monthly meeting, the committee appointed by the private conference in the 8th Mo., waited on him with a representation of the charges against him. Elias denied their authority to question him, but upon their telling him they came in love as brethren, he was willing to answer them, and after a free intercourse, they went away apparently satisfied. Whatever the report of the committee was, the principals in this prosecution were not to be diverted from their purpose. To give some colour and weight to their proceedings, nearly all the elders in the city were summoned to meet as in an official capacity, and no doubt they hoped their victim was sure. They requested an interview with Elias Hicks, who denied their authority, and declined meeting them, but was ready to produce certificates expressive of the unity and concurrence of his Monthly and Quarterly meetings with him in his present service, which had been furnished him according to the established order of society; yet in condescension to some of his particular Friends, he afterwards agreed to meet the elders in Green street meeting house, on the 5th day succeeding. Considering the uncommon proceedings of the elders, Elias deemed it expedient to have witnesses present to hear the charges made against him, and to produce testimony should it appear necessary to repel the accusation. John Comly, Robert Moore, John Moore, John Hunt, and others, accompanied him on the occasion; some of whom had been at the Southern Quarter, and could give direct evidence in the case. This reasonable and wise step on the part of Elias Hicks entirely frustrated the present intentions of his opposers. The principal promoters of this measure appear to have been appalled at the light of the countenances of honest and upright men. They could not take any step in their presence. Under pretence that the meeting was not select, they declined all friendly conference, and abruptly left the house, alledging that 'ministers were amenable to the elders.' It is understood that witnesses were in waiting to be called in to support the charges to be made against Elias, and them, it is believed, the elders were to give judgment against him without permitting defence or respite. They were not to reason with him, for he was full of words, but roundly to charge and give judgment, vainly supposing that their opinion had the power and force of law, and would in future incapacitate him to travel in the ministry. All these devices failed to make any impression on Elias Hicks. They openly showed the weakness and imprudence of those who had set themselves against him. How unwise and unjustifiable for a few individuals to arrogate to themselves all the power of the society, and pretend to disqualify a member of another Yearly meeting, having in his possession the regular certificates of his own meeting, approbatory of his religious service.

The following are the written communications between the elders and Elias Hicks, accompanied by the certificate of twenty two members of the Southern Quarter in relation thereto.

Letter from the Ten Elders to Elias Hicks.

To Elias Hicks, Friends in Philadelphia having, for a considerable time past, heard of they holding any promulgating doctrines different from, and repugnant to those held by our religious society, it was cause of uneasiness and deep concern to them, as their sincere regard and engagement for the promotion of the cause of truth, made it very desirable that all the members of our religious Society should move in true harmony, under the leading and direction of our Blessed Redeemer:

upon being informed of thy sentiments expressed by Joseph Whitall: that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, until after the Baptism of John, and the descent of the Holy Ghost, and that he was no more than a man; that the same power that made Christ a Christian must make us Christians; and that the same power that saved him must save us;

many Friends were much affected therewith, and some time afterwards, several Friends being together in the city on subjects relating to our religious Society, they received an account from Ezra Comfort, of some of they expressions in the public general meeting immediately succeeding the Southern Quarterly meeting lately held in the Sate of Delaware, which was also confirmed by his companion Isaiah Bell: that Jesus Christ was the first man that introduced the Gospel dispensation, the Jews being under the outward and ceremonial law or dispensation, it was necessary that there should be some outward miracle, as the healing of the outward infirmities of the flesh, and raising the outward dead bodies, in order to introduce the Gospel dispensation; he had no more power given him than man, for he was no more than man; he had nothing to do with the healing of the soul, for that belongs to God only; Elisha has the same power to raise the dead; that man, being obedient to the Spirit of God in him could arrive at as great, or greater degree of righteousness, than Jesus Christ; that Jesus Christ thought it not robbery for man to be equal with God then endeavoured to show that by attending to that stone cut out of the mountain without hands, or the seen in man, it would make man equal with God, saying, for that stone in mane was the entire God. On hearing which, it appeared to Friends a subject of such great importance, and of such deep interest to the welfare of our religious Society, as to require an early extension of care, in order, that if any incorrect statement had been made, it should as soon as possible be rectified, or if true, thou might be possessed of the painful concern of Friends, and their sense and judgment thereon. Two of the Elders accordingly waited on thee on the evening of the day of they arriving in the city, and although thou denied the statement, yet, thy declining to meet these two Elders in company with those who made it, left the minds of Friends without relief: one of the Elders who had called on thee, repeated his visit on the next day but one, and again requested thee to see the two Elders and the Friends who made the above statements, which thou again declined. The Elders from the different Monthly meetings in the city were then convened, and requested a private opportunity with thee, which thou also refused, yet the next day consented to meet them at a time and place of they own fixing; but when assembled, a mixed company being collected, the Elders could not in this manner enter into business which they considered of a nature not to be investigated in any other way than in a select private opportunity; they therefore considered that meeting a clear indication of thy continuing to decline to meet the Elders, as by them proposed. Under these circumstances it appearing that thou art not willing to hear and disprove the charges brought against thee, we feel it a duty to declare, that we cannot have religious unity with thy conduct, nor with the doctrines thou art charged with promulgating.
Signed, 12th Mo. 19th, 1822.

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

Elias Hicks' Letter to the foregoing Ten Elders.

To Caleb Pierce and the other Friends, Having been charged by you of unsoundness of principle and doctrine, founded on reports spread among the people in an unfriendly manner, and contrary to the order of our discipline, by Joseph Whitall, as stated in the letter from you dated the 19th inst.; and as these are charges not literally true, being founded on his own forced and improper construction of my words, I deny them; and as I do not consider myself amenable to him, or any other, for crimes laid to my charge as being committed in the course of the sitting of our last yearly meeting, as not any of my fellow members of that meeting discovered or noticed any such things, which I presume not to be the case, as not an individual has mentioned any such thing to me, but contrary thereto, many of our valuable Friends (who had heard some of these foul reports promulgated by an individual of our city) acknowledged the great satisfaction they had with my services and exercises in the course of that meeting, and were fully convinced, that all these foul reports were false; and this view is fully confirmed by a certificate granted me by the monthly and quarterly meetings of which I am a member, in which they express their full unity with me, and which meetings were held a considerable time after our yearly meeting, in the course of which Joseph Whitall has presumed to charge me with unsoundness, contrary to the sense of the yearly, quarterly and monthly meetings of which I am a member, and to whom only I hold myself amenable for all conduct transacted within their limits, The other charges against me made by Ezra Comfort, as expressed in your letter , are in the general incorrect, as is proved by the annexed certificate; and moreover as Ezra Comfort has departed from gospel order in not mentioning his uneasiness to me when present with me, and when I could have appealed to Friends of that meeting to have justified me, therefore I consider Ezra Comfort to have acted disorderly and contrary to discipline; and these are the reasons that induced me to refuse a compliance with your requisitions, as considering them arbitrary and contrary to the established order of our Society.
(Signed) E. Hicks.

Philadelphia, 12 mo. 21, 1822.

Letter from Three Members of the Southern Quarterly Meeting, concerning Elias Hicks.

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

save only that we were then of opinion and still are, that the sentiments and doctrines held forth by our said friend Elias Hicks, are agreeable to the opinions and doctrines held by George Fox and other worthy Friends of his time. 12 mo. 21, 1822. (Signed) Robert Moore,
Thomas Turner,
Joseph G. Rowland.

Being present when the foregoing Letter was concluded on, I unite with the concern and care of my brethren the Elders of this city, that our religious Society might not be under the imputation of holding doctrines which do not accord with the testimony of the Holy Scriptures. Jonathan Evans.

Letters from Twenty-two Members of the Southern Quarterly Meeting, concerning Elias Hicks.

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

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

Elisha Dawson, George Messeck, William Dolby, William W. Moore, Walter Mifflin, John Cogwill, Daniel Bowers, Samuel Price, William Levick, Robert Kemp, Elias Janell, John Turner, Jacob Pennington, Hartfield Wright, Johnathan Twibond, David Wilson, Henry Swiggitt, Michael Lowber, Michael Offley, Jacob Liventon, James Brown, John Cowgill, Junr. Little Creek, 2 mo. 26th, 1823.

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