rally, and spoke to him alone, before it went out of my lips to any other person.

Question. Does the good order of the society authorize the spreading of reports, impeaching the character of a member, before the subject is taken up by his Monthly Meeting?

Answer. I don't know of any restrictions, in that respect, provided he has been spoken with first by individuals.

Question. Does not that good order require, as the next step, that you take two or three more as witnesses, and that then, if your brother do not hear you, you take it to the meeting?

Answer. That is what is laid down in the New Testament-circumstances alter cases sometimes-as I was then circumstanced, I had been some time from home, harvest was approaching, and I could not delay my return. I let some of the members of that meeting know it. Question. Were these the overseers?

Answer. I had not an opportunity of seeing the overseers.

Question. Was this private conversation ever published to the world, in any authentic form?

Witness. What is meant by authentic?

Counsel. In a way to be believed.
Witness. By print?

Counsel. Yes, by print.

Answer. Not that I know of.

Question. What proportion of the members, within this Yearly Meeting, was accurately and credibly informed of the nature of this conversation?

Answer. I have no knowledge how many of them-I don't remember. Question. Do you mean by this testimony, to impute to those who hold the Yearly Meeting at Green and Cherry streets, an adoption of the sentiments, delivered during that conversation with Elias?

Answer. It is hard for me to know whether they do or not.

Question. Within your own Quarterly Meeting, what is the number of those, men, women, and children, counting children with their parents, who recognise the Yearly Meeting, held at Arch street, and of those who recognise the Yearly Meeting held at Green and Cherry streets?

Answer. I, as an individual, do not know that there ever has been any account taken, therefore I cannot give any answer.

Question. What proportion of the Quarterly Meeting remained with you?

Answer. I have mentioned, that I have never heard them enumerated, and therefore I am not prepared to answer the question.

And being again examined in chief, on the part of the said Joseph Hendrickson, he further saith:

From the singularity and importance of the subject, in the conversation with Elias Hicks, it made a very strong impression on my mind, so clear and distinct, that in these particulars, my memory does not fail me; but I have a lively and strong recollection of what passed on that occasion, as I have stated it before.

If a minister of the Society of Friends should, in his public testimony, depart from the principles or doctrines, recognised and held by the society, it would be justifiable, under the discipline, for a Friend to speak of it even in the meeting, at the time of its occurrence.

And being further cross-examined, he saith,

Question. In the case you have mentioned, of a public testimony, does not the discipline enjoin a private admonition first?

Answer. I have not lately examined the discipline, on this particular subject; but I have known it done, both in former and later times, and the meeting informed that such principles were not held by the society. The individuals might have been spoken with before, for any thing I know. And further this affirmant saith not. WILLIAM JACKSON.

Affirmed and subscribed at the house of William Ridgway, at Camden, aforesaid, the seventh-day of June, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty. J. J. FOSTER, Master and Examiner in Chancery.

Adjourned to meet at the same place, to-morrow morning, at nine o'clock.

Tuesday morning, June 8th, 1830.

Willis

At nine o'clock, A. M. Examinations continued at the same place. THOMAS WILLIS, a witness produced on the part of Joseph Hendrickson, alleging himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed, according to law, on his solemn affirmation, declareth and saith, I am a member of the Society of Friends, and have always been so, and my parents, and grand parents before me. I am 58 years of age and upwards-my residence is at Jericho, Long Island. I stand in the station of a minister in that society. I think to the best of my recollection, it is about 15 years since I was acknowledged as such. I have always, from my youth up, been in the habit of attending the meetings of the society, both for business and worship. During that period, I have had frequent opportunities of hearing the public testimonies, as well as the private discourses, of approved and eminent ministers of that society.

From these sources, and the standard works of the society, I have made myself familiar with the principles and doctrines of the society. We have as a religious society, always believed in the divinity of our Saviour in the atonement-and in the divine authority and character of the scriptures. We have, that is, the society has, always acknowledged the belief of the miraculous conception and birth of our Saviour, as it is narrated in the New Testament. These doctrines have always been considered as fundamental in the society. From ancient records, and the settled practice of the society at different periods, an avowal of a disbelief in any or either of these doctrines, held by the society, if persisted in, would subject such person to disownment. the records of the society, this appears to have been the practice at all periods of the society, since its existence. The society, as such, has always felt itself peculiarly bound to correct any such departure from its doctrines, by any of its public ministers. I have personal knowledge of several instances within my own recollection, of persons being disowned for a departure from the principles, or disbelief in the doctrines held by the society; besides an historical knowledge of many others. The instances that I now allude to, as of my personal knowledge, all of them occurred before the year 1827, and at different periods during my knowledge of the society. I was acquainted with Elias Hicks from my

youth up, embracing a period of more than 40 years. He was a member of the same Monthly Meeting with myself. He is not now livingwas not a member of the Society of Friends at the time of his deathhe had been disowned by them. The causes of his disownment, were, a departure from the doctrines and principles of the society, and an avowal of antichristian sentiments. The time of his disownment, was in the year 1829, in Fifth-month. He had, for a number of years before his disownment, and on different occasions, uttered sentiments and doctrines that gave uneasiness to the society. I have a copy of the minute of his disownment, which is taken from the minutes of the Monthly Meeting to which he belonged, being the Monthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho. For sometime before his disown

ment, for a number of years, he had been frequently, and at various times, privately admonished by different individuals, on the subject of his departure. In regard to myself, in former years, I esteemed him highly as a minister, and a useful member of society; and although I sometimes heard expressions and some sentiments avowed by him, with which I could not unite, yet from the esteem I had always had for him, and the confidence which I had placed in him, I was very loath to believe a want of integrity and soundness on his part, until about the years 1818 and '20, when observing that he had embraced and began to promulgate some views, that were not in accordance with the doctrines of our society, I became seriously uneasy, and endeavoured to discharge. my duty towards him accordingly. In consequence of this uneasiness, I waited on him-the interview resulted rather in the confirmation of my uneasiness. In general, I perceived his view and belief of the scriptures to be not in accordance with the doctrines of our societyplacing them on the same ground as any other history-exciting doubts of some important truths declared in them, particularly in relation to the divine character and holy offices of our blessed Redeemerhis miraculous conception-the efficacy of his sufferings and death, as a propitiatory offering for the sins of mankind-his intercession and mediation, as our advocate with the Father; these were the principal points of doctrine. In relation to the character of our blessed Lord, he has placed him on the same ground as other men. I have heard him testify in public meetings, that "Jesus assumed nothing more to himself, than other prophets did; that he was very careful not to do it, saving in a few instances calling himself the Son of God. That as he steadily kept in view his entire dependant state, he never called the people to himself, but only directed them to the spirit of truth in their own minds, and that this is all we want; for when we once come to believe in this, then instrumental helps have done all they can do for us. Their usefulness is very soon at an end with the true christian— he is brought to the foundation-he needs them no more; although we value the scriptures which are written and bound up, in the book we call the bible, as well as other scriptures, written by other wise and good men; yet the scriptures do not properly belong to any but those to whom they were written; they are so far from being any rule to the true christian, that they are inconsistent and contradictory to themselves, and there is not an agreement in them in any general way." Similar views of the scriptures have also been promulgated by him in conversation, and by writing, and he has acknowledged his departure from the belief of the society, respecting them, by saying that his conscience had often smitten him, when he had been endeavouring to hold

up the belief of the Society of Friends, respecting them, in setting them so far above other books. He has represented them as being the principal cause of the apostacy in the primitive church, and that they were not useful in bringing about the reformation, and in fine, that they have been the cause of fourfold more harm than good to Christendom, since the apostles' days. These, and similar views respecting the scriptures, being promulgated by him, were, among others, introduced into my own family, by letters directed to my wife, which I have now with me in his own hand-writing.

The witness here produced a letter from Elias Hicks to Phoebe Willis, dated at Jericho, the nineteenth day of Fifth-month, 1818, and written on two sheets, which, after being read by the counsel, was offered as an Exhibit, and marked by me, on each sheet, No. 15. (See Appendix.)

Also another letter from Elias Hicks, dated at New York, twentythird of Ninth-month, 1820, and directed to "Thomas Willis, Jericho, for his wife," also written on two sheets, which being also read by the counsel, was offered as an Exhibit, and marked on each sheet by me, Exhibit No. 16. (See Appendix.)

On my first discovery that Elias Hicks became wavering in his belief of the truth of the accounts recorded by Matthew and Luke of the miraculous conception of our Saviour, my attention was immediately taken back to a separation which took place in Ireland, wherein a large number of the members of our society, adopting views and sentiments incompatible with the doctrines of the society, (this is historical evidence,) abandoned its profession, and were separated from the society-well remembering to have understood that at that time when Hannah Barnard was amongst them, there were divers parts of the scriptures at. which they cavilled, and which they called in question, and in particular that of the miraculous conception of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. My mind was immediately struck with the impression, that this my friend, whom I had long loved and esteemed, was now embracing similar views-hence, I became seriously alarmed, and from the concern I felt, I had several interviews with him on the subject—still, I could not thereby obtain relief; and after some time, as the way opened, I took my pen and addressed a few lines to him, in which I pointed out my uneasiness, and stated my fears of the consequences of propagating such opinions. He soon after replied to my letter, which letter of his to me has been printed, and of which I have a printed copy now with me, the original, of which this is a copy, was returned to Elias Hicks. I know this to be a correct copy, except in the misprint of one word, which I will point out. The misprinted word is the word "are," in the third line of the page marked 4, in this printed copy, which word in the original was "and." And also an omission of the word “as,” in the seventeenth line of the same page, which omission does not in any way alter the sense. There may or may not be some other little word or letter variant, but not at all changing the sense.

The counsel now read the printed copy aforesaid, which is dated at "Jericho, Tenth-month, 1821," and directed "to Thomas Willis," and offered the same as an Exhibit, and it is marked by me No. 17. (See Appendix.)

After the receipt of this letter, it produced an unpleasant sensation on my mind, but a few days afterwards, feeling a comfortable quiet to

cover my mind, and a flow of love and good will towards him, I took my pen and addressed another letter, in which I gave him my views more fully, and explained to him the consequences which I greatly feared would result from the adoption of such views. I therein treated him as a Friend and father whom I loved, and whose preservation I greatly desired-and after handing him the said letter, I found my mind much relieved from having so far endeavoured to discharge my duty. A number of weeks passed on, and I received no reply from him. Feeling still a strong desire that every thing which interrupted the harmony between us might, if possible, be removed, I proposed another opportunity of conversation with him, to which he agreed, and expressed a desire that I would bring with me the letter he wrote me, for he wanted to see some parts of it. Here I was brought into a strait-my mind was much exercised from believing he had adopted unsound opinions, and apprehended that he now found himself brought up, and that he could not answer my letter. I being sensible of my own timidity and weakness, as also of his strong and determinate manner, was apprehensive if I took the letter to him, I should not be able to retain it in my possession. I therefore took a correct copy of it, and went to take the opportunity of conversation, with a desire fairly and fully to investigate the subject, and endeavoured so to do, on both sides of the question, as far as I was capable, in relation to the scripture evidence on both sides of the question-but not being able to prevail on him to look and examine but one side, I was compelled to relinquish proceeding therein, which I did with a heavy heart.

In the course of our conversation, he recurred to my former letters, made objections to some parts of them, and compared them with his own. I remarked to him that I had been desirous to investigate that subject freely and fully with him, that, if possible, we might be of one heart and one mind-but that if he was not free, I must give it up. He replied, I think it would be time unprofitably spent, and I have none to spare. He then having all the letters in his hand, arose and passed on toward his desk, with a view, as I supposed, to lay them all by together. I then inadvertently remarked to him, shall we then exchange letters? This remark, for the moment, was in order to test his inclination for keeping the letters. He replied, that he had no copy of the letter he wrote me, that he would wish to keep it at least long enough to take a copy. He then handed me my letters, and retained his own; and I parted with him with a heavy heart.

My design and motive in proposing the opportunity of conversation with him, was to endeavour to satisfy him of the divine character of our Saviour, and of his miraculous conception and birth. In that conversation, he persisted in his doubts upon those points. And it was in relation to efforts on my part, to remove those doubts, that he remarked, that it would be time unprofitably spent. These sentiments, which had been thus propagated by Elias Hicks in his public discourses, in his letters and conversations, were in violation of what has always been held to be fundamental upon those points by the Society of Friends. I have a recollection of his expressions on those subjects on various occasions. I have heard him declare in public, when speaking on the character and constitution of our Saviour, and in allusion to his miraculous conception," that flesh must unite with flesh to make a being-but flesh and spirit never can unite." "God can create, but he cannot beget." "The