Thursday morning, December 2nd, 1830, at 10 o'clock. The parties and counsel appeared as before.

Mr. Price for the complainant, and Stacy Decow, one of the defendants, alleged, that he had assented to the agreement last evening to postpone the cross-examination of Abraham Lower, and to take up another witness to-day, whose examination if not concluded to-day should be postponed, to make way for the further proceeding in the said cross-examination until its conclusion, in the expectation that the witness proposed to be examined would accede to the measure, with whom he had not consulted on the occasion. But that on advising with the said witness this morning, (who resides in the state of New York,) he has not been able to prevail with him to submit to the arrangement, and to be put upon his examination, subject to the interruption, as proposed in the said agreement. And that consequently as he had no other witness in readiness to offer this morning, the further examination of witnesses must be postponed until the time mentioned in the last adjournment, unless the counsel on the other side should insist on the production of Abraham Lower, which would be done, if so insisted on.

Mr. Brown replied, that he should adhere to the terms of the agreement in respect to Abraham Lower, and could not consent that he should be called here to-day-but that he should not object to the postponement proposed.

By the consent of the parties and their counsel, the further examination of witnesses is postponed until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. J. J. FOSTER,

Master and Examiner.

Friday morning, December 3d, 1830, at ten o'clock. The parties and counsel appeared as before. Cross-examination of Abraham Lower continued.

The witness says, I would beg leave to recur to my testimony, at its close on the evening before last, and state that I was fatigued with a hard day's service, under the peculiar circumstances that I was then placed; I was fagged down, and was not aware of my condition till I came to reflect upon what had passed, and recurring to my feelings; and I think it is but justice to state that I misapprehended the question that was put to me relative to the time of our holding our first Yearly Meeting, after the reorganization of society; that is, that it was in contrast with that Yearly Meeting that was held at Arch street, and which, for the reasons that I have stated in divers instances, ceases to be a Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends. And I would, therefore, desire that my answer to that question should be according to the account contained in the book of discipline; that our first Yearly Meeting was held at Burlington in 1681,-and for the same reasons that I have mentioned, of disqualification, of which I was not aware at the time, I made the blunder, when speaking of the members of the society. The number of the members of the Society of Friends consists of eighteen thousand, some hundreds; the Orthodox, seven thousand, some hundreds.

Mr. Brown. As it is desirable to close this cross-examination as soon as practicable, it having been protracted to a great length, I propose to pursue the course of questioning the witness which I had determined on for this morning, without particularly adverting at this time to the ex-. planation just given by the witness,-intending, however, at or near the

close of this cross-examination, to put a question or two to him on that subject.

Question. You have spoken of a communication made by the Meeting for Sufferings in Philadelphia, to the Yearly Meeting in London-did you ever see that communication?

Answer. I did not. But I think that an account of it from which I got my information, was derived from the clerk of the Yearly Meeting: or from one of their epistles or communications, that is, Orthodox epistles or communications, I can't say just how I got it. Whatever might have been the medium, I am satisfied the information was correct. Q. Were you a subscriber to a work printed at Wilmington, called the "Berean?"

A. Yes.

Q. Was not that work, as well as the "Sermons of Elias Hicks," "The Quaker," and "The Advocate of Truth," extensively circulated, and generally approved among the members of your society?

A. They were extensively circulated, and I think generally approved. But I have no doubt there were a variety of sentiments respecting

those works.

Q. Did you not say in Green street Monthly Meeting a short time previous to the separation, that "the Berean was a standard work of faith and doctrine, and recommended as such?"

A. No-nor nothing like it.

Q. Did you not say, you hoped to see it in the library of every Friend?

A. I think not. But I'll say now, if you please, that I think it would be a valuable acquisition to any sensible man, for his library; that's my own private opinion; it was conducted with great ability; contained a great deal of excellent matter, which I think must be interesting to the general reader.

of.

Q. Did you attend the meetings of conference held by those you call Friends, during the week of the Yearly Meeting of Fourth-month, 1827? A. I did attend several meetings for conference at the time spoken But I think there was one that I did not attend, the first one. Q. Was there an address prepared and adopted at any of those meetings, to be sent to the members of the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia? A. Yes, I think there was.

Q. Is it the same as that published and circulated by your society, and which has been made an exhibit in this cause?

A. I have no doubt but it is the same.

Q. Did you, or any one present, object to it?

A. I have no recollection whether there were objections made to it or not. I should think it very remarkable indeed, if there was no objection to it at all; I do not, nor cannot, recollect whether I objected to it or not; and whatever objection was made, if any, either by myself or others, I think must have related to a word, some matter of correction in the phraseology, but not to the substance of the matter.

Q. But as adopted, was it not united in and issued by your society? A. It was.

Q. That address, in alluding to the circumstances which interrupted the unity of the Yearly Meeting, and produced a division, describes as one of the causes, in these words, "doctrines held by one part of society, and which we believe to be sound and edifying, are pronounced by VOL. I.-60

the other part to be unsound and spurious;" "from this has resulted a state of things that has proved destructive of peace and tranquillity, and in which the fruits of love and condescension have been blasted, and the comforts and enjoyments even of social intercourse greatly diminished.” Will you please to state what these doctrines are to which the address here alludes?

A. I think it not very likely that I shall. But the circumstance stated, I believe to be matter of fact. It was on account of doctrines that that body of elders were organized as a party against Elias Hicks, who were, as before stated, a part of that caucus held at the close of the Meeting for Sufferings. The same individuals who were most active in producing the rupture that then occurred in that unwarrantable attack upon Elias Hicks, and more indirectly, though really, upon the Monthly Meeting of Jericho, of which Elias Hicks was a member, and had given him a certificate of its unity with him, which of course included their approbation of the doctrines he preached; and of Westbury Quarter, of which Jericho Monthly Meeting was a branch, and of the Yearly Meeting of New York. It was on doctrines that Joseph Whitall arraigned him before that self-constituted body, who thus arrayed themselves in opposition to Elias Hicks, and those who approved of him; and which Joseph Whitall stated in his accusation of him, to be two-thirds of the Yearly Meeting of New York, in which he appears to have been remarkably accurate; for, I think, there is five thousand Orthodox left the Yearly Meeting of New York, and twelve thousand Friends remain. I don't profess to be precisely accurate, but I think that is about the way they stand. That notwithstanding that we have ass erted that fact of a difference in doctrine, we have always been disposed, and professed that disposition, that those in the society who were of a contrary sentiment to ourselves, had a right to their sentiments; and if they believed they were correct to the best of their understandings, they could do no other than believe them. We claim the same right for ourselves; and in the exercise of which we were constantly liable to this distressing, odious circumstance, by their preachers coming to our meeting, and designating those who were of a different sentiment with themselves as infidels, and deists,-charges without the shadow of foundation of truth. And this being repeated, especially by those English ministers; there was a number of them, and they were very diligent. There was hence the occasion to remark, as is remarked in that pamphlet; that epistle, upon the fact which the question imports; and the consequences therein detailed was the natural result; for instance, a meeting of Friends to be denounced by those individuals as atheists, some few individuals seemed as if there might be a possibility, who still believed in the existence of a God. By one of their English preachers! a more false and wicked slander, was not within the verge of possibility to utter. Not one soul in my apprehension of that description present; or of the other two, Infidels and Deists, who were the common theme of denunciation. These people associated generally with those persons that I have designated as the authors of this distraction in society. We had every reason to believe, that instead of their attending as individuals to the gift of God in themselves, as their director in the exercise of their gifts in the ministry, that they infused those lies and slanders that were uttered against us by them, into the minds of those individuals. And lest there should be some gleam of light and truth relating to the real state of those who

were thus publicly denounced, and continually so, for a considerable time, several years, they were kept as prisoners at large. Some one or other, such as Bartholomew Wistar, when with Elizabeth Robson in an extensive visit over the country, carrying papers of accusation against Elias Hicks and his friends, or the great body of the Society of Friends, I should say; thus under the garb and profession of religious duty, was engaged, as I understand, in slandering and defaming very extensively the Society of Friends; misstating their real sentiments. It would take more time than your patience would hold you out, I apprehend, to detail one-twentieth part of such vile conduct, that such individuals pursued in slandering and defaming the Society of Friends. Hence the bonds of society were broken; the obligations of the discipline were no barrier in their way; they would trample on that with as much impunity as they would insult us, in the way I have described.

Mr. Brown. By the pleadings in this cause, which have been read to the witness, it is seen that both these contending parties, Hendrickson and Decow, stand in the character of claimants; each contending that he is entitled to the money in controversy; and each founding his claim upon the allegation that he and his party, are governed by the discipline, and hold the fundamental religious doctrines of the ancient Society of Friends; thus putting not only the discipline, but the fundamental religious doctrines of the society, directly in issue. The witness now under examination, having been solemnly affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, touching the matters in controversy in this cause, upon the following question, "with what were you charged in that testimony of disownment, and for which you were declared to be no longer in unity with the society?" being put to him, replied, "there were some matters of a spiritual character contained in that paper; and, therefore, inasmuch as the constitution of the United States, and of the state governments, have prohibited all their courts, or any commissions under them of consequence, from intermeddling with matters of a spiritual nature, I deny the authority of any department of the government calling me to account for my opinions in spiritual matters; and, therefore, decline answering that question." The witness now again refuses to answer a question touching the doctrines of the society, of which he calls himself a member. The witness is, in this case, a volunteer; what I mean by the expression is, that this suit being pending in the court of chancery of the state of New Jersey, which can issue no process that will operate beyond the territorial limits of the state, and the witness residing without those limits, to wit, in the state of Pennsylvania, he could not have been compelled to attend here as a witness in this cause. But the witness having voluntarily appeared, and declined to answer, for the reasons he has before stated, I feel it my duty now to call upon him, and upon the counsel who has instructed him that the ground he took in his reply above quoted was correct, to point out to me those parts of the constitution of the United States, and of the state of New Jersey, (for it will not I presume be pretended that the constitution of any other state in the union can have any bearing upon this question,) which will relieve him from the obligation of answering the question now put, under the solemn affirmation he has voluntarily taken?

Mr. Price. I am called upon to refer to constitutional provisions, to show why this witness is not bound to answer here before a civil tribunal for his religious opinions, and those of the religious society to

which he belongs. I refer particularly to the spirit of the eighteenth and nineteenth articles of the constitution of New Jersey; and the first article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States; and generally, to all the political institutions of this country, to show that matters of church and state are anxiously kept distinct, as essential to the preservation of our political and religious freedom. If this witness were bound to answer here in a civil suit for his own religious opinions, matters of church and state would not be kept distinct: and a precedent would be established for making any citizen answerable to the legal tribunals of his country, for those opinions for which he is accountable to his God alone: for if bound so to answer in this suit, any two individuals might lay a wager on the religious opinions of another, make a feigned issue to try which had gained the bet, subpoena such individual to court as a witness, and compel him under legal qualification to divulge those secrets of the heart, which no one has a right to know but that God who seeth them.

[NOON.]

I repeat that the pleadings of Decow have not put doctrines in issue in this cause: the answer of Decow expressly insists, "that by the law and constitution of New Jersey, the rights of property are sacred and inviolate, and cannot be taken from an individual or a religious association, without his or their consent; and more especially that it cannot be made to depend on the test of any religious creed framed after its vesting, and artfully prepared by a minority to answer its purposes:" (see page 11 of the printed answer) "and he (Decow) submits to this court that the only legitimate inquiry before this court respects the right of property to the bond and mortgage, and the money due thereon, mentioned in the bill of interpleader, and that neither this, nor any other court, have a right to institute an inquest into the consciences or faith of members of religious societies or associations, or subject them to the ordeal of a creed, prepared by those claiming adversely, in order to disfranchise, or to deprive them of their property, or legal rights." (See page 11 and 12 of the said printed answer.) In the affirmation of every witness there is by a necessary and universal understanding attached to the qualification, that the truth that is asked of him is relevant to the cause; and that the parties have the right, under the laws and constitutions of the land, to draw that truth from him. The questions referred to by the counsel involve matters that are neither relevant to the cause, because not mutually put in issue by the parties, and which he has no right to draw from this witness while under the protection afforded him by the laws and constitution of the land. As respects the witness's giv ing testimony of the religious opinions of the society of which he is a member, there are also other objections, which I suppose operate upon his mind, but which I state upon my own authority. I think that Friends believe that their society has always been cautious against being drawn into a confession of faith, as a religious body. It has never adopted a creed as the terms of the communion of its members: therefore, what an individual under examination here might state to be the doctrines of the society, would only be his own opinions of what they are, and not any conclusive evidence upon the subject. And we have the authority of the opposing witnesses, that the society, as a religious body, is not responsible for the writings of its members which have not been approved