ingly did publish the minute in his paper, but declined saying any thing on the subject in his book, for reasons which he gave; among others was this, that the subscribers would probably be dissatisfied. The Meeting for Sufferings, therefore, were under the necessity of publishing these extracts themselves; and they entered it on their minutes, and did print an edition of it. Now then, in the Yearly Meeting for 1823, when the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings were read, and they are always read, these extracts from the writings of ancient Friends were read as part of them they were on the minutes: considerable objection was made to that part of the proceedings of the Meeting for Sufferings. One man said he could not unite with those doctrines; another, that they were contrary to reason, scripture, and revelation; another went into an argument to show that the scripture text, to wit, "there are three that bear record in heaven," was a disputed text; and tried to show that it was spurious: he appeared to me to be but a novice in the subject: he quoted Sir Isaac Newton-I think it was Sir Isaac Newton-he might or might not have mentioned his name; I gathered it from what he said. These kind of occurrences were very unusual in our meetings, they never had occurred within my knowledge. The excitement being considerable, the meeting adjourned until the next morning. When the meeting assembled next morning, it was proposed that the extracts should be stricken off the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings: objection was made to that, on the ground that it would be a disavowal of the doctrines held by Friends, these extracts being taken from the writings of approved Friends. Very considerable difficulty occurred in the meeting from the persevering objections of a number of individuals, every one of whom, every individual of whom, for I sat in a position to see and know them all, have since gone off in the separation. I was at the table as clerkit was my duty to serve the meeting: perceiving the embarrassment the meeting was in, on the one hand to expunge, and on the other a desire to retain, I arose and stated to the meeting my duty and wish to act as its servant; and after presenting to the meeting the state of the case, as I apprehended it at that time, I proposed to them to avoid both difficulties by simply suspending the publication; not taking it off the minutes, and not circulating the pamphlets, but leaving the subject. This proposition was finally acquiesced in, and the business so settled. I have mentioned in the former part of my examination, my firm belief that doctrines were the grounds of separation: this was one of the things that operated on my mind to induce the belief that there was an unsettlement on the minds of many as far back as that, in regard to the doctrines of Friends. The person who reasoned on the spuriousness of the text, belonged to our own meeting, and well known to me: he was under dealing subsequently, and not many months after. He told the committee appointed by the Monthly Meeting that visited him, that he was a Unitarian-that he did not unite with Friends-that he was a Unitarian, and acquiesced in the disownment. He was disowned, but not on that ground; the charge was of another character, and made before he had avowed himself. The pamphlet of extracts above spoken of was here offered as an exhibit, and marked by me No. 12. The counsel for the complainant object to this as an exhibit. The witness further says this is the pamphlet of extracts from the writings of early and approved Friends, of which I have spoken above. Exhibit No. 13, "The Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends." The witness further

says, that the erasures in the printed lines in this book, and the manuscript additions, have all been made by the direction and under the authority of the said Yearly Meeting. Whenever a new rule is adopted it is entered in this book, as it is not to be expected that the society would print a new edition whenever they adopt a new rule. This book is a correct copy of the rules of discipline, as they existed in the society prior to 1827. Admitted by both the parties, as well complainants as defendants, that this is the correct book of discipline prior to 1827.

In reference to the extracts, Exhibit No. 12, question by Mr. SloanHas it been usual for the Society to publish at intervals books of this character, illustrating their faith and doctrine?

Answer. Yes, it has. It has been the uniform practice of the society from its rise to the present time, to make frequent republications, and original publications, containing its faith and principles, in a great variety of ways and forms. This can be illustrated from my own knowledge and agency.

Question by Mr. Sloan. Were the individuals who were active in the meeting, in endeavouring to expunge these extracts from the minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings, the same persons who afterwards advocated the change in the discipline, and followed up those measures until the separation?

Answer. They were the same persons, and are now connected with the separatists. The same individuals acted in all these measures throughout. I do not pretend to say that every individual acted in all the cases, for there were some I do not know.

were

Question by Mr. Sloan. From the year 1823 to the year 1827, the proceedings in the Yearly Meeting conducted as they always had been before conducted by the society?

Answer. Yes, they were. The meetings were held at the same time and place, and the business conducted in the same manner, and upon the same principles as before. No change had taken place in these mat

ters.

Question by Mr. Sloan. Had your meetings been always conducted quietly and without difficulty, until this opposition to the extracts, and propositions to change the discipline, were brought forward?

Answer. They had always been conducted in general unity and harmony.

Question by Mr. Sloan. Was John Comly one of that committee appointed by the Meeting for Sufferings, that prepared these extracts which have been spoken of?

Answer. He was one of that committee-was present when the committee were engaged in making those extracts, but was not active in the business. He did not dissent from any of the doctrines: he was cautious and wary, and did not like to come out-that was my impression. He was present at the Meeting for Sufferings, when the extracts were there read, and did not then object to them. I think he was also present when they were ordered to be printed, and did not object to it; he said not a word on the occasion, that I recollect. At the Yearly Meeting of 1827, after the meeting had concluded, and before we left the house, in the course of conversation, he observed to me, that the Yearly Meeting had been sustained, and he had no doubt it would be supported. He spoke then of their establishment, or their intended establishment, as a distinct body.

VOL. I.-10

The counsel for the defendant, Joseph Hendrickson, here rest their examination of the witness, and he being cross-examined on the part of the complainant, and of Stacy Decow, one of the defendants, the said Samuel Bettle saith, my residence is in the city of Philadelphia. I belong to no party. I am a member of the regular Society of Friends, and have been from my birth, and have always maintained my standing and character as such.

Question by Mr. Price. Of those designated in the original bill as the Orthodox and Hicksite parties, to which of them do you belong?

Answer. I admit that I am a member of the Society of Friends, and that they are sometimes called Orthodox at the present day. I belong to the Society of Friends, and to that Yearly Meeting which is held on the third Second-day of Fourth-month in Philadelphia-and stand in the station of a minister in that society-have been actively engaged in the administration of discipline in that society since 1827, and for about thirty years. That is, the Yearly Meeting, which, in the course of my examination, I have designated as a regular Yearly Meeting.

Question. Has the society as a Yearly Meeting, or as a collective body, ever given its sanction to any articles of faith or creed?

Answer. They have given their sanction to the publication of works containing their doctrines, and written for the purpose of declaring their doctrines, through the regular channel, the Meeting for Sufferings, again and again. The Yearly Meeting, as a Yearly Meeting, does not publish any works, but it is referred to the Meeting for Sufferings; it is their business by their regular constitution: they are the representative body of the Yearly Meeting.

Question by Mr. Price. Has any Yearly Meeting directly passed in review any work of doctrines, and directed it to be published as containing the faith of that body?

Answer. I answer that they have done so, as I consider the acts of their representative body, as their acts. Their minutes being all read every year in the Yearly Meeting, and a special minute made of approval of their acts, when they state all they have done; for instance, the publication of Barclay's works-the Catechism, &c. and all they have done, I consider it directly their own act.

Question. Are we to understand then, that the doctrines of Friends are only to be found in the works you have mentioned?

Answer. Their doctrines are to be found in the writings I have mentioned, and in a great many others published under the order of the Meeting for Sufferings. All the doctrinal works, before they are published, are submitted to the inspection of the regular organ of society, which acts on behalf of society, and are published or rejected accordingly as society thus concludes. Hence I consider the works of Robert Barclay, and other works published in like manner, as the works of society, and the society is responsible for them. As to the term faith, Barclay's Catechism expressly uses the term, Confession of Faith. The Meeting for Sufferings as the organ of the society, circulate those books as containing the faith of the society, to the Friends, and to the world generally.

Question. Are these works, the composition of individuals, submitted by them to the meeting?

Answer. Yes, they are, and submitted by them.

Question. Is it understood that by this sanction, the meeting adopts. every sentiment of the work?

Answer. It adopts the work-I speak generally. It adopts the work; and I would add, that the society does not consider itself responsible for any doctrinal books, But such as are thus examined and sanctioned. Question. When thus adopted, are the society responsible for every sentiment contained in the book?

Answer. They are responsible for the work-they may or may not be responsible for every word and sentiment-no such terms are used in our minutes. You may urge it against them, if there is any doctrine in such a work that is unsound.

Question. What are the principal works that have been thus sanctioned?

Answer. Fox's Journal is one of this description, which they sanction and acknowledge. Barclay's Works also. I cannot speak of all William Penn's Works: a great deal of his are controversial. These others I do know. Penn's Works have not been republished by our meeting. His "No Cross, No Crown," has been regularly published and circulated in this country, and by our meeting. I do not know that the society has ever passed upon William Penn's Works-I don't know that they have not, neither. I cannot answer that his works have been generally approved by the individual opinion of members. William Penn was considered a useful and active member of the Society of Friends. He came in after the society arose; we do not speak of him as a founder. By common repute, and in the usual way of speaking, George Fox was the founder of the society; but we consider him as the instrument-we look further: we have a higher and a greater head than that. Conformity in belief, was in early times always considered essential to membership-when I say so, I mean as far as my knowledge extends. Question. How was this conformity known or ascertained in former times?

Answer. It was ascertained then, just as it is now: we cannot look into and scrutinize the hearts of men, but by their avowing or publishing doctrines inconsistent with our faith, by the book of discipline, they become proper subjects to be dealt with. When I said our faith, I meant the faith of Friends.

Question. If individuals kept their faith to themselves, was any expression of conformity required?

Answer. No.

Question. Is it required at any period of church advancement, on becoming overseer, elder, or minister?

Answer. No, if an individual has not declared his views in relation to doctrine or principle, and is in membership with us, we consider him as uniting with us in our faith and testimony.

Question. Have the society then any creed, or articles of faith, according to the received ideas of other sects?

Answer. They have-my idea is, that any sect that in their official capacity, publish and circulate any book or paper with the avowed intention of circulating their doctrine, and acknowledging that that document does contain a statement of the doctrines, that that society hold and avow, I consider that such community publish to the world their faith, and doctrines, and principles-that the Society of Friends have not only, as I have before stated, through their representative body, the Meeting for

Sufferings, since that has been established, circulated Barclay's Apology, and Barclay's Catechism and Confession of Faith, as containing what they acknowledge to be the doctrines and faith of the Society of Friends; but before the establishment of that body, that is, the Meeting for Sufferings, the Yearly Meeting have purchased with its funds, and directed by their minutes on their books, these publications to be distributed and given away, (the expression is used,) for the service of truth -that they have delivered, by committee, in their official capacity, to George Washington, when he first took the office of president of the United States, a copy of Barclay's Apology, to inform him of the principles held by the Society of Friends-it was also delivered to Thomas Jefferson with the same view, and I believe the other presidents, but I don't know, and it has also been delivered in England to the king of England, and to the other potentates of Europe, generally; I believe, to the emperor of Russia and others, with the express view of circulating and making known the faith, doctrine, and principles of the society, as they have uniformly held them.

Question. State by whom these deliveries took place.

Answer. By the Meetings for Sufferings, by their committee to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Question. Has it been only through its organ, the Meeting for Sufferings, that the Yearly Meeting has given its sanction to a declaration of faith?

Answer. No, it circulated, particularly Barclay's Apology, Barclay's Catechism and Confession of Faith, before the Meeting for Sufferings was instituted, by its own direction, and by the application of its own funds to that object. The first minute I read to this effect, was in 1701. Question. When did the Meeting for Sufferings first take cognizance of the publication of Friends' doctrinal works?

Answer. I think the Meeting for Sufferings was established in 1755, and the discipline, you will perceive, makes it part of their duty to superintend the publication of all these works-they make a minute of all they do, and these minutes are always read every year in the Yearly Meeting, and the clerk gathering the sense of the Yearly Meeting, enters in their book a minute of approval.

Question. Is an approval of a doctrinal work by the London Meeting for Sufferings, considered as equally authoritative by the society, as such an approval by the Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings?

Answer. They are of equal authority. In England those works would circulate as having the sanction of their Yearly Meeting-they would circulate among the Society of Friends generally, they being one body, as an authentic work; but cases occur where there is a distinct recog nition of the same work by other Yearly Meetings, and eminently so with respect to the work I have alluded to of Robert Barclay; they, I believe, have not only first been recognised and published by the only Yearly Meeting existing at the time, but have been distinctly recognised and published, I think, by every other Yearly Meeting. There are two kinds of information communicated by a witness on such an examination; first, what he knows himself, and secondly, what he has heard from history. I speak of this in reference to what I have related as taking place in 1701.. Question. Has the London Yearly Meeting for Sufferings ever given its sanction to any of William Penn's works?