Answer. I can know nothing of any man's faith, but what he develops by declaration or conduct. George Keith became a minister in the Episcopal establishment: now, if he was sincere, he differed in all those points of faith and practice in which those two sects differ.

Question. Do those two sects substantially differ upon the subjects of the trinity, the atonement, and the divine nature of our saviour? Answer. I think I have answered all that in my examination in chief; and I refer to that examination for an answer to this question.

Question. Was not one or more of these subjects a matter of difficulty between George Keith and the Society of Friends?

Answer. I do not know; it has been years since I read the history. The exhibits, I suppose, will give you the detail pretty accurately. Question. Does the witness adopt the account in that book? Answer. It is made an exhibit: I adopt nothing.

Question. Has not the witness a strong impression upon his mind that some of these points was a matter of difficulty?

Answer. No: only as I have stated.

Question. Does the witness mean to extend this matter of difference between Keith and Friends, in analogy with those he has called separatists, so far as to matters of faith?

Answer. I have given my account of the transaction in answer to a question; inferences and deductions I leave to others.

Question. What were the probable numbers of the Keithites? Answer. As far as I know, history leaves us very imperfectly informed on the subject of their numbers. The impression on my mind is, that the meeting held at Burlington was a large number: and a number of them men who had been of standing and influence in the society. Question. What was the probable number of the Free Quakers? Answer. That was not a large number; but what the number was, I do not know.

Question. Would it in recent times have been regular for an individual circumstanced as George Keith was, to carry his appeal to the London Yearly Meeting?

Answer. No.

Question. How long since subordination to the London Yearly Meeting ceased, probably?

Answer. I am not able to say without looking at the records.

Question. Has there been any subordination within the recollection of the witness?

Answer. No.

There has only been the general connexion that exists in the whole body, and which I have heretofore described. Further this affirmant saith not. SAMUEL BETTLE. Affirmed on the second, and subscribed this fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty, the interme diate days having been occupied in the said examination, at the house. of William Ridgway, at Camden, before me. J. J. FOSTER,

Master and Examiner in Chancery.

Note. At the commencement of these examinations, the examiner pursued the ordinary course of reducing the testimony to writing in such form as to give the ideas of the witness, and at the same time, in his own language, as far as practicable: after proceeding a few days, however, it became manifest that the better course would be to commit to writing the interrogatories of counsel, and the answers of the witnesses, VOL. I.-13

literally. This rule not having been adopted until after the examination
of the first witness, it seems proper and necessary to mention it here,
in order to account for the want of connexion which appears in some
parts of his testimony.

Saturday evening, June 5, 1830. Examinations adjourned until Mon-
day morning next at ten o'clock, at the same place.
J. J. FOSTER,
Master and Examiner.

Monday morning, June 7th, 1830.

Examination continued, at the house of William Ridgway, at Camden aforesaid, in the presence of the parties as aforesaid, and Jeremiah H. Sloan, Esq. of counsel with Joseph Hendrickson, and Eli K. Price, of counsel with the complainant, and Stacy Decow, one of the defendants. William Jackson, a witness produced on the part of the said 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 -according to the record of my birth, I was born on the fourteenth day of Seventh-month, 1746, and I have been a member of the society from my birth-my parents and grandparents before me, were members of, and intimate with the leading members of the society-from the period of my earliest recollection, I have been in the habit of attending the meetings. of the society; as well meetings of business as of worship-have been a minister in that society since about the year '75, and prior to that time had been in the habit of taking an active part in conducting the affairs of the society, in some respects. I have travelled extensively in this country, and in Europe, that is, in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, where there were Friends, visiting the different meetings of the society. In those travels I had many opportunities of hearing many of the most eminent ministers of the society, as well as of private intercourse with them-have often heard such ministers, both in their public testimonies and private discourses. I can name some of those eminent ministers. I think Samuel Fothergill was the first I can name; he had several meetings, where I heard him-after him, from England, I could name, Thomas Gothrup, Samuel Spavold, William Ricket; these were some of the first in my remembrance; and I have named them in rota'tion, as I heard them. These were all before the year 1760. From that period down, there were a great number. John Storer, John Griffith, Samuel Neal, Robert Walker, these were all before the revolutionary war, (some of those named above, as being before 1760, came over the second time,) there were others also besides these, that I have not named. At the conclusion of the war, and a very short time after it, John Storer came a second time, and John Townsend, and Thomas Colly. Approved ministers of the society have been in the habit of visiting this country, at intervals, from that time to the present. I recollect several eminent ministers of the society, of this country, at the periods of which I have spoken. John Churchman, William Brown, Daniel Stanton, Joseph White, John Scarborough, Thomas Ross, Isaac Andrews, Mark Reeve, John Reeve, William Matthews, Isaac Everitt; there were many others. The greater part of these mentioned, have been deceased from forty to sixty years ago; some of them I have tra

velled with. All of those mentioned, were approved ministers of standing in the Society of Friends-divers of them visited Friends in Europe at different times. I had an opportunity of hearing the public testimonies of all those I have mentioned, as well as others, who were cotemporary with them: and also the private discourses of many of them. From these sources, I got my acquaintance with the principles and doctrines of the society, so far as what could be obtained in that way-by these sources, I mean, from the public testimonies and private discourses of those eminent ministers, as well as what was written and published by the society. I still continue my attendance at the Yearly Meeting of that society, held in Philadelphia. I have had continued intercourse with eminent and approved ministers of the society, and those who have been active in teaching its principles and doctrines. The principles and doctrines held by the society, at the present time, as fundamental of the christian religion, are the same principles and doctrines which were held by them at the early times I have mentioned-I know of no alteration. The principles and doctrines taught by the approved ministers of the society, of the present day, are the same with those taught by Samuel Fothergill, and the other eminent ministers of former times, of whom I have spoken. I have never heard any thing to the contrary. From the year 1767, until now, I have been in the habit of regular attendance at the Yearly Meeting of Friends, in Philadelphia. It has been held in the city of Philadelphia from that time until the present. During all that time, I have not known of a Yearly Meeting convening at a different time, or place, from that to which it stood adjourned at the previous year. The general language of the concluding minute of the Yearly Meeting, respecting the adjournment, is, that the next meeting be held at the usual time and place." If a change of time, or place, is contemplated by the meeting, that change should appear in the minute. I am acquainted with the mode of conducting the business of the Yearly Meetings. There has no material change taken place in the mode or manner of conducting the business of the Yearly Meetings within my remembrance; it is still conducted in the same manner that it formerly was. The Yearly Meeting, held in Mulberry, or Arch street, Philadelphia, is the same meeting that I have spoken of as first attending in 1767, having been continued from that time to the present, by regular adjournments. From the earliest times to the present, it has been the practice of the society to disown members, who make public avowal of a departure from our doctrines, principles, or testimonies, if they persist in it. We consider them as not belonging to us, according to the language of scripture. "They went out from us, because they were not of us." I have knowledge of instances of disownment for denial of the proper divinity of our Saviour, and the divine authority of the scriptures.

A neighbouring Monthly Meeting, upon the records of which was shown me a case, in which the Monthly Meeting had disowned a person, for traducing, or setting at nought, the scripture testimony, respecting our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and speaking slightly of the scriptures of truth. This took place as much as ninety years ago, if not a hundred; that is, the minute was that long ago. Since that, within thirty years past, there were two disowned by the Monthly Meeting of which I am a member, while I was in Europe, for their disbelief, and rejection of the Saviour; for their disbelief and disregard of the doctrines of the society, and the faith of the society. It was so generally

understood that it was for this cause. I did not see the testimony against them; but it was the common report and general understanding, that it was so; and that their views tended to infidelity.

The divinity of our Saviour, and the divine origin of the scriptures, have always been believed by the society, as a body. They have always, as a body, professed belief in these doctrines. The society has always, as a body, believed and held the doctrine of the atonement. So far as I know, it has always been understood, that a profession of a disbelief of these doctrines, as held by the society, would subject such member, if persisted in, to disownment.

I attended the Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia, in 1827, at the same time at which it had been held for a number of years before, and has been since at Arch street house. There had never been any other Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends held in Philadelphia but that. That meeting convened in the usual manner, and at the usual time and place. After having gone through its business, it adjourned in the usual manner to the usual time and place;" and in the succeeding year, 1828, the meeting assembled at the usual time and place, in pursuance of that adjournment, and transacted its business as usual. In the Yearly Meeting of 1827, the business was conducted, in the general, in the usual manner the business was transacted in the usual and ordinary manner of transacting business in the society.

66

A portion of that society have within a few years withdrawn themselves from it, the greater part of them since the Yearly Meeting of 1827. It is reported, and I have heard it said, that they have established another meeting in Philadelphia, which they call a Yearly Meeting some of my neighbours come to the city to attend it. I knew Elias Hicks -he was formerly a member of the Society of Friends from the year 1781, when I first knew him. He is not now living. I think I have heard he was disowned, some time before his death. Since 1827, he has not attended the Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends of which I am a member. The meetings set up by those who have withdrawn, are held in the houses known by the name of the "Green street" and "Cherry street meeting houses."

It was the common report that Elias Hicks was in unity with and accepted by the Green and Cherry street meetings. I understood it so. I have had a conversation with Elias Hicks on the subject of the divinity of our Saviour, and the divine origin of the scriptures. The conversation arose from this circumstance: I was at a meeting in New York, and in the course of what he said there, in his public testimony, in a public meeting for worship, he uttered such sentiments, as I never heard from any Friend, in the whole course of my life. The substance of it, or that part that affected me most, was the manner in which he expressed himself with respect to our Saviour; bringing him down to the level of a man, saying, that "he was put to death by the hands of wicked men, and suffered as a martyr," as "many others since that time had done." Never having heard such sentiments delivered, either by professor or profane, I thought it my duty, as a brother, to go to his house and have further conversation with him on the subject; accordingly I went, a few days after, and had an opportunity with him. I don't recollect that there were any persons present, but ourselves. I let him know my uneasiness, and we had considerable discourse on the subject. I cannot now pretend to remember so as to relate all of it; but so far he went, as to assert, that "there was as much scripture testimony

to prove that he was no more than the son of Joseph and Mary, as there was to prove to the contrary." I brought forward the testimonies of the two evangelists, Matthew and Luke; and he said, "that they were but fables, or fabulous;" that "they were no more than fables." I was exceedingly astonished at him; for, as I said before, I had never heard such language from either professor or profane. He said he was confident of what he said; it was a thing impossible; spirit only could beget spirit; it could not beget material matter. I said some things in objection, but cannot recollect what I said; in the course of the conversation he further said, "It is believed God is a spirit. Dost thou believe it? I believe it. Spirit can only beget spirit," and repeated it several times, asserting, that he was as confident of it, as that he was standing there talking with me. Then I said to him, "Elias, if this be thy belief, how came the creation of the world?" His answer to my question was, 66 what of the creation?" I said to him, "why, the account of the creation we have in the Bible?" Then he replies to me, "why that's only Moses's account." Then I replied to him, "is it not a sufficient account for us to believe?" His answer to that was," it is but an allegory;" and there the conversation ended. It was then drawing near sun down, and I had a good way to walk.

And the witness being cross-examined by Mr. Price, on the part of the complainant, &c. he answereth as follows, viz:—

Question. What is the place of your residence?

Answer. London Grove, in Chester county, Pennsylvania.

Question. Is your memory and recollection as perfect now, of former facts, as it has ever been?

Answer. It is, of those that have been of a considerable time past. Question. Is not your memory more imperfect in regard to "recent transactions, than those of ancient dates?

Answer. With respect to small matters, the remembrance of people's names, and so on, it is not so good.

Question. Can you remember conversations, as well as you once could? Answer. That must depend very much upon the subject, or what it is. Question. If this had been merely a matter of property, that was at stake, would you have been now here?

Answer. No, I think I should not, if there had been nothing else concerned with it.

Question. Was not the main inducement to your being here, that you should be clearly understood upon the subject of doctrines?

Answer. So far as respects the matter I have evidenced of, the conversations I had with Elias Hicks, it was.

Question. Was this with a view, that the subject of your doctrines should in a solemn manner be placed before the public?

Answer. It was with a view that they should be known, so far as I could be evidence to it.

Question. Property then is a subject much less dear to you, than the maintenance of your christian doctrines?

Answer. It has always been so, to Friends who stood faithful to the testimony.

Question. Did you not once in the New Garden Monthly Meeting, propose that those of the respective parties should occupy the two dit ferent meeting houses, so as not to interfere with each other?