tained against him, as such editor, for any other cause than the statements made by him relative to the proceedings of that Monthly Meeting? A. Yes, there were some other things mentioned. Witness. What is meant by the original charge? Counsel. I mean the complaint which was preferred by the overseers to the Preparative Meeting, and brought up of course to the Monthly Meeting. A. I believe all the complaint that was brought forward to the Monthly Meeting, was contained in the original charge, so far as I have understood. I was not at the Preparative Meeting. Q. What were the other things mentioned in that charge? A. I have not a copy of the charge here-I cannot remember the exact terms of it: but I believe that paper (Del. Free Press) contained sentiments which Friends could have no unity with, and for which the editor was in part responsible; and therefore they considered him accountable to the Monthly Meeting for the agency he had taken in it. Q. What were those sentiments that you could have no unity with? A. I know so little about that paper, that I must refer the counsel to it himself; as I never saw one of them in my life, till after the Monthly Meeting, when the complaint was brought forward, when I found one in the Post Office at Darby, directed to me; by whom I know not; but probably by Benjamin Webb himself. I did not read it all, but I saw some things in it I could have no unity with, nor with any Friend concerned in it; ridiculing the apostle Paul, celebrating the birthday of Tom Paine, and some other things of that nature that I can't remember, and should be very sorry to spend my time in reading: and I suppose they were pretty much of that character, from what I afterwards learned. Many pieces admitted into it, as it was termed a "Free Press," calling in question the divinity of Christ, making a ridicule of miracles, undervaluing or laying waste the scriptures, probably, in some instances, I can't say how far it went in admitting pieces that went to advocate the principles and views said to be promulgated by Frances Wright, and Robert Dale Owen, and those kind of sentiments that were calculated to lay waste the christian religion, which Friends as a society, could have no unity with: although there might be individuals, I trust the number was not very large, who might countenance such a paper by reading it, and so far encouraging its continuance. These are my general views of it; and I will not descend further into particulars, for I have never read but the one paper, and that was sent to me. I have gathered my information from some other Friends, and from hearing some other parts of those papers read on these subjects. Q. You speak of that paper calling in question the "divinity of Christ:" can you refer me to any number of it, or parts of any number, in which sentiments on that subject are to be found more expressive of doubt than this, to be found in the "Berean," a work heretofore alluded to by you, where the author, in speaking of our Saviour, says, "in what manner, then, or by what means, was he made more than man? I answer, by the same means, and in the same manner that every other righteous, undefiled man is raised above the mere human character." [Berean, vol. ii. p. 258.] And again, "Will it be presumed that God, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain, whose presence fills the whole universe, abode in his fulness, literally in the man Jesus; can it be supposed that he, of whom it is declared that he was limited in knowledge, power and action, possessed absolutely the spirit of God, without measure?" [Ib. 259.] And a variety of other sentiments of a similar character, in the same book, such as the following: "The doctrine, therefore, contained in the chapter under review, ascribing a proper divinity to Jesus Christ, making him the foundation of every christian doctrine, asserting that the divine nature essentially belonged to him, and constituting him a distinct object of faith and worship, is not only anti-scriptural, but opposed to the simplest principles of reason; and is, in short, among the darkest doctrines that has ever been introduced into the christian church." [Ib. 259.] Or than may be found in the following sentiments in the 4th vol. of the "Quaker," page 65. viz: "Do the professors of christianity think that that Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, is the only Son of God that can give us a knowledge of the Father? they must be dark indeed: he can do nothing for any of us." And which is defended in the "Friend, or Advocate of Truth," another work referred to by you, 4th vol. page 45, &c. or the following: "But I do not consider that the crucifixion of the outward body of the flesh and blood of Jesus on the cross, was an atonement for any sins but the legal sins of the Jews;" contained in Elias Hicks' letter to Doctor Shoemaker, which is accorded in, in the following manner, in the 2nd vol. of the "Berean," page 52. "Whatever redemption, therefore, was effected by the outward flesh and blood of Christ, it could not, in the nature of things, be any thing else than an outward redemption." And without burthening the record with transcribing any more quotations on this subject, I will refer you to the sentiments of Elias Hicks, as contained in his printed discourses, which are made exhibits in this cause. And on the other branch of your answer relative to the scriptures, I will refer myself to the quotations made by me yesterday, and to a few extracts from the "Berean," which are as follows, viz: "Nothing is easier than to appeal to scripture, for great names for the authority of a dogma or an opinion, but nothing is at the same time more vain and futile." [Vol. ii. p. 209.] And again, "The author refers to the scriptures as to a divine revelation; there cannot, perhaps, be a greater abuse of terms than this; never was counsel more darkened by words without knowledge." [Ib. 212.] And in his conclusion of this subject in the following words: "It is in vain then that we are referred to the scriptures as to an acknowledged authority, to determine conflicting opinions." [Ib. 401.] Or in these words, "The revelations respecting the nature of God, which were made to the Israelites, are true, when viewed as in connexion with, and having relation to, their spiritual condition; but to any other state they are not true; therefore, such revelations abstractedly taken, are not true in themselves; are not the truth of God?" [Berean, vol. i. p. 403.] A. In my general view that I gave of the nature of the subjects contained in the Delaware Free Press," so far as I had understood them, it was in order to satisfy the counsel, that the part which Benjamin Webb had taken in that paper was the matter upon which the complaint against him was founded. I have several times renewed my protest against either his right to inquire, or myself under any obligations to answer, in matters relating to the private concerns of that Monthly Meeting. But as in the latter question, and in the long string of quota tions, &c., that he (however mutilated they may be) has got recorded on those minutes, he seems now to have taken a new ground; that of requiring opinions about doctrines, and matters of a spiritual nature, which has heretofore been protested against by a witness, who preceded me in this examination, and also by myself, in some instances, as being out of the jurisdiction of any court in the United States, or any commission acting under it, to inquire into matters of a spiritual nature, or opinions about doctrines. I therefore once more enter my solemn protest against going further into any examination on this point; believing myself not required, or under any obligations, by the qualification I have taken, to do so. And I had an assurance from the former counsel, by whom I was cross-examined, that no questions would be put requiring an opinion on these subjects. And, therefore, I shall decline answering any question tending to that point; and as I suppose the end and design is answered, by getting those long quotations placed upon the record, I shall hope not longer to be burdened with such questions, and this examination protracted, whereby I am kept week after week from my family, and motherless children. Q. In the charge brought by the overseers against Benjamin Webb, and upon which you as a committee from the Quarterly Meeting, gave the advice of which you this morning spoke, was Benjamin Webb charged with, and called upon, to answer for, any unsound doctrines, deistical, or anti-christian sentiments, published, avowed, or advocated in that paper? A. I have told you before that the charge was founded against him, for the part he had taken in that paper. But as my protest is disregarded, and a question of doctrine is again put, I must say again, that I am not bound to answer, and will not answer a question put, of that na ture. Q. You observed in a former answer, that there were certain sentiments contained in the paper alluded to, which neither you nor the society of which you are a member, could unite with. Were any of those objectionable sentiments specified in the charge against Benjamin Webb? A. There were no sentiments, I think, specified in the charge. But the sentiments and views that were held up in that paper, were in part what the charge was founded upon. They were not specified in the charge. The counsel for Joseph Hendrickson rest the further cross-examination of Halliday Jackson; and his testimony upon his said further crossexamination was read over to him: when he adds, I will in short say, that on hearing my testimony all read over, and duly reflecting upon it, I feel perfectly satisfied with every part of it, so far as the evidence I have given as to the matters of fact that have come within my own knowledge; and as to those matters that have been related from common repute, or what is called hearsay testimony, I have, at least, believed them to be the truth; and I am now perfectly easy that this testimony should go to the world, as, in my apprehension, so far as it goes, a just development of the causes that have operated, and which have produced the late schism in the Society of Friends; and further this affirmant saith not. HALLIDAY JACKSON. Affirmed as aforesaid, and subscribed at the house of William Ridg way, in Camden, in the county of Gloucester, this twelfth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one. Before me, J. J. FOSTER, Adjourned until Tuesday, 15th March next, at ten o'clock, A. M. Tuesday morning, March 15th, 1831, ten o'clock. Examination continued. Present the same as on Saturday, except Mr. Sloan, whose place is supplied by Mr. Brown, of counsel with Joseph Hendrickson. CHARLES STOKES, a witness produced on the part of the complainant Shoes and Stacy Decow, alleging himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, and being duly affirmed according to law, on his solemn affirmation declareth and saith, viz. Question by Mr. Price. What is your age, and where your residence? A. I am between thirty-nine and forty years of age; my residence is in the township of Willingborough, county of Burlington, and State of New Jersey. Q. Are you a member of the Society of Friends, and how long have you been so? A. I am a member of the religious Society of Friends, and have been from my birth. Q. Did you attend the Burlington Quarterly Meeting at the time a separation took place from it; and if so, state how it took place? A. I attended the Burlington Quarterly Meeting in Eleventh-month, 1827; which is the meeting, I suppose, alluded to in the question. At that meeting a separation did take place. The meeting, I think, opened as is usual, by the calling of the representatives; soon after which, it was stated by some person in the meeting, that he apprehended there was one or more persons present, who were either under dealing, or stood disowned; and that as it was not customary for Friends to proceed in the business of a meeting when such persons were present, he requested that such persons should withdraw from the meeting. This request to withdraw, I think, was repeated by some other Friends; no person, however, was named as being in that condition. Another Friend, I think Jediah Middleton by name, also requested, that if there were any such present, that it was his wish that they should withdraw; for his part, he knew of none such being present; but if those who were members of Green street Monthly Meeting, were the persons alluded to, inasmuch as he believed that they were not in the situation mentioned, he was willing that they should remain in the meeting; and further, I think, stated, that if any Friend knew of any person being present, who had no right to a seat, according to the discipline, it would be proper to name him. No name, however, I think, was given. But there was, perhaps, a sentiment expressed, that members of Green street Monthly Meeting, whom the meeting for the northern district, Philadelphia, had under dealing, had no right to a seat in the meeting. This opinion was, however, controverted, on the ground that it would be very improper for Burlington Quarterly Meeting so far to countenance proceedings which had grown out of an unlawful combination of the elders and certain other persons, in the city of Philadelphia, who were seeking to violate the rights of Monthly Meetings, and jeopardize the rights of members, especially of those members and of that Monthly Meeting, who had stood in the contest against those encroachments and infringe ments of those rights, which they apprehended would be the case, by requesting the members of Green street Monthly Meeting to withdraw. Soon after this, I think, a proposition was made to adjourn the Quarterly Meeting, by some of that part of it which is now called Orthodox. This was objected to, and at the same time it was observed, that if any Friends felt themselves not at liberty to continue, that they would be at liberty to withdraw; but Burlington Quarterly Meeting would continue to do the business of the Quarter; upon which, a Friend, high in the confidence of the Quarterly Meeting, made a proposition to this effect, and I think, nearly in these words-(I ought, perhaps, to remark, that this Friend, who made the proposition, was, and continues to be, with the Orthodox part,) he said: "Now let the question be taken, whether the Quarterly Meeting will adjourn, or whether it will continue the business of the Quarterly Meeting in its present state." Upon which there was very considerably more expression, according to my recollection and impression, in favour of continuing the business of the Quarterly Meeting, than to adjourn it. This decision, however, not appearing agreeable to certain Friends in the Quarterly Meeting, they did not appear willing to abide by it; but still proposed that the Quarterly Meeting should adjourn, and fixed on a time and place, which was Burlington city, I think, on Sixth-day of the same week. Friends objected, that if some Friends should feel best satisfied to retire from the meeting, they were at liberty to do so; but Burlington Quarterly Meeting would not adjourn. Whereupon, I think it was stated by one who is now with the Orthodox, that it was Burlington Quarterly Meeting that was about to adjourn. Those Friends, who had thus concluded to leave the meeting, then named two of their number to go into the women's apartment, and inform them of the conclusion which they had come to.. Friends, apprehending that the women would not, by this message, get the true state of the case, and might perhaps be induced to believe that it was Burlington Quarterly Meeting that proposed adjourning, appointed two Friends to go into the women's apartment, and inform them of the real state of the case. When those two last mentioned Friends were on their way to the women's apartment, and had got so far as the door which enters that apartment, there were several of those who are now called the Orthodox party, objected to their going in, and alleged that the meeting ought to have confidence in the Friends who had preceded them, that they would certainly give a true account. One of the committee then appealed to the meeting, in order that they might be correctly informed, whether it was the judgment of the meeting that they should proceed, or not. The expression had, on this appeal, appeared to be such, as left no doubt upon their minds, when they accordingly went upon their errand. Soon after which, the clerk of the Quarterly Meeting, being on that side of the question called Orthodox, read a minute, purporting to be an adjournment of Burlington Quarterly Meeting, when they arose and left the Meeting; he carrying with him the papers of the meeting. Friends then appointed a clerk, and continued the business of the Quarterly Meeting. Q. Have Friends ever since continued to hold that Quarterly Meeting? A. They have continued to hold a Quarterly Meeting-they have continued to hold Burlington Quarterly Meeting. Q. What proportion in number do those who continue to hold Burlington Quarterly Meeting, bear to those who separated with the clerk? |