Ann Jones in Dutchess County.
In Fifth month, 1828, a year after the division had been accomplished
in Philadelphia, a most remarkable round of experiences took place
within the bounds of Nine Partners and Stanford Quarterly Meetings, in
Dutchess County, New York. Elias Hicks was past eighty years of age,
but he attended the series of meetings in the neighborhood mentioned.
George and Ann Jones, English Friends, much in evidence in "separation"
matters, were also in attendance, the result being a series of
controversial exhortations, mingled with personal allusions, sometimes
gently veiled, but containing what would now pass for bitterness and
railing. The "sermons" of this series were stenographically reported,
and form a small book of ninety-eight pages.
The first meeting was held at Nine Partners, First-day, Fifth month
4th. Elias Hicks had the first service in the meeting. After he had
closed, Ann Jones made the following remarks:
"We have heard considerable said, and we have heard, under a
specious pretence of preaching, the Gospel, the Saviour of the world
denied, who is God and equal with the Father. And we have heard
that the Scriptures had done more hurt than good. We have also
heard the existence of a devil denied, except what arises from our
propensities, desires, &c."[164]
[164] "Sermons" by Elias Hicks, Ann Jones and others of the Society of
Friends, at the Quarterly Meeting of Nine Partners and Stanford, and
first day preceding in Fifth month, 1828. Taken in short-hand by Henry
Hoag, p. 20.
After this deliverance, Elias Hicks again arose and said:
"I will just observe that my friends are acquainted with me in these
parts, and know me very well when I speak to them. I came not here as
a judge, but as a counsellor: I leave it for the people to judge. And
I would hope to turn them to nothing but a firm and solid conviction
in their minds. We may speak one by one, for that becometh order.
I thought I would add a word or two more. When I was young, I read
the Scriptures, and I thought that they were not the power, nor the
spirit, and that there was but very little in them for me; but I was
vain. But when I had once seen the sin in my heart, then I found that
this book pointed to the Spirit, but never convicted me of sin.
"I believe that this was the doctrine of ancient Friends; for George
Fox declared that his Saviour never could be slain by the hands of
wicked men. I believe the Scriptures concerning Jesus Christ, and
David, too, and a host of others, who learned righteousness and were
united one with another. I believe that Jesus Christ took upon him
flesh made under the law, for all people are made under the law, and
Christ is this Light which enlighteneth every man that comes into the
world. And now, my friends, I would not have you believe one word of
what I say, unless by solid conviction."[165]
[165] The same.
It will be in order to find out what was said by Elias Hicks which
called for the personal allusion made by Ann Jones. We are not able
to find in the remarks of Elias Hicks on this occasion anything that
would justify the strong language of his critic, especially as to the
Scriptures having done more hurt than good. It would seem that the
supplementary statement quoted must be accepted as containing his
estimate of the book which he was charged with repudiating, rather than
the critical assertion of his doctrinal opponent.
There are various statements in the Hicks sermon which denied some of
the material claims of popular theology, but they did not class him
with those who denied the existence or spiritual office of Christ. In
the meetings under review, and at other times, the evidence is abundant
that his critics either did not want to or could not understand him. He
dealt with the spirit of the gospel, and with the inner manifestation
of that spirit in the heart. They stood for scriptural literalness,
and for the outward appearance of Christ. It is not for us to condemn
either side in the controversy, but to state the case.
We produce a few sentences and expressions from the sermon by Elias
Hicks, which might have created antagonism at the time. Speaking of the
"Comforter" which was to come, he said:
"And what was this Comforter? Not an external one--not Jesus Christ
outward, to whom there was brought diseased persons and he delivered
them from their various diseases.... Here, now, he told them how to
do: he previously made mention that when the Comforter had come,
he would reprove the world of sin--now the world is every rational
soul under heaven. And he has come and reproved them. I dare appeal
to the wickedest man present, that will acknowledge the truth, that
this Light has come into the world; but men love darkness better than
light, because their deeds are evil; yet they know the light by an
evidence in their hearts."[166]
[166] The same, p. 9.
Near the end of this discourse he elaborated his idea as to the
ineffectual character of all outward and formal soul cleansing, in the
following language:
"Now can any man of common sense suppose that it can be outward blood
that was shed by the carnal Jews that will cleanse us from our sins?
The blood of Christ that is immortal, never can be seen by mortal
eyes. And to be Christians, we must come to see an immortal view.
After Christ had recapitulated the precepts of the law, 'Is it not
written in your law, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
but I say unto you, if a man smite thee on one cheek turn to him the
other also: and if a man take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak
also.' Don't we see how different the precepts of the law of God are?
He tells us how we should do--we should take no advantage at all. The
Almighty visits us, to get us willing to observe his law; and if all
were concerned to maintain his law, all lawyers would be banished;
we should have no need of them; as well as of hireling Priests. We
should have no need of them to teach us, nor no need of the laws of
men, for each one would have a law in his own mind."[167]
[167] The same, p. 17.
The other points in Dutchess County visited, and involved in the
reports of sermons under consideration, were Chestnut Ridge, Stanford
and Oblong. At some of these meetings the preachers spoke more than
once. It does not appear that in the brief communications of George
Jones he either directly or indirectly referred to statements made by
Elias Hicks, or particularly sought to antagonize them. Ann Jones,
however, was not similarly considerate and cautious. Either directly
or by inference, she quite generally attempted to furnish the antidote
for what she considered the pernicious doctrine of her fellow-minister.
Speaking at Nine Partners Quarterly Meeting, Fifth month 7th, she said:
"I believe it to be right for me to caution the present company
without respect of persons--how they deny the Lord that bought
them--how they set at nought the outward coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ who died for them: they will have to answer it at the awful
tribunal bar of God, where it will be altogether unavailing to say
that such a one taught me to believe that there was nothing in this.
Oh! my friends! God hath not left us without a witness; Oh, then it
is unto the faithful and true witness, 'the testimony of Jesus, which
is the spirit of prophecy.' I am engaged in gospel love to recommend,
and to hold out unto you, that you meddle not with the things of God;
and that you cry unto him for help. For what hope can they have of
present or future good, or of everlasting happiness, if they reject
the only means appointed of God to come unto the Father through Jesus
Christ, the messenger of God, and of the new covenant?"[168]
[168] The same, p. 60.
At this meeting Elias Hicks followed Ann Jones in vocal communication.
He made no direct reference to what she said, the short sermon being
largely a reiteration touching the inner revelation to the souls of
men, as the reprover of sin, and the power which kept from sinning,
as against the outward, sacrificial form of salvation. In closing his
remarks, Elias Hicks made this statement:
"I do not wish to detain this assembly much longer, but I want
that we should cast away things that are mysterious, for we cannot
comprehend mystery. 'Secret things belong to God, but those that are
revealed (that are understood), to us and our children.' And those
that are secret can never be found out by the prying of mortals. Do
we suppose for a moment--for it would cast an indignity upon God to
suppose that he had laid down any name except his own by which we can
have communion with him. It is a plain way, a simple way which all
can understand, and not be under the necessity to go to a neighbor,
and to say, 'Know thou the Lord? for all shall know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them,' as said Jeremy the prophet.
It is bowing down to an ignorant state of mind, to suppose that there
is no other power whereby we can come unto God, but by one of the
offspring of Abraham, and that we have need to go back to the law
which was given to the Israelites, and to no other people. He has
never made any covenant with any other people, but that which he made
with our first parents. That is the covenant that has been made with
all the nations of the earth.
"He justifies for good and condemns for evil. And although every
action is to be from the operation of his power, yet he has given us
the privilege to obey or disobey; here now is a self-evident truth;
as they have the liberty to choose, so if they do that which is
contrary to his will, and so slay the Divine life in the soul: and
thus they have slain the innocent Lamb of God in the soul, which is
the same thing. All that we want, is to return to the inward light
in the soul. The Lord had declared beforehand unto them in plain
characters, that none need to say, 'Know ye the Lord? for I will be
merciful to them, I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more.' This was equally the case until the law was
abolished: until he blotted out the handwriting of the law, and put
an end to outward ordinances. The law was fulfilled when they had
crucified him, then it was that that law was abolished that consisted
in making their atonements which all had to make.
"The people could not understand the doctrine delivered in the sermon
on the mount, although plainly preached to them. Jesus, when about
to take leave of his disciples, left this charge with them: 'Tarry
at Jerusalem until the Holy Ghost come upon you'; and then, and not
till then, were they to bear witness unto him. He told them that it
would bring everything to their remembrance: everything which is by
the preaching of the gospel brought to your remembrance; therefore he
says: 'All things shall be brought to your remembrance.' They would
not then be looking to anything outward, because he had filled them
with the Spirit of truth. What is this, but this Comforter which
reproves the world of sin? All that will obey the voice of this
reprover in the soul are in the way of redemption and salvation.
'By disobedience, sin entered into the world and death by sin:
but life and immortality is brought to light by the gospel.' I am
willing to leave you, and I recommend you to God, and the power of
his grace, which is able to build you up, as you are faithful to its
operation."[169]
[169] The same, p. 71.
The last meeting of the series was held in connection with Nine
Partners Quarterly Meeting, Fifth month 9th. This was evidently the
closing session of the Quarterly Meeting. From these published sermons
it would seem that Elias Hicks and George Jones were the only Friends
who engaged in vocal ministry that day. There was nothing specially
relevant to the controversy going on in the Society in either of these
short discourses.
In reading this collection of sermons one cannot avoid the conclusion
that, apart from dissimilarity in phraseology, and the matters involved
in interpreting Scripture, these Friends had much in common. Had they
been minded to seek for the common ground, it is quite probable that
they would have found that they were really quarreling over the minor,
rather than the major, propositions.
In Eighth month, 1828, Elias Hicks was on his last religious visit to
the Western Yearly Meetings. The "separation" in the New York Yearly
Meeting had taken place in Fifth month, the trouble then passing to
the Quarterly and particular meetings. It reached Nine Partners at the
Quarterly Meeting held as above. Ann Jones attended this meeting, the
last sermon in the little volume from which the extracts given in this
chapter are taken having been preached by this Friend. There was little
new matter in this sermon. Much, by inuendo, was laid at the door of
those who were pronounced unorthodox, and who constituted a majority of
the meeting.
So far as the charge of persecution is concerned, it was repeatedly
employed by Elias Hicks and his sympathizers in describing the spirit
and conduct of the orthodox party. In this particular, at least, the
disputants on both sides were very much alike. Ann Jones' reference
to throwing down "his elders and prophets" contains more touching the
animus of the controversy than the few words really indicate. As will
be somewhat clearly shown in these pages, the trouble in the Society
quite largely had reference to authority in the church, and its
arbitrary exercise by a select few, constituting a sort of spiritual
and social hierarchy in the monthly meetings. It was this authoritative
class which had been "thrown down," or was likely to be so repudiated.
We would by no means claim that with the "separation" an accomplished
fact, the body of Friends not of the orthodox party thus gathered by
themselves became at once and continuously relieved of the arbitrary
spirit. The history of this branch of the Society from 1827 to 1875,
and in places down to date, would entirely disprove any such claim.
It would seem that wherever the Society lost ground numerically, and
wherever its spiritual life dwindled, it was due largely because some
sort of arbitrary authority ignored the necessity for real spiritual
unity, and discounted the spiritual democracy upon which the Society of
Friends was based.
The "separation" in the Quarterly Meetings in Dutchess County was
perfected in Eighth month, 1828. Both Anna Braithwaite and Ann Jones
were in attendance, and evidently took part in the developments at
that time. Elias Hicks was on his last religious visit to the "far
west." Informing partnership letters were sent to Elias, then in Mt.
Pleasant, Ohio, by Jacob and Deborah Willetts,[170] under date of
Eighth month 18, 1828. Jacob gave brief but explicit information as
to the division in the several meetings. For instance, he says that
in Oswego Monthly Meeting one-sixth of the members went orthodox. At
Creek, about one-fourth left to form an orthodox meeting, about the
same proportion existing at Stanford. Nine Partners seems to have
been the center of the difficulty, the orthodox leadership apparently
having been more vigorous at that point. Still, about three-fourths of
the members refused to join the orthodox. A very brief appreciation
of the transatlantic visitors is given in Jacob's letter. He says:
"The English Friends are very industrious, but I do not find that it
amounts to much. Friends have generally become acquainted with their
manoeuvring."
[170] Jacob and Deborah Willetts were friendly educators in the first
half of the nineteenth century. Jacob became principal of Nine Partners
boarding school in 1803, when only 18 years of age, and Deborah Rogers
principal of the girl's department in 1806, when at the same age.
Jacob Willetts and Deborah Rogers were married in 1812. At the time of
the "separation," Nine Partners' school passed into the hands of the
Orthodox, and Jacob and Deborah resigned their positions, and started
a separate school, which they conducted successfully for nearly thirty
years. Jacob was the author of elementary text books of arithmetic and
geography, and Deborah was an accomplished grammarian, and assisted
Gould Brown in the preparation of his once well-known English Grammar.
Deborah's letter was both newsy and personal, and threw interesting
sidelights on the "separation" experiences. At the close of a sermon by
Ann Jones, Eighth month 5th, she made reference to the sudden death of
a woman Friend of the orthodox party, which is thus referred to in this
letter:
"Perhaps thou wilt hear ere this reaches thee of the death of Ann
Willis. She died at William Warings on her way home from Purchase
Quarterly Meeting, in an apoplectic fit. At our Quarterly Meeting Ann
Jones told us of the dear departed spirit of one who had lived an
unspotted life, who passed away without much bodily suffering, and
whose soul was now clothed in robes of white, singing glory, might
and majesty with angels forever and ever: which amounted nearly to a
funeral song."
We make the following extract from the letter of Deborah Willetts
because of its interesting references and statements:
"A week ago I returned from Stanford Quarterly Meeting held at
Hudson. All the English force was there save T. Shillitoe with a
large re-enforcement from New York, but they were headed by 15 men
and 25 women of the committee of Friends, and a great many attended
from the neighboring meetings, Coeymans, Rensalaerville, Saratoga,
&c. The city was nearly full. Anna Braithwaite and suite took
lodgings at the hotel. It was the most boisterous meeting I ever
attended. The clerks in each meeting were orthodox, but Friends were
favored to appoint others who opened the meeting. Anna Braithwaite
had much to say to clear up the charges against her in circulation
that their expenses had been borne by Friends, which she said was
false, and never had been done but in two instances, and mentioned
it twice or three times that her dear husband felt it a very great
pleasure to meet all expenses she might incur, and she would appeal
to those present for the truth of what she had said, and then Ann
Jones, Claussa Griffin, Ruth Hallock, Sarah Upton and some others
immediately attested to the truth of it. Oh, how inconsistent is all
this in a Friends' meeting. She also gave a long statement of the
separation at Yearly Meeting, but she was reminded of her absence at
the time, but she replied Ann Jones had informed her. She accused
Friends of holding erroneous doctrine and said Phebe I. Merritt did
not believe in the atonement for sin. Phebe said she denied the
charge, when Anna turning and looking stern in her face said, 'Did
thou not say, Phebe Merritt, all the reproof thou felt for sin was
in thy own breast?' Phebe then arose and was favored to express
her views in a clear way with an affecting circumstance that she
experienced in her childhood that brought such a solemnity over the
meeting that almost disarmed Anna of her hostile proceedings. She
stood upon her feet the while ready to reply but began in a different
tone of voice, and changed the subject, and very soon after, Ann
Jones made a move to adjourn when they could hold Stanford Quarterly
Meeting, which was seconded by several others and Friends in the
meantime as cordially and silently uniting with them in the motion.
They then retired without reading an adjournment, I afterwards
learnt, to the Presbyterian Conference room. I dined in company with
Willett Hicks, who said he was surprised to see so few go with them
after such a noble effort."