Disownment and Doctrine.
The "separation" was accomplished in most meetings in the East by the
withdrawal of the orthodox party, after which they set up new meetings
for worship and discipline. In a minority of meetings the orthodox held
the property and the organization, and the other Friends withdrew. At
Jericho and Westbury the great majority of the members remained, and
continued to occupy the old meeting-houses. The orthodox who separated
from the Westbury and Jericho Monthly Meetings organized the Monthly
Meeting of Westbury and Jericho, as has already been mentioned.
In 1829, when the new monthly meeting was formed, the membership of
Westbury Monthly Meeting was as follows: Westbury Preparative Meeting,
193; Matinecock Preparative Meeting, 121; Cow Neck (now Manhassett),
65; total, 379. Of this number, accessions to the orthodox were: From
Westbury Preparative Meeting, 32; Matinecock Preparative Meeting, 2;
Cow Neck Preparative Meeting, 5; total, 39. In Jericho the members of
the monthly meeting, Fifth month, 1829, numbered 225. Of this number,
nine left to join the Monthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho, and
five were undetermined in their choice. Giving the latter meeting the
benefit of the doubt, and assigning to it the five uncertain members,
the meeting that disowned Elias Hicks was composed of fifty-three
members, of whom thirteen were minors and five of only mild allegiance.
A simple mathematical calculation will show that the Monthly Meeting
of Westbury and Jericho contained 10 per cent. of the Friends who had
been members of the two original monthly meetings, which meetings still
survived, retaining 90 per cent. of the members. These figures will
throw suggestive light on what follows.
It was the Westbury and Jericho Monthly Meeting which, on the 29th of
Fourth month, 1829, adopted the "testimony against Elias Hicks," called
his disownment. It contained specified charges, which may be condensed
as follows: He denied the influence or existence of an evil spirit;
doubted the fall of man, and his redemption through Christ; endeavored
to "destroy a belief in the miraculous conception of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ"; also rejected a "belief in his holy offices, his
propitiatory offering for the redemption of mankind; and has denied his
resurrection and ascension into heaven"; "he also denied his mediation
and intercession with the Father." He was charged with too much
industry in promulgating his views, causing great numbers to embrace
them, "and has at length become the leader of a sect distinguished by
his name." He was also charged with meeting with, and countenancing by
his presence and conduct, those who had "separated" from Friends. This
had reference to many meetings of a large majority of the Society held
at various places in 1828. The "testimony" also alleges that he had
many times been tenderly admonished and advised, but that he and his
friends "prevented the timely exercise of the discipline in his case."
It all, without doubt, sounded very formidable to the little company of
Friends who formulated and issued the document.
This was a remarkable document in more ways than one. The meeting which
issued it assumed an authority in conduct hard now to understand, and
asserted as facts mere assumptions, and yet we are bound to believe
that, in the main, they thought they were performing God's service.
It must be remembered that the orthodox Friends, in 1829, everywhere
operated on the theory that those who considered themselves "sound in
doctrine," no matter how few in numbers, were the Society of Friends,
in direct descent from the founders of the faith. It was their
religious duty to excommunicate all whom they considered unsound, even
though those disowned might constitute the overwhelming portion of the
meeting. That this was the sincere conviction of the orthodox Friends
all through the "separation" period, and also before and after it, is
a demonstrable fact of history. There was also a marked disposition
to adhere to tradition and to cling to former precedents. If there
had ever been a time when Friends had been disowned on account of
theological opinions, the practice should be kept up, and practically
continued forever.
That there was a considerable amount of precedent for disowning
Friends on points of doctrine is undoubtedly true. In the famous New
Jersey Chancery trial, Samuel Parsons gave several cases of such
disownment.[186] They involved cases in half a dozen monthly meetings,
and included charges as follows: Denying the miraculous conception;
denying the divinity of Jesus Christ; denying the authenticity of the
Scriptures; promulgating the belief that the souls of the wicked would
be annihilated.
[186] "Foster's Report," Vol. I, p. 171.
The orthodox Friends might have done still better, and cited the case
of John Bartram,[187] the father of American botany, who was disowned
by Darby Monthly Meeting in 1758, for deistical and other unorthodox
opinions. It has been supposed that Bartram was disowned by Friends
for placing the following inscription over his door:
[187] John Bartram, born near Darby, Pa., Third month 23, 1699. Was
the earliest native American botanist. He died Ninth month 22, 1777.
Bartram traveled extensively in the American colonies in pursuit of
his botanical studies and investigations. He established the Bartram
Botanical Gardens near the Schuykill River, which are still often
visited.
"'Tis God alone, Almighty Lord,
The Holy One by me adored.
John Bartram, 1770."
As this sentiment is dated twelve years after the disownment,[188] it
is evident that it was not the primary cause of the action taken by
Darby Monthly Meeting.
[188] "Memorials of John Bartram and Humphrey Marshall," by William
Darlington, 1849, p. 42.
During the period of repression in the Society, lasting from about
1700 to 1850, it was not hard to find precedent for disowning members
on almost any ground, so that the treatment of Elias Hicks, on account
of alleged "unsound" doctrine calls for no complaint on the score of
regularity. Disowning members for that cause in one branch of Friends
to-day would be practically inconceivable. Its wisdom at any time was
doubtful, and, in spite of precedents, the practice was not general.
The main point in this transaction, however, is that the meeting which
issued the "testimony" against Elias Hicks had no jurisdiction in
the case. As a matter of fact, he was never a member of the meeting
in question, unless it be assumed that 10 per cent. of two monthly
meetings can flock by themselves, organize a new meeting, and take over
the 90 per cent. without their knowledge or consent.
In the main, we do not care to consider or discuss the points in the
"testimony" under consideration. Those who have followed the pages
of this book thus far will be able to decide whether the main causes
as stated by those who prepared and approved the document were true
in fact, and whether they would have constituted a sufficient reason
for the action of the Monthly Meeting of Westbury and Jericho, had it
possessed any authority in the case.
Just what Elias Hicks thought regarding the matter of Society and
disciplinary authority in his case, we have documentary evidence. In
a private letter he said: "For how can they disown those who never
attended their meetings, nor never had seen the inside of their
new-built meeting-houses, and who never acknowledged their little
separate societies? Would it not be as rational and consistent with
right order for a Presbyterian or a Methodist society to treat with and
disown us for not attending their meetings, and not acknowledging their
creed?"[189]
[189] Letter to Johnson Legg, Twelfth month 15, 1829.
There is one point in the "testimony" which cannot so easily or
reasonably be ignored. It says that Elias Hicks "has at length become
the leader of a sect, distinguished by his name, yet unjustly assuming
the character of Friends." From the assumed standpoint of those who
made this statement of fact, it had no warrant. That body of Friends
in, at least, the Yearly Meetings of New York, Philadelphia, and
Baltimore, which at the time of the "separation" housed two-thirds of
all the members, was as much entitled to be called Friends, and assume
their "character," as the minority. The distinguishing epithet was not
of their selecting or adoption, and those who applied it could scarcely
with propriety force it upon those who did not claim it or want it. As
for leadership, the outcome in 1827-28 was accomplished without either
the presence or assistance of Elias Hicks in a majority of cases. If
those who left the parent meetings and set up meetings of their own
were the "separatists," then, in a majority of cases, the name belonged
to the party that opposed Elias Hicks, and not to that body of Friends
who objected to the Society being divided or perpetuated because of the
personality or the preaching of any one man.
It has to be said that the disowning at the time of the "separation"
was not all on one side. Jericho Monthly Meeting "testified against"
at least four of the orthodox party. But in every such case, so far
as we are aware, no charges regarding doctrine were made against any.
The disownments took place because the persons involved had become
connected with other meetings, and did not attend the gatherings of
that branch of Friends who issued disownments. Both sides undoubtedly
did many things at the time which later would have been impossible.
Elias Hicks evidently approved the general order of the Society in
his time touching disownments. In a letter directed to "My Unknown
Friend," but having no date, he deals with the disownment question. He
goes on to say that it had been the practice of the Society to disown
members for more than a century, when such members had deviated "from
the established order of Society," and he reaches the conclusion that
not to follow this course would lead to "confusion and anarchy." He
then says: "These things considered, it appears to me the most rational
and prudent, when a particular member of any society dissents in some
particular tenet from the rest of that society, if such dissent break
communion and render it necessary in the judgment of such society that
a separation take place between them, that it be done in the same way,
and agreeable to the general practice of such society in like cases."
It is quite certain, however, that Elias Hicks did not think that
disputed points of doctrine offered a sufficient ground for disownment
in the Society of Friends. In a letter to David Evans, written at
Jericho, Twelfth month 25, 1829, he says: "I apprehend that if the
Friends who took part in the controversy on the side of the miraculous
conception, and those on the opposition, will fully examine both
sides of the question, they will find themselves more or less in
error, as neither can produce sufficient evidence to enforce a
rational conviction on others.... Surely, then, we who believe in the
miraculous conception ought not to censure our brethren in profession
for having a different opinion from ours, and especially as we have no
knowledge of the subject in any wise, but from history and tradition.
Surely, then, both parties are very far off the true Christian
foundation for keeping up the controversy, inasmuch as it never has had
the least tendency to gather on the one hand or the other, but always
to scatter and divide, and still has the same baneful tendency."
The reader will not fail to consider that at this late period Elias
Hicks reiterates his personal belief in the miraculous conception,
although the "testimony" of disownment against him charged that he
was "endeavoring to destroy a belief in that doctrine." Whatever may
have been his belief regarding the matter, it is clear that he did not
consider acceptance or rejection of the doctrine a determining quality
in maintaining a really Christian fellowship.