1 N.J. Eq. 577 | New York Court of Chancery | 1832
The counsel, in their arguments, insisted on, and endeavored to sustain and prove from the evidence in the cause, the claims and pretensions of the respective parties, as set forth in the pleadings.
At the present term, the following opinions were delivered
Joseph Hendrickson exhibited a bill of complaint in this court, stating that on the second day of April, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, being the treasurer of the school fund of the preparative meeting of the society of Friends of Chesterfield, in the county of Burlington, he loaned the sum of two thousand dollars, part of that fund, to Thomas L. Shotwell, who thereupon made a bond to him, by the name and description of Joseph Hendrick-son, treasurer of the school fund of Crosswicks meeting, conditioned for the payment of the said sum, with interest, to him, treasurer as aforesaid, or his successor, on the second day of April, then next ensuing, and also a mortgage of the same date, by the like name and description, on certain real estate, with a condition of redemption, on payment of the said sum of money, with interest, to the said Joseph Hendrickson, or his successor, treasurer of the school fund, according to the condition of the aforesaid bond. He farther states, that Thomas L. Shotwell re
Sometime after the exhibition of this bill, Thomas L. Shot-well filed here a bill of interpleader, wherein Joseph Hendrickson and Stacy Decow are made defendants ; in which he admits the above mentioned bond and mortgage, and the source from which emanated the money thereby intended to be secured, the school fund of the Chesterfield preparative meeting. He admits, also, the liability of himself and the real estate described in the mortgage, and avows his readiness and willingness to pay whatever is due. But he says Stacy Decow has warned him not to pay to Joseph Hendrickson, alleging that Hendrickson is no longer treasurer of the fund, and has therefore no right to receive; and that he is the treasurer and. successor of Hendrickson, ■ and as such claims the money mentioned in the bond and mortgage. Seeking, then, the protection of this court, and offering, on being indemnified by its power, to pay to whomsoever the right belongs, he prays that Joseph Hendrickson and Stacy Decow may, according to the course and practice of this court, interplead, and adjust between themselves their respective claims.
Joseph Hendrickson answered this bill: and insists, as in his original bill, that he is, as he was when the bond and mortgage were executed, the treasurer of the school fund of the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, and is entitled to the bond and mortgage, and to receive the money due thereon.
Stacy Decow has also answered the bill of interpleader. He admits the l®an of the money, part of the school fund, to Shotwell, and the due execution and delivery, and the validity of the bond and mortgage, and that when they were made, Joseph Hen-drickson was the treasurer of the school fund, duly appointed by the Chesterfield preparative meeting at Crosswicks ; in whom, as all the parties in this cause admit, was vested the right of appointing the treasurer of the fund. But he says, that before the filing of the original bill by Joseph Hendrickson, and “on the
This brief view of the pleadings is here presented, in order distinctly to exhibit, in a clear and naked manner, divested of auxiliary and explanatory matters, and especially of forensic forms, the grounds of the respective claims of the interpleading parties. And hence, we may discern, the great outlines of the enquiries which an investigation of this cause will lead us to make. For according to these pretensions, and to these alone, thus set forth in the pleadings, as they are respectively supported or subdued by the proofs, the decree of this tribunal must be made, whatever other points favorable or unfavorable to either party may become manifest by the evidence.
Joseph Hendrickson claims the money, because originally made payable to him, and because he is, as he then was, the treasurer of the fund.
Stacy Decow claims the money, because payable by the terms of the bond to the successor of Joseph Hendrickson in that office, and because he became, and is such successor, and the present treasurer.
A slight sketch of the history of the establishment and organization of the Crosswicks school, and of the fund, may be inter
The education of youth and the establishment of schools, attracted the care and attention, and brought out the exertions, of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, at an early day. Most earnest and pressing recommendations of these interesting duties, to the consideration and notice of the society^ were repeatedly made; and to render these more effectual, committees were appointed to attend and assist the quarterly meetings. In the year 1778, the yearly meeting adopted the report of a committee, “ that it be recommended to the quarterly, and from them to the monthly and preparative meetings, that the former advice, for the collecting a fund for the establishment and support of schools, under the care of a standing committee, appointed by the several monthly or particular meetings, should generally take place, and that it be recommended by the yearly meeting, to Friends of each quarter, to send up the next year, an account of what they have done herein.” And the report suggests the propriety of “a subscription towards a fund, the increase of which might be employed in paying the master’s salary, and promoting the education of the poorer Friends’ children 2 vol. Evid. 387.
The quarterly meeting of Burlington appear to have faithfully striven to promote the wise views and benevolent purposes of the yearly meeting. In 1777, and 1778, appropriate measures were adopted : 2 vol. Evid. 436. In 1783, the subject was “afresh recommended to the due, attention of their monthly and preparative meetings, and to produce renewed exertion,” a committee previously appointed, was discharged, and a new one raised ; and “ it is desired,” says the minute, “ that accounts of our progress herein, may be brought forward timely, to go from this to the ensuing yearly meeting2 vol. Evid. 436.
Within the bounds of the Chesterfield monthly meeting, although a committee had been for some time charged with the subject, there appears no practical result, until after the meeting in April, L788, when a new committee was appointed, “ to endeavor to promote the establishing of schools, agreeably to the directions of the yearly meeting 2 vol. Evid. 349. In August, 1789, the committee reported, that they had agreed on a place
The fruit of these discreet and vigorous measures soon appeared. The house built, provision made for trustees and a treasurer, and the accumulation of a fund thus earnestly resolved, a subscription was opened, and numerous and generous donations were obtained. The original instrument of writing has been proj duced before us. It is an interesting record of liberality. The subscribers describe themselves to be “ members of the preparative meeting of the people called Quakers, at Crosswicks.” They engage to make the payments to the “ treasurer of the school at Crosswicks, begun and set up under the care of the preparative meeting.” And the purpose is thus declared :—“ The principal whereof, so subscribed, is to be and remain a permanent fund, under the direction of the trustees of the said school, now or hereafter to be chosen by the said preparative meeting, and by them laid out or lent on interest, in such manner as they shall
This subscription was the basis of the school fund. Accessions to it were afterwards made, by other individuals of the society ; and the quarterly meeting of Burlington, who held and owned a stock, composed of donations, bequests, and the proceeds of the sale of some meeting-houses, resolved, in 1792, to divide a portion of it among the monthly meetings, “for the promotion of schools, answerable to the recommendation of the yearly meeting, by establishing permanent funds within such of the meetings where none have been heretofore, or in addition to such as are already established 2 vol. Evid. 437, exhib. 32. The share of Chesterfield monthly meeting having been received, was subdivided, and a part of it paid over to the treasurer of the school fund of the preparative meeting of Chesterfield, “ to be applied to the use directed by the minute of the quarterly meeting:” 2 vol. Evid. 347, exhib. 51. In 1802, a farther sum, arising from the sale of “ an old meeting-house,” was paid to the treasurer, by the monthly meeting, to be appropriated in the same manner : Exhib. O 2, 2 vol. Evid. 347.
In this way, and by discreet and prudent management, a fund was accumulated, a school-house erected, and, as we learn from one of the witnesses, “ Friends, for many years, generally had a school kept therein, under their superintendence, and frequently appropriated a part of the proceeds towards paying the teacher’s salary, and for the education of children contemplated in the original establishment of the fund:” Samuel Craft, 2 vol. Evid. 350.
A part of this fund, as we have already seen, was loaned to Thomas L. Shotwell, and is the subject of the present controversy.
For the direction of the school, and for the care, preservation, and management of the fund, provision, as has been shewn, was made, as well by the terms of the subscription, as by the resolution of the monthly meeting. The officers, were accordingly ap
The facts thus far presented are not, and from the pleadings and evidence in the cause, cannot be, the subject of dispute. There are some positions, deducible from them, which are equally clear and incontrovertible.
First. The money mentioned in the bond being payable to Joseph Hendrickson, as treasurer, he has an indisputable right to claim and receive it, if he remains in that office.
Second. Inasmuch as he was duly appointed, which is unequivocally admitted by the pleadings, and inasmuch as the term of office of treasurer does not cease by efflux of time or by previous limitation, the legal presumption is that he remains in office until competent evidence of his due removal is given.
'Third. Such being the case, Joseph Hendrickson is not required to produce farther evidence of his right to receive the money, or of his continuance in office, or that he has been retained there by the competent authority ; but whoever denies that right, or seeks to sustain any claim on the ground that he has ceased to be treasurer, ought to establish the ground by lawful and sufficient proof.
Fourth. Inasmuch as Stacy Decow alleges that Joseph Hen-drickson was removed from office, and that he was appointed his successor and treasurer of the school fund, (and upon this removal and appointment, he rests, in his answer, for the entire support of his claim,) it is incumbent on him to establish the fact and legality of this removal and appointment.
The power of appointment and removal, as the litigating parties unqualifiedly admit, is vested in the Chesterfield preparative meeting at Crosswicks, meant and mentioned in the original subscription papier or agreement of the donors; which is distinguish
We are now brought to the issue between these parties, and are enabled to propound for solution, the question on which then-respective claims depend ; was this body the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, meant and mentioned in the establishment of the school fund ? If it was, Stacy Decow is the successor and treasurer. If not, Joseph Hendrickson remains in office, and is entitled to the money.
The meetings in the society of Friends are of two kinds ; for worship, and for discipline, as they are sometimes called, or in other words, for business. This distinction is sufficiently correct and precise for our present purposes, and it is not necessary to pause to consider of the suggestion, I have read somewhere in the testimony or documents in the cause, or perhaps, heard from the counsel in argument, that every meeting for discipline, is in truth a meeting for worship, since he who cordially and faithfully performs any ecclesiastical duty, does thereby pay an act of adoration to the Almighty.
The meetings for business are four in number, marked and dis
The truth of the position I have thus laid down, respecting connection and subordination, will not, I presume, in the manner and to the full extent which I have stated, meet with any denial or doubt. Yet, as it is of considerable importance in the present cause, I shall show that it is established; first, by the constitution or discipline of the society ; second, by their usages, or as they might be called, in forensic language, cases in point, or precedents; and lastly, by the opinion of the society at large, so far as may be learned from the views of well-informed members.
In the first place, then, as proposed, let us look into the book of discipline. We find there the following clear and explicit language. “For the more regular and effectual support of this order of the society, besides the usual meetings for the purposes of divine worship, others are instituted, subordinate to each other ; such as, first, preparative meetings, which commonly consist of the members of a meeting for worship; second, monthly
Another clause requires monthly meetings to appoint representatives to attend the quarterly meetings ; and that at least four of each sex be appointed in every quarterly meeting to attend the yearly meeting. Another clause is in these words; “ The use and design of preparative meetings is, in general, to digest and prepare business, as occasion may require, which may be proper to be laid before the monthly meeting.”
The connection and subordination of these meetings, and their relative rank or station in ecclesiastical order, being thus plainly and conclusively shown and established by the highest authority, the revered and respected rule of government for this whole religious community, we may naturally expect, what accordingly we find, numerous instances of the exercise of authority, of the subsistence of this connection, and of the fruits of this subordination, in the conduct toward each other, of the respective meetings. From the examples which are abundantly furnished us in the evidence, I shall select a very few, and I prefer, for obvious reasons, to take them from the minutes of Burlington and Chesterfield meetings. The constant intercourse by representatives, and the frequent appointment and attendance of committees from the yearly to the quarterly, and from the latter to inferior meetings, need only to be mentioned in general terms, to be brought fresh to the remembrance of all who know any thing of the ecclesiastical history of their own times or of their predecessors, or who have perused the testimony and documents before us. In second month, 1778, the.quarterly meeting of Burlington directed the times of holding certain preparative meetings, so as to be convenient to a committee who were to visit them. In second month, 1820, the quarterly meeting refused to allow the holding of an afternoon meeting for worship, in Trenton, and directed their clerk to inform the monthly meeting of Chesterfield of their determination. In 1821, the Trenton preparative meeting requested of the monthly meeting, permission to continue their afternoon sittings, and leave for one year was given. In fifth month, 1825, the quarterly meeting declared, that certain persona admitted into membership in Chesterfield monthly meet-
A brief reference will show that individuals, as well as meetings and the book of discipline, recognize and maintain the connection and subordination of the several bodies in the society. In the pleadings of the parties in this cause, the position is stated by each of them, especially by the interpleading parties, Hen-drickson and Decow. To these documents, as far as the cause is concerned, it might suffice to refer, since whatever is admitted by both parties, is, as respects them, incontrovertible. But a recurrence to the following parts of the testimony, will show that what is said on this topic in the pleadings, is the very language and sentiment of this whole religious community. For the sake of brevity, I will content myself with mentioning the names of the witnesses, and the pages of the printed volumes, whither any one will resort who is disposed to examine them at
From this view, it seems to me, established beyond the reach of doubt, that according to the constitution of the society of Friends, a preparative meeting must be subordinate to and connected with a monthly meeting, which is connected with and subordinate to a quarterly meeting, which again is connected with and subordinate to a yearly meeting. There can be no preparative meeting which is not so connected and subordinate. To descend from generals to particulars, every preparative meeting within the bounds of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, is, and must be, connected with, and subordinate to, a monthly meeting connected with, and subordinate to, a quarterly meeting, which is connected with and subordinate to, that yearly meeting. There can be no preparative meeting within those bounds, which is not so connected and subordinate. From this constitutional principle, the following rule results as a corollary. Every preparative meeting within those bounds, which is, through and by its appropriate links, connected with, and subordinate to, the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, is a “ preparative meeting of the people called Quakers and any preparative meeting or assemblage of persons calling themselves a preparative meeting, not thus connected and subordinate, is not a preparative meeting of that people.
In laying down these propositions, I expressly avoid, and do not propose to examine or decide, unless in the sequel I find it necessary, a question much agitated and discussed, whether a preparative meeting can be laid down without its consent. There is, however, another proposition connected therewith, which, so as to make use of it hereafter, if necessary, I shall state barely, without a protracted or tedious inquiry, because I believe no one will gainsay it. A preparative meeting, cannot be made or constituted within the bounds of its superior, the quarterly; or to speak more definitely, a new preparative meeting
The general doctrine of the connection and subordination of meetings for business, I shall now proceed to show, has been expressly applied to the preparative meeting of Chesterfield. And as this topic bears much upon the result of our inquiries, 1 must enter into some detail.
Joseph Hendrickson, in his answer, says, “ There have been for many years past, a monthly and preparative meeting, of the said society of Friends of Chesterfield ... at Crosswicks :... that the said meeting at Crosswicks, is under the control and jurisdiction of the said yearly meeting of Philadelphia : ... that some of the members of a number of quarterly and monthly meetings, which were under the control and jurisdiction of the regular and constitutional yearly meeting, at Philadelphia, aforesaid .,. met at Philadelphia, on the third Monday in October, 1827, and then and there irregularly, and contrary to discipline, .. . formed a new yearly meeting of their own, which was adjourned by them to the second Monday of April, 1828; just one week before the time of the sitting of the regular constitutional yearly meeting:... that these religious dissensions and divisions found their way into the meeting of the society of Friends at Crosswicks, aforesaid :... that the Hicksite party, and Orthodox party .. . there, hold separate and distinct meetings, for business and worship, the former being under the jurisdiction and control of the new yearly meeting of Philadelphia, aforesaid, to which they have attached themselves, having renounced the jurisdic
The testimony on this subject, of some of the witnesses, is to the following effect. John Gummere, 1 vol. Evid. 315: “ Burlington monthly meeting, is a subordinate branch of Burlington quarterly meeting, which quarter is subordinate to the Philadelphia yearly meeting.” Ibid, 318 : “ That yearly meeting ... is
It thus appears, there were and are two distinct bodies, each claiming to be the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, and each claiming to be the same meeting under whose care the school fund was placed, and yet, de jure, remains. I stop here a moment., to fix the time when these bodies were distinctly and separately organized, in order to ascertain whether it was before the appointment of Decow as treasurer of the school fund. And on account of the connection, it may be useful to look also to the higher meetings. The separation in the Burlington quarterly meeting, appears to have occurred in the eleventh month, 1827. Samuel Emlen, 1 vol. Evid. 325; Josiah Gaskill, 2 vol. Evid. 301; Charles Stokes, 2 vol. Evid. 207. The latter witness says, he ‘‘attended the Burlington quarterly meeting in the eleventh month, 1827. At that meeting a separation did take place.” And in answer (229) to this question, “After the separation of which you have spoken, in 1827, did your quarterly meeting consider itself as a constituent branch of the yearly meeting held at Arch street, Philadelphia, on the third second day of fourth month ?” he answered, “ The quarterly meeting considered itself a constituent branch, of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, which had been held some years previously at the Arch street house, on the third second day of fourth month; but which, owing to the circumstances which had grown out of the unsettled and divided state of society, it was concluded should be held on the second second day of fourth month”
The separation in the monthly meeting of Chesterfield, or the
The separation in the preparative meeting of Chesterfield, bears date in the twelfth month, 1827. Samuel Emlen, 1 vol. Evid. 325; Samuel Craft, 1 vol. Evid. 339, 347; Josiah Gaskill, 2 vol. Evid. 286. The latter witness says, (287,) that after those who separated left the preparative meeting, the meeting proceeded in first month, 1828, to appoint trustees of the school fund, and that Decow was appointed treasurer at the same meeting. The testimony of James Brown is very explicit and satisfactory on this topic, and its importance, from the station he held as clerk of the meeting, has been already suggested. He says, 2 vol. Evid, 323, that the appointment of Stacy Decow as treasurer of the school fund, was made after the time when the separation of the preparative meeting of Chesterfield into two bodies or meetings, each calling themselves the Chesterfield preparative meeting, took place.
It thus clearly appears, that before the appointment of Decow as treasurer, there were formed and existed, two distinct bodies, claiming to be the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends; the one of them connected with a body calling itself the ancient yearly meeting of Friends of Philadelphia, which holds its sessions on the third second day of April, in a meeting-house on Arch street; and the other, and by which Decow wgs appointed, which disclaims all connection with the above mentioned
We are now brought to the inquiry, which of these two bodies or meetings is the ancient yearly meeting of Friends of Philadelphia? an inquiry, which, if I may judge from my own feelings and reflections, is of the deepest interest and importance. There is, and can be, but one Chesterfield pieparative meeting of the society of Friends. There is, and can be, but one yearly meeting. A preparative meeting must be connected with the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, and without such connection, no assemblage is a preparative meeting. One of these bodies, or preparative meetings, is connected with the one, and the other with the other of the yearly meetings. Which, then, is the yearly meeting ? Or, to confine our inquiry within the only requisite lange, is the meeting or body assembling on the second second day of the fourth month, at Green street, the ancient yearly meeting ? If it is, Decow is the treasurer. If not, as I have already shown, Hendrickson, once the acknowledged treasurer and the obligee, named as such in the bond, is entitled to the money. When such consequences hang on this question, may I not call it interesting and important ? May I not stand excused, ií I approach it with great anxiety and deep solicitude ?
In the year 1826, at the prescribed time and place, a meeting was held. After the transaction of its business, it adjourned, according to the ancient and wonted form, “ to meet in the next year at the usual time.” This body, thus convened and thus adjourned, was, without dispute, the Philadelphia yearly meeting of Friends. On the third second day of April, 1827, at the house on Arch street, the designated time and place, a meeting assembled. It was composed of the representatives from the several quarterly meetings, and of all such individuals as inclination or duty had brought together. The regular constituent parts were there. Those who are since so openly divided by name, perhaps by feeling, peradventure by principles, then sat down together; one in form, if not in spirit; in unity of body, if not of mind. The clerk of the preceding year, according to ancient rule, opened the meeting in due order ; for however simple, there was, nevertheless, an established ceremony. The representatives were called, certificates of visiting strangers were received, epistles from corresponding bodies were read, committees were arranged, the usual affairs of the occasion were transacted in unity and peace. The representatives were, in wonted manner, desired to abide for the next step in the progress of business. This body thus convened, was assuredly the yearly meeting ; and up to the close of the forenoon, it sustained its consti
Such result was produced, say the defendant, Decow, and the meeting whereby he was appointed treasurer. This body ceased to be the yearly meeting of Friends, was dissolved, broken up “ into its individual elements,” (Abraham Lower, 1 vol. Evid. 421,) and reorganized in the ensuing autumn, in the yearly meeting which assembled in Green street, which became invested with the constitutional powers and rights incident to the Philadelphia yearly meeting, and the successor, or rather the continuance of the same body, which had been formed in the seventeenth century, at Burlington, and had from thence conducted and governed the affairs of the society, and connected with itself the subordinate meetings, and this whole religious community.
Our next duty, then, is to examine the causes which are alleged to have deprived this body of constitutional existence. And these are, first, the acts of the body in a collective capacity; second, the omission of the body to perform certain collective duties ; and, third, the designs, plans, views, feelings and acts of individual members. Under one or other of these is comprehended, it is believed, every operating cause suggested in the pleadings, in the testimony of the witnesses, and in the arguments of the counsel.
The only acts alleged against the body in a collective capacity, are two in number. First, the appointment of a clerk of the meeting; and secondly, the appointment, near the close of the session, of a committee to visit the subordinate meetings.
First, The appointment of clerk to the meeting. To regard the act against which this complaint is directed, as the appointment of a clerk, is an entire misapprehension. Tt was, in truth, no more than the continuance in office of the former clerk ; and as it seems to me, so far from an act of the body in its collective capacity, in violation of any rule, it was a strict, and under the circumstances in which the meeting uras placed, an unavoidable compliance with, and adherence to, the ancient custom and order of the society.
According thereto, the nomination of clerk is to be made, not
The representatives, pursuant to the request already mentioned, remained at the close of the forenoon session, to discharge this duty. It is not my purpose to inquire into, or relate in detail, what passed among them. In the result, they could not agree, or did not agree, on the names of any persons to be proposed for the offices of clerk and assistant; and a report to this effect was made to the yearly meeting, when it opened in the afternoon. No nomination was offered. Put, now, the case in the strongest view ; suppose the representatives had wantonly, or in neglect of their trust, omitted to propose names to the meeting? Was all further proceeding at at end ? Was the meeting closed ? The Book of Discipline, it is true, prescribes no guide or directory under such circumstances. But ancient custom, founded on the obvious dictates of reason, had established in this respect an operative law. The clerk and his assistant, of the preceding year, were to act, and without any new appointment or induction, were authorized to continue to discharge their appropriate functions, until the names of other persons were regularly brought forward, and united with, or in other words, appointed. In accordance therewith, and in view of the condition of the meeting, and of the difficulty which existed, an aged member (William Jackson) who had attended more than sixty years, and had thus acquired experience, perhaps, beyond any individual of the assembly, rose and stated, that “it had been always the practice for the old clerks to serve until new ones were appointed and he proposed to the meeting, “ that the present clerks should be continued for that year.” (Thomas Evans, 1 vol. Evid. 265.) Some difference of opinion occurred and was expressed, as to the course most eligible to be pursued. Some persons wished to refer the subject again to the representatives, for farther consideration. “ Several of the representatives gave it as their opinion, there would be no advantage in so referring it, as there was not the smallest probability that they could agree. The first person who expressed this opinion, was one of
One of, the peculiar and distinguishing characteristics of this people, consists in their mode of transacting business and arriving at conclusions; in which, rejecting totally the principle that a majority, as such, is to rule, or decide, or govern, they arrive at an unity of, resolution and action, in a mode peculiar to themselves, and entirely different from that common to all civil or political, and to,, most ecclesiastical bodies. They look and wait for an union of mind ; and the result is produced, not by a vote or count, of, numbers* -but by an yielding up of opinions, a deference for the judgment of each other, and an acquiescence or submission to the pleasure proposed. Where a division, of senti-rpent occurs, the, matter is postponed for farther consideration, or withdrawn or. dismissed entirely; or, after sometimes a,temperate discussion, and sometimes a silent deliberation, those who support, or ,those who oppose a measure, acquiesce in the sense of the meeting as collected, and minuted by the clerk; and they believe the “spirit of truth,” when the meeting is “rightly gathered,” will be transfused through their, minds, and they, will be guided and influenced “ by a wisdom and judgment better than their own,” and that their clerk will be led to act under “the overshadowingbf that power,, which is .not at his command, and which will,, enable him to make proper decisions.” One of the witnesses examined on,the part of. Decow, informs us, the clerk “collects, not by an actual count of numbers, or recording the yeas and nays, yet by an estimate of the prevailing sense, which the meeting, after discussion, usually settles with sufficienfldis-tinctness, one. way or the other:" Charles Stokes, 2 vol. Evid. 249. The account g.iy.en by Clarkson, in .his Portraiture of Quakerism, is represented, to be correct, although never expressly recognized by the society. “ When a subject is brought before,them, it is canvassed to the exclusion of all extraneous matter, till spme
The inquiry, too, is of little importance, since, as I have shown, the omission of the representatives to agree in, and propose a nomination, only resulted in a continuance of the former officers, and did neither abridge, impair or destroy, the power of the meeting to provide for collecting and recording their acts and proceedings.
Let us, then, return to the yearly meeting. Here again, it is
There is another fact worthy of much consideration, in looking into the propriety of these proceedings; which is, that no person, save Samuel Bettle, the former clerk, was proposed for the office. The importance of this circumstance in civil affairs, is thus shown in the recent American treatise on the law of corporations. “ Where a majority protest against the election of a proposed candidate, and do not propose any other candidate, the minority may elect the candidate proposed:" Angel and Ames on Corp. 67.
The other act, whereby, it is said, the discipline was violated, the society separated, and the constitutional existence of the yearly meeting destroyed, is the appointment of a committee to visit the subordinate meetings.
It would be very difficult, I think, to demonstrate, that an act of this nature, if not warranted by the discipline, or even if inconsistent with it, could work such sweeping results. The purpose and authority of this committee, were simply to visit, counsel and advise the inferior meetings, with no power, whatever, to act upon or control the rights or interests of any one, save by measures of persuasion. How far the temper or motive, which led to the appointment of this Committee, may have been reprehensible, I shall examine under another head. It is to the act alone, that my attention is now directed ; and the act itself, was, in its nature^ harmless. Let Us, however, look more closely into the' circumstances. They are thus represented by one of the witnesses; “A proposition was brought from the women’s meeting ... to appoint a committee to visit the quarterly and monthly meetings. This called forth a great deal of excitement,... and great opposition was made to it. Even some few of the Orthodox party1 themselves, did not, at first, appear to approve of it. But' there were others of that party that strenuously urged the propriety of such a committee being appointed, and as they seemed to understand one another pretty well; apparently, they pretty soon united in urging the measure. It was, however, strongly opposed by much the larger part of the meeting ;• I cannot undertake to state the proportions, but I should'think myself safe in saying, two-thirds of those that spoke. 1 But it seemed all of no avail,... and having a clerk at the table subject entirely to the dictates of his party, he made a minute and took down the names of the committee that were offered to him. No Friend, I believe,- undertook to mention a name :” Halliday Jackson, 2 vol. Evid. 56. Another-witness gave the following representation:—“At the last sitting, on seventh day morning, a proposi
Was, then, the appointment of such a committee a novel, and therefore an planning occurrence? More than one witness testifies, and no one denies, that it was an ancient custom of the society: Samuel Bettle, 1 vol. Evid. 70; Halliday Jackson,
Upon a careful examination of this measure, I can see nothing, either in the act itself, or in the manner of its inception, progress or adoption, subversive, in the slightest degree, of usage or discipline. and least of all, any thing of such vital influence as to break asunder the bonds of union, disfranchise the meeting, deprive it of constitutional existence, disrobe it of ability farther to execute
These, then, are all the overt acts of the meeting, which have been made the subject of complaint. It would, however, be a great error to suppose, that a session of five or six days was spent in these matters alone. Much other important business was transacted; all, I believe, it may be said, of the usual stated duties were discharged. Halliday Jackson gives the following brief but satisfactory account of what was done. “ The business of the yearly meeting was proceeded in ; and the usual subjects that occupy that body, such as considering the state of the society from the answers to the queries that are brought up from the different quarterly meetings in their reports ; the reading of the minutes of the meeting for sufferings; reading reports from the committee who stood charged with Westown school, and some other matters; which occupied the meeting through the week:" 2 vol. Evid. 55. Another witness says, “All the business usually transacted at a yearly meeting, was gone through with, and several acts consummated, which no other body than the yearly meeting of Philadelphia was competent to perform Thomas Evans, 1 vol. Evid. 267.
Having thus reviewed what was done, we are now to turn our attention to what was not done by the meeting ; for the latter, as well as the former, has been urged as an act of separation and disfranchisement of the yearly meeting.
Certain subjects, regularly brought before that body, were not acted upon, but postponed. “ When the reports,” says one of the witnesses, “ were taken, or the subjects contained in the reports, from the different quarterly meetings, which were considered as new matter ; such as the account from the southern quarter respecting the meeting for sufferings, rejecting their representatives, and an application, I think, from Bucks quarter, respecting the manner of choosing representatives to constitute the meeting for sufferings, together with ... two cases that came up from Philadelphia quarter ... they were all put by, and not acted upon, except the matter in relation to Leonard Snowdon's case, which, if I remember right., was returned to the quarterly meeting. It
Thus, then, it appears, these omissions took place, certainly with the consent, and probably at the request, or upon the suggestion, of the very persons who now complain. Under such circumstances, this measure, by no means unusual—for Abraham Lower testified that he has known cases brought to the yearly meeting and laid over for the consideration of the next— does not afford ground for censure, much less for annihilation, and least of all on the objection of those who, if they did not actually bring it about, were consenting thereto.
But, it is said, the meeting was not in a qualified state to enter upon the consideration of these subjects. What then? Was this unqualified state peculiar to one portion, or common to all ? Was the meeting thereby dissolved? If wonted harmony ceased to prevail; if the minds of the members had become so sensitive on particular points that the introduction of them would produce agitation and excitement, unfavorable to cool, deliberate and dispassionate investigation and decision, it was the part of prudence, of Christian forbearance, of enlightened reason, of patience and meekness, and of that spirit of peace and submission which, may I not say without offence to others, so eminently characterizes this religious denomination, to wait in humble expectation of the overshadowing of that Power who can say, as well to the stormy passions of the human breast as to. the torrent and the whirlwind, “ Peace, be still.” But if such a state of things be a dissolution, no human society can be held together, and attempts at order and government, instead of the means of curbing, and restraining, and controlling the wayward passions of man, do but afford him the opportunity of giving them extended and unbridled influence and action.
Besides these considerations, which are, I trust, sufficient conclusively to sustain the meeting in its constitutional existence, there are some others, founded on the acts and conduct of the members, and of the component parts of the society at large, or the subordinate meetings, which incontrovertibly evince the acknowledged existence of the meeting, and its direct recognition
John Comly, and I feel at liberty to refer to him, though an individual, from his eminent standing and distinguished character, both private and public, as a man and asa minister, as well as from the prominent part he bore in the transactions which attended the separation in this society,—John Comly acted throughout the meeting, from the commencement to the close, as its organ, as an officer of the yearly meeting of Philadelphia. He did, indeed, request to be excused from serving in that capacity. But the fact remains that he did serve, and the reasons he gave for being inclined to withdraw, strengthen the inferences to be deduced from the fact. Few men are, I believe, more distinguished for purity, candor, and every other virtue. Did he say, I cannot serve this meeting, because I am not lawfully and rightly appointed an assistant, and to act as such would be, in me, usurpation and oppression ? Did he say, he had been recorded as assistant “ in opposition to the voice of the larger part of the meeting T Did he say, “ the hedge was broken down,” the meeting was disorganized, a revolution had occurred, there was no longer a yearly meeting, but the society was dissolved into its original elements ? Iialliday Jackson testifies thus : “ The next morning, I believe, John Comly did not take his seat at the table at the opening of the meeting, as usual.” In this particular, perhaps not a very important one, the witness afterwards corrected himself, and said he believed Comly took his seat at the table by the side of the clerk, when he first came into the meeting, (2 vol. Evid. 132,) “ but soon after, he got up, and made a very forcible appeal to the yearly meeting. I think he regretted the state and dilemma into which the yearly meeting appeared to be brought; that there were two parties, evidently two parties, that appeared to be irreconcilable to each other, and therefore not qualified to proceed in the weighty concerns of a yearly meeting under those trying circumstances, and proposed that the yearly meeting might adjourn, and Friends endeavor to get cool and quiet in their minds, and that possibly they might be favored to come together again at some other time, and be more in the harmony. ... And although John Comly expressed
Having seen the conduct of this very active and very useful member, as he is called by one of the witnesses, (Abraham Lower, 1 vol. Evid. 392,) let us briefly advert to that of the other members of the meeting, who now belong to the meeting in Green street.
Their urgency that John Comly should act as assistant clerk, and that the business of the meeting should proceed, has just been mentioned. “ The yearly meeting of 1827, was entirely conducted as it had been on previous occasions:" Samuel
One of the transactions of this meeting deserves, in the present connection, particular notice. “ There was one matter before the meeting which was of a humane and benevolent character, that Friends, perhaps, of both parties, were pretty much united in Halliday Jackson, 2 vol. Evid. 56. “ That was to raise three thousand dollars to aid our brethren in North-Carolina, in removing out of that state many hundred colored people, eight or nine hundred of them at least, who were under the care of the Carolina yearly meeting, and whose liberties were in jeopardy, unless they removed out of the state. This sum it was proposed should be raised by the different quarterly meetings, in the usual proportions. This was entirely united with ; not a single dissentient voice; a great many expressing their views, and a
I do not pause to answer, but proceed to the consideration of another of the heads into which this cause has been divided, the designs, plans, views, feelings and acts of individual members of the society ; and under this head I shall notice, so far as [ think it necessary, the conduct of subordinate meetings, and of what has been called the dominant party.
And here I make some general remarks, which indeed in my judgment, furnish an answer, a decisive answer, to many of the conclusions which have been drawn or suggested from the facts which, on these points of the case, appear in evidence.
First. Our concern is with the yearly meeting in its collective capacity. Our purpose is to ascertain whether that body holds or has ceased to hold, a legal existence ; whether the body which met on Arch street, and continued and closed its session there, in
Second. As such, then, are our concern and purpose, we have little to do with the causes of division and separation, about which so much has been said and written in the course of this cause, or with the division and separation, except so far as they may operate on the legal existence of the assemblies of this society. A separation has, indeed, taken place. Those who formerly offered their sacrifices on a common altar, now no longer worship or commune together. Many who once went up to the ancient temple, have left it, and go up to another mount. They had the right to do so. Our civil and religious liberty, whereof we have such just reason for congratulation and gratitude, left them free from all restraint, save conscience and the divine law. We are not here to approve or condemn them, nor to inquire into their motives, nor to estimate their strength, or their purity, or their consistency with the light of truth, whereby all profess to be guided. I wish to judge no “ man’s servant. To his own master he standeth or falleth.” I hope to be able to continue and close this investigation, without any inquiry into religious faith or opinions. Not that I doubt the power of this court. For while I uttetly disclaim the idea that this court, or any court, or any human power, has a right to enforce a creed, or system of doctrine or belief, on any man, or to require him to assent to any prescribed system of doctrine, or to search out his belief for the purpose of restraining or punishing it in any temporal tribunal, I do most unqualifiedly assert and maintain the power and right of this court, and of every court in New-Jersey, to ascertain, by competent evidence, what are the religious principles of any man or set of men, when, as may frequently be the case, civil rights are thereon to depend, or thereby to be decided. In a greater or less degree it is done daily. Who avail themselves of it more frequently than the society of Friends, when, on the ground of
Third. Inasmuch as our research properly, and almost exclusively, relates, as I have endeavored to show, to the yearly meeting in its collective capacity, it is of little worth to inquire into-the plans, designs, or views of individuals, or even the acts of inferior bodies, since these, however incorrect, or hostile, or indefensible, can have no great influence on our main pursuit; for if individuals were ambitious, not lowly, arrogant, not humble, domineering, not submissive, and were destitute of the mild and forbearing spirit of Christianity; if a party had sprung up, resolved, as was said, “ to rule or to rendif even monthly or quarterly meetings had violated the wholesome rules of common discipline, it by no means follows that the bonds of the society were broken, their compact dissolved, their discipline at an end, their constitution destroyed, and their existence annihilated. Such a government is a mockery, a pretence. It has not the consistency of even the mist of the morning. The plain and irresistible truth, that such a government, so wholly unadapted to the condition of mankind, could not exist, abundantly proves that such principles are unsound. The basis of all government, is the truth taught by every page of history, that turbulent passions will arise, that acts of violence will be committed ; and the purpose of government is to control, to regulate, to repress, to remedy such passions and conduct. If otherwise, the edifice is built of such stuff as dreams are made of, and is as unsubstantial and as little to be valued as a castle in the air. If the state of Georgia should disregard the decision of the federal judiciary, or even resist the executive power of the United States, is the constitution dissolved? If designs exist in South-Carolina “to rule or to rend,” our government, surely, is not therefore annihilated. It may be said, these are but parts, small parts of the Union. Is it not in like manner said, the adherents of the
This view of the subject would, I think, excuse any examination in detail • yet to see these principles in their practical application, as well as farther to illustrate the matter, and to leave, if possible, nothing without notice, which is urged as bearing on the result, I shall briefly advert to some of the prominent topics of dissatisfaction and complaint.
“The most prominent cause of” the division in the society, “ of a public nature, I consider to be,” says one of the witnesses, (Abraham Lower, 1 vol. Evid. 354,) “the public opposition or disrespect, manifested by the members of Pine street monthly meeting, by the agency and influence of Jonathan Evans, in breaking up the men’s meeting, or closing it, whilst Elias Hicks was, with the consent and approbation of that monthly meeting, engaged in the women’s department, in the prosecution of his religious concern.” The occurrence took place “between 1819 and 1821 Ibid. Now, if a prominent member of that meeting was guilty of rudeness or impropriety, it is plain, that he should have been individually dealt with, brought to confess his error, or disowned. If the meeting, as such, acting from his example, or under his influence, were guilty of censurable disrespect, “ such meeting ought” to have been required “to render an account thereof.” I use, here, the words of the book of discipline, the meaning of which is well understood. But it is claiming too much to assert, that the society is thereby rent asunder, when no measures to punish the offenders were ineffectually essayed, when years have shed their healing influence over it; or that the religious rights and privileges of all the other meetings and members, within a large district of tcrritoiy, have been jeoparded, and the subsequent sessions of che yearly meeting been unwarranted, and their acts usurpation and oppression.
Another complaint against individuals, and against the meeting for sufferings, is called “ an insidious effort to palm a creed upon a society which never had a creed:" Abraham Lower,
This matter of religious faith and doctrine, of a creed, has directly or indirectly filled up a large portion of the volumes of evidence before us; was the subject of many remarks in the arguments of the counsel at the bar of this court; has been the cause of much anxiety and alarm ; and misunderstandings in respect to it, have, I doubt not, had great influence in bringing about the lamented rupture in this most respectable society. I fear the matter has been greatly misunderstood, if not greatly misrepresented. This society has, and from the nature of things must have, its faith and doctrines, its distinguishing faith and doctrines. They would, unhesitatingly, repudiate the tenets of Confucius, of Bramah, or of Mohammed. They believe “ in Christ and him crucified.” They bear both public and private testimony of their faith. They have repeatedly declared it, and published it to the world. They have a confession of faith, and a catechism. A declaration of faith was issued on behalf of the society, in the year 1693—was approved by the morning meeting of London, and published by the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, in or about 1730. It is, I suppose, the same which is to be found in Sewell’s History, (2 vol. 472.) It purports to be “ a declaration of what our Christian belief and profession has been and is,” and contains an exposition of belief, in respect to Jesus Christ, his suffering, death, and resurrection, and the general resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment. Sewell, (2 vol. 483,) gives what he calls “ a confession of faith,” which was, by George Whitehead and others, presented to parliament in December, 1693, and begins thus : “ Be it known to all, that we sincerely believe and confess.” The yearly meeting, as .early as 1701, by their direction and at their expense, circulated Barclay’s Apology, and his Catechism and Confession of Faith, as containing the doctrines and tenets of the society of Friends. What is a creed, but an exhibition of faith and doctrine? Why,
The meeting for sufferings, by the rejection of certain persons appointed by the southern quarter as representatives, are charged to have given “ reason to apprehend that they were determined to control the operations of society according to their wills,” and to have furnished “ evidence of their having dissolved the compact, and so far as their own influence extended, and their
The meeting for sufferings, is a subordinate department for the business of this society, and especially to exercise care during the intervals between the sessions of the yearly meeting. If this body did improperly reject the representatives; if in this respect they violated the discipline, it is very obvious that their act, their unconstitutional act, could impart no censure whatever to the yearly meeting, much less destroy its existence. But the design,, the motive, the ambitious and domineering spirit, which induced this conduct, these are, we are told, the consuming fires. The state of the case is shortly thus:—The meeting for sufferings is composed of twelve Friends appointed by the yearly meeting, and also of four Friends chosen out of each of the quarterly meetings ; and the book of discipline provides that “ in case of the decease of any Friend or Friends, nominated either by the yearly meeting or quarterly meetings, or of their declining or neglecting their attendance for the space of twelve months, the meeting for sufferings, if it be thought expedient, may choose others in his or their stead, to serve till the time of the next yearly meeting, or till the places of those who have represented the quarterly meetings shall be supplied by new appointments F Book of Discipline, 55. In the year 1826, (he southern quarterly meeting resolved to release two of the persons who were then sitting as members of the meeting for sufferings under their appointment, and appointed others. The meeting were of opinion that such a measure was not contemplated by the discipline; that the quarter had a right to fill, but not to create va-' candes ; and that the only case which constituted a vacancy and called for a new appointment, was death, resignation, or neglect of attendance; neither of which then existed. The meeting for sufferings appointed a committee to confer with the quarterly meeting. The latter adhered to their resolution. The case was forwarded to the yearly meeting of 1827 for their care, and was one of those which, as already mentioned, were postponed: Exhib. No. 47, 2 vol. Evict. 477. Here, then, appears to have been a difference of opinion, on the construction of a clause in the book of discipline, respecting the power of the quarterly meet
The remarks which I have made on these cases, selected by way of example, and for the sake of illustration, render it unnecessary that I should particularly notice, or enter at large into the statement or consideration of others of the same general character. If the principles which I have endeavored to establish, and have applied to these cases, are correct, the others can have no greater influence on the question of the continued existence of the yearly meeting.
Another point has been decidedly taken, on the part of those who maintain the dissolution and reorganization of the ancient yearly meeting, and which I have shortly, under this head, expressed by the phrase, “ feelings of individuals.” It is more at
If a portion of this religious community found, or believed to exist, in another portion, such feelings and views as rendered it impracticable for them any longer to fraternize, any longer peacefully, harmoniously and profitably to meet and commune and worship together, a very sufficient reason, in conscience, may have been thereby afforded them to withdraw, to make “a
I have thus endeavored to examine and weigh, in detail, or by its principles, eveiy argument which I have either heard or read, to prove that the body which sat in Arch street meeting-house, in April, 1827, was not, or ceased to be, the Philadelphia yearly meeting of Friends. The position is not maintained. At the closing minute, that body was the ancient legitimate yearly meeting, as fully as during the forenoon sitting of the first day, or as it had been at any point of time since the year 1685.
If this be true, if the body which then closed its functions for the time, in the usual manner, and by the ancient minute, was the legitimate body, it is enough for the present occasion, nor need we look at its future history, because the new body, which claims its power and place, assembled in the course of a few months, and before the recurrence of the next annual period. It may not, however, be unprofitable to state in this connection, as appears from the evidence, that in the year 1828, and since, annually, at the wonted time and place, meetings have been held, of such as have thought proper to attend, of the acknow
If the body which thus held and closed its session, was the regular, constitutional yearly meeting, it follows, as an inevitable consequence, that the assembly which convened in October, of the same year, in Green street, could not be, whatever name it may have assumed, the ancient legitimate yearly meeting, the common head and centre of the subordinate meetings, and of the society of Friends in New-Jersey and Pennsylvania. One meeting being in life, another of the same powers, rights, and jurisdiction, could not, according to the discipline of the society, according to the simplest elements of reason, according to the immutable rules of action, which must govern and control all human assemblages, of whatever nature, whether religious or civil; according, indeed, to the avowed doctrines of the pleadings in this cause, and the consentaneous declarations of counsel, a second, a subsequent meeting could not be set up within its bounds. The yearly meeting, having convened and closed in April, 1827, could not again convene, nor could any body, possessing its powers and authorities convene, until the same month of the succeeding year, 1828. The place of meeting was fixed by the voice of the yearly meeting, which alone had the authority in this respect, and alone could change it. The time was directed by the constitution or book of discipline, to which we have had so frequent occasion to refer. The time could, indeed, be altered by the yearly meeting, but by it alone. There was no adjournment made by the yearly meeting to a shorter day than the annual period. There is no provision in the constitution for an intermediate, or as it is commonly denominated, a special meeting; nor is authority given to the clerk, to any portion of the members, or invested any where else, to call such meeting. Hence it clearly follows, that according to the constitution, the yearly meeting could not again assemble, until 1828; and no body, of whomsoever consisting, or by whomsoever composed, which may have convened in the intermediate
We learn, however, from the evidence before us, that on the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first days of April, during the yearly meeting, and after its close, a number of Friends met together to confer on the state of the society. They resolved to meet again, and accordingly did meet, in the sixth month of that year, and then recommended that a yearly meeting should be held, on the fifteenth day of the ensuing month of October. A meeting was held at the Green street meeting-house. And this meeting is said by Stacy Decow, in his answer to the bill of in-terpleader, to be “ the true and legitimate yearly meeting of Philadelphia,” and by one of the witnesses, is called “ the yearly meeting reorganized Abraham Lower, 1 vol. Evid. 404. We are now to examine whether it was so ; and in the present inquiry I propose to lay out of view the fact, which I believe has been fully demonstrated, that the yearly meeting was actually in full vigor and capacity.
This inquiry is to be conducted under two different aspects ; first, on the assumption that the constitution, or discipline of the society remained in force ; and secondly, on the assumption that the hedge was thrown down, the bond of union unloosed, the society broken up into its individual elements, the constitution or discipline not providing for the emergency, or having crumbled into dust.
First. The constitution is in force. The time and place of the yearly meeting are fixed. April, not October, is the one ; Arch street, not Green street, is the other. Neither can be changed without the resolution and authority of the yearly meeting. No such authority was given. On the contrary, the resolve of that body was, that the next yearly meeting should assemble on the third second day of April, at Arch street, at the usual time and place, “ if the Lord permitand these latter words did not, as is asserted in the answer of Stacy Decow, constitute “ a contingent adjournment,” nor contemplate “ the circumstance ... of Friends not being again permitted to assemble at that timebut were designed to acknowledge their humble and entire dependence on the Great Master of assemblies, without whose permis
Second. Let us now suppose the compact broken, the constitution dissolved, and the disjoined members at liberty to act from individual minds. Was the meeting entitled to the name it then assumed? There are three insurmountable obstacles. First, it was not convened as the ancient yearly meeting. Second, the members at large, the only constituent parts, or in other words, the individual elements, were not, and a portion of them only was, invited to assemble. Third, it was not composed or constituted as the ancient yearly meeting.
First. This October meeting was not called, nor did it come together, as the ancient yearly meeting. The name which it thought proper then to assume, or which was then conferred upon it, cannot help this deficiency. In the call which was issued, the faintest idea is not held out that the ancient yearly meeting was to be convoked; no hint is given that the ancient meeting was to be reorganized, or to be settled on its ancient foundations and principles. On the contrary, the idea is conveyed with comprehensible distinctness, that a new yearly meeting was to be formed. The address, which bears date in June, contains, in the first place, an avowal of the design or object in view, “ to regain harmony and tranquillity ... by withdrawing ourselves, not from the society of Friends, nor from the exercise of its salutary discipline, but from religious communion with those who have introduced, and seem disposed to continue, such disorders among us.” There is nothing here of remaining in the ancient yearly meeting, nor of continuing or reorganizing it. But let us proceed. “We therefore .. . have agreed to propose for your consideration, the propriety and expediency of holding,” what ? The ancient yearly meeting ? No. “A yearly meeting for Friends in unity with us, residing within the bounds of those quarterly meetings heretofore represented in the yearly meeting held in Philadelphia.” And farther, “ It is recommended that
Second. This meeting in October, was not so convened as to entitle it to assume the name, and to take the place of the Philadelphia yearly meeting.
If the yearly meeting was dissolved, and the society brougbt back to a mere collection of individuals ; if the state of things were such that individual minds might now form anew or reorganize, as they are said to have originally formed, it is a very clear proposition, and not to be controverted, that all the individuals of the society ought to have been called ; none should have been directly or indirectly excluded. Whatever dissensions had risen up, whatever animosities existed, the former members of the society remained such, and those who did not meet in Green street, in person or by representatives, were, as much as they who did, members and individual elements. All, then, had a right to be called, all must be called, all must be afforded an opportunity to assemble, or no convocation can be lawful, the true and legitimate yearly meeting cannot be there. Now, the recommendation or invitation to assemble, was not comprehensive, but exclusive, not general, but limited. A particular class or description only were invited ; all the rest were debarred and
Third. The meeting in October was not composed or constructed as the yearly meeting.
I have, incidentally, adverted to this subject, in showing the nature of the call, or who were invited to attend the meeting; but I now present it as a characteristic difference between this assemblage and the yearly meeting. The yearly meeting is composed of members of two classes, individuals, and the quarterly meetings ; the latter being represented by delegates. Such is not only the case since the present book of discipline was published by the society, but was the principle of organization when
In the course of this investigation, it has repeatedly occurred to me, and every time with increasing force, that the grounds of division, if no difference of religious faith existed, were of an inferior and evanescent nature. It seems to me, though perhaps I am unable, not being a member of the society, properly to appreciate the matter, that patience, forbearance, brotherly kindness and charity, the meek and mild spirit which has been believed to characterize and adorn the genuine Friend, would, under the smiles and blessing of Providence, have wrought out a perfect reconciliation, have brought again these discordant minds to the
Upon the whole, I am brought, by the most careful, faithful, and minute investigation of which I am capable, to the result, that the Arch street meeting was, and the Green street meeting was not, the Philadelphia yearly meeting of the society of Friends.
We are now to look for the consequences on the cause before the court. We have seen that every preparative meeting within the states of Pennsylvania and New-Jersey, which is, through and by its connecting links, connected with, and subordinate to, the yearly meeting of Philadelphia, is a preparative meeting of the people called Quakers ; and any preparative meeting or assemblage of persons calling themselves a preparative meeting,
There is, then, no successor to the person named as treasurer in the bond and mortgage, and he has, consequently, the legal right to recover the money.
I do, therefore, respectfully recommend to his excellency the chancellor, to decree upon this bill of interpleader, that the principal and interest mentioned in the said bond, and intended to be secured by the said mortgage, of right belong, and are payable to the said Joseph Hendrickson, and that he be permitted to proceed on his original bill of complaint, or otherwise, agreeably to the rules and practice of the court of chancery.
Charles Ewing.
The present controversy has grown out of the prosecution of a certain bond and mortgage, bearing date the second day of fourth month, (April,) A. D. 1821, executed by Thomas L. Shotwell to Joseph Hendrickson, treasurer of the school fund of Crosswicks meeting, to secure the payment of two •thousand dollars, with interest, at six per cent., to the said Joseph Hendrickson, treasurer as aforesaid, or his successor, or to his certain attorney, executor, administrator, or assigns. Upon this bond, the interest had been duly paid until the second day of
It is admitted, that the money for which these, securities were given, is part of a fund, the principal part of which was raised about the year 1792, by the voluntary subscriptions of a considerable number of the members of the preparative meeting of the people called Quakers, at Crosswicks, in the township of Chesterfield, county of Burlington, and state of New-Jersey ; for the purpose of creating an interest, or annuity, “ to be applied to the education of such children as now do, or hereafter shall, belong to the same preparative meeting, whose parents are not, or shall not be, of ability to pay for their education.” And this fund was to be “ under the direction of the trustees of the said school,” (the school then established at Crosswicks,) “ now, or hereafter, to be chosen by the said preparative meeting.”
It is further admitted, that previous to the year 1827, there was but one preparative meeting of the people called Quakers, at Crosswicks ; although it was sometimes designated as the Chesterfield preparative meeting, at Crosswicks; and at other times, as the preparative meeting of Friends, at Crosswdcks. It was an association, or meeting, of the religious society of Friends; and it had the power to appoint the trustees of the school, the treasurer, and other officers of the association.
Joseph Hendrickson, one of the above named parties, was appointed treasurer of this meeting in 1816, and was continued in that office, as all parties agree, until the summer or autumn of 1827, when disputes arose in that meeting, and others with which it stood connected, which resulted in the separation of one part of its members from the other part. One party, or division of that body, have continued the said Joseph Hendrickson in the office of treasurer. The other party, in the month of January, 1828, appointed Stacy Decow, another of the above named parties, to the same office, and have continued him in that office until the present time.
Both Hendrickson and Decow, claim to be the treasurer of the Chesterfield preparative meeting, and, in that capacity, to have the custody of this fund. As both have been appointed, although by different bodies, or different parts of the same body,
It appears by the testimony, that on the twenty-seventh day of December, A. D. 1827, the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends was divided, by the minority of the members, assembled at that time, withdrawing to another house, leaving the majority, with the clerk, at the usual place of meeting. They con tinued their business there ; and the minority organized anew, or held another meeting, having appointed a new clerk to act for them.
If this preparative meeting were an independent body, acting without the influence of any conventional principle operating upon this point, the act of the minority on this occasion would not affect the powers of the majority who remained in session ; however it might expose itself, and the members composing it, to disabilities. But the right to make appointments, and to exercise the other functions of the preparative meeting, would still continue with the larger party : 7 Serg. and Rawle, 460; 5 Binney, 485; 5 Johnson, 39; 1 Bos. and Pul. 229; 2 Dessausseure, 583; 16 Mass. 418.
But the preparative meeting is not an independent body, but a component part of the religious society of Friends. Hence, it is necessary to examine its connection with the society of Friends, and the history of that society, so far as it influences the separation in this preparative meeting, in order to determine the question, which of these bodies is the true preparative meeting ; and is, of course, entitled to appoint a treasurer, and to manage this fund.
The society of Friends, as it existed at the time when this school fund was created, and thence down to the year 1827, was an association of Christians, bound together by a distinct government,, peculiar testimonies, and, as one party contends, by certain religious doctrines, deemed by them fundamental. For their government, the Friends residing in New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, as early as the year 1689, established a general meeting, called a
And the connection and subordination of these meetings, are declared to be thus; [Discip. 31,) “Preparative meetings are accountable to the monthly ; monthly, to the quarterly; and the quarterly, to the yearly meeting. So that, if the yearly meeting be at any time dissatisfied with the proceedings of any inferior meeting ; or the quarterly meeting with the proceedings of either of its monthly meetings ; or a monthly meeting with the proceedings of either of its preparative meetings ; such meeting or meetings ought, with readiness and meekness, to render an account thereof, when required.”
This preparative meeting at Chesterfield, was established at an early period. It was, ever since its origin, connected with, and, in the sense of the book of discipline, subordinate to, the Chesterfield monthly meeting; which was subordinate to the Burlington quarterly meeting ; and that, to the Philadelphia yearly meeting.
Such were the connections sustained by this preparative meeting, at the commencement of the year 1827. I said, that we must review the history of the whole body, so far as it operated upon the division of the Chesterfield meeting, at the close of that year. During the same year, a division took place in the Philadelphia yearly meeting, which was followed up by divisions in all the subordinate meetings, or at least all with which this pre
It was after this complete division of the Chesterfield monthly meeting, that the transaction took place in the preparative meeting before noticed. These meetings were composed, in some measure, of the same persons. The clerk, James Brown, and many other persons there, had previously manifested their partiality to one or the other of the great parties which had grown
Much investigation was made into the precise conduct of the-respective parties, in effecting these divisions ; but I do not regard the particular acts, or formalities, observed by these subordinate meetings, as of much consequence, seeing there is a complete separation of the society into two distinct bodies, acting under separate governments ; although each still professes to adhere to the ancient discipline and worship. Our inquiry now must be, whether each of these bodies is to be considered as the society of Friends, contemplated in this trust, or only one of
The yearly meeting was established in Burlington, in the year 1681: 1 vol. Frond's Hist. Penn. 160-61. It was held alternately at Burlington and Philadelphia, from 1684 to 1761 ; after which it was removed entirely to Philadelphia, and was held there annually and in great harmony, until within the last ten or twelve years; within which time, jealousies have arisen .among the members, winch increased, until the meeting held in fourth month, 1827, which was the last held by the united body. The dissensions previous to, and at that meeting, came to such a height, that one party withdrew, and took measures for the formation of a new yearly meeting, as the other party insist, or as they say, for the reorganization and purification of the old one. It will be necessary to look a little into particulars, to discover the character of this transaction, and what should be its eflect upon the present case. And [ should have observed, that I use the word party, or parties, “ Orthodox” and “Hicksite,” in this opinion, merely to designate individuals or bodies of men, acting together, and not with any reference to the feelings, motives, or principles, upon which they may have acted.
Questions of importance were expected to arise at the yearly meeting of 1827, upon which disagreement was anticipated. The respective parties made such preparations for the approaching business of that meeting as they deemed proper. The clerk, being the officer who collects the sense of the meeting on the questions submitted to it, and declares its decisions, was justly
On the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first of April, 1827, and during the sitting of the yearly meeting, another meeting was held in Green street, at which an address to the society of Friends was agreed upon ; which was subscribed, by direction and in behalf of said meeting, by John Comly and others ; in which address, after alluding to the divided state of the society in doctrine and in feeling, and to measures of the yearly meeting deemed oppressive, they state their conviction, “ that the period has fully come, in which we ought to look towards making a quiet retreat from this scene of confusion 2 vol. Evid. 454. They adjourned, to meet again in the same place on the fourth day of sixth month, (June,) 1827. At which second meeting, they agreed on and published a second address, in which, after
Which of these yearly meetings represents the society of Friends contemplated in this trust? A first view strongly inclines us to answer, it is that held in Arch street. That was regularly adjourned to meet at the same time and place next year, and was then held accordingly, and has been regularly continued until the present time. The other meeting was held, first, in tenth month, 1827, by those who retreated, or withdrew from the disorders of the other, at a new time, in form at least, and a new place. One is the old meeting, and the other the new. But some circum
In connection with these complaints, we must take into consideration some peculiarities in the mode of conducting the religious meetings of Friends. It is insisted by the Arch street party, that the members of a meeting for discipline, are not entitled to equal w?eight in their decisions ; so that the clerk, w'hose business it is to ascertain and record the sense of the meeting, should not count the number of persons present, and decide with the majority of voices, but should pay more attention to elderly, pious, and experienced men, than to those of an opposite character : 1 vol. Evid. 64, 184, 333. On the other side, it is insisted, that all have an equal voice, and that it is the duty of the clerk to record the opinion of the majority, in numbers; or at least, that he should not record a minute against the sense of the majority : 1 vol. Evid. 43; 2 vol. Ibid. 244. Another peculiarity is this, insisted on by the Arch street parly, and apparently conformable to usage, that until the appointment of a new clerk, the old one is to act. It may be easily perceived, that the effect of these principles combined, may be to place a meeting under the control of a minority, however small, or even of the clerk himself; and that the majority bave no ordinary means of re
The complaint, that the majority was overruled, relates, I presume, more particularly to the meeting of representatives from the various quarters, whose business it was to nominate a clerk. But the proceedings there may have had, and were evidently, by all parties, expected to have, an important bearing on the proceedings of the yearly meeting. The facts are somewhat variously stated by the different witnesses. But, in the view I shall take of this question, I do not think it necessary to make a minute inquiry into the facts, or to decide those which are controverted.
It appears distinctly that no count, or other certain means of ascertaining the majority, was resorted to. The Green street party, however, claim the benefit of a presumption that they were the majority, arising from the fact that they insisted that the majority ought to govern, and endeavored to take measures to ascertain it: 1 vol. Evid. 372-3. This was resisted by the other party, either from conscious inferiority of numbers, or from a conscientious desire not to violate the ancient usage of the society, as to the mode of ascertaining the solid sense of a meeting.
As to the true mode of ascertaining the sense of a meeting, all agree that it is the duty of the clerk to collect it, and it has been the uniform practice in the society, for him to do so without resorting to a formal count, or division of parties: 1 vol. Evid. 64, 330, 458; 2 vol. Ibid. 169, 250. This society commenced in persecution, and has, heretofore, been distinguished for its harmony. Believing in the operation of the spirit of truth on their minds, not only in worship, but in business, if properly sought for, it has been their practice solemnly to seek the guidance of the light within, and seldom, or never, to attempt influence, through ingenious argument, or nojy declamation. Hence, few
This feature in the government of this society, whatever may be its precise limits, is intimately connected with their religious principles and doctrines : 1 vol. Evid. 64. They believe that the Head of the Church, when properly invoked, will shed his influence upon their meetings, and be “ a spirit of judgment, to those who sit in judgment.” Hence, the clerk is suffered to gather the feeling and sense of a meeting, from those who have long manifested a spiritual walk and conversation, aided by the agency of the spirit of truth, in his own mind. But, it
Hendrickson, in his answer to the bill of interpleader, alleges that “ the society of Friends, as a Christian sect, hold doctrines in reference to Christianity, which, like those of other sects, are in some measure, common to all Christians, and in other respects, peculiar to themselves.” And that “ the following religious doctrines have always been held and maintained by them 1 vol. Evid. 30.
“ In the first place, although the society of Friends have seldom made use of the word trinity, yet they believe in the existence of the Father, the Son or Word, and the Holy Spirit. That the Son was God, and became flesh,—that there is one God and Father, of whom are all things,—that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, who was glorified with the Father before the world began, who is God over all, blessed for ever,—that there is one Holy Spirit, the promise of the Father and the Son, the leader, and sanctifier, and comforter of his people, and that these three are one, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. That the principal difference between the people called Quakers, and other protestant trinitarian sects, in regard to the doctrine of the trinity, is, the latter attach the idea of individual personage to the three, as what they consider a fair logical inference from the doctrines expressly laid down in the Holy Scripture. The people called Quakers, on the other hand, consider it a mystery beyond finite, human conception ; take up the doctrine as expressly laid down in the Scripture, and have not considered themselves warranted in making deductions, however specious.
“ In the second place, the people called Quakers have always believed in the doctrine of the atonement; that the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ were united ; that thus united, he suffered; and that through his sufferings, death, and resurrection, he atoned for the sins of men. That the Son of God, in the fulness of time took flesh, became perfect man, according to
“ in the third place, the people called Quakers, believe that the Scriptures are given by inspiration, and when rightly interpreted are unerring guides ; and to use the language adopted by them, they ate able to make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Jesus Christ. They believe that the spirit still operates upon the souls of men, and when it does really and truly so operate, it furnishes the primary rule of faith. That the Scriptures proceeding from it, must be secondary in reference to this primary source, whence they proceed ; but inasmuch as the dictates of the spirit are always true and uniform, all ideas and views which any person may entertain repugnant to the doctrines of the Scriptures, which are unerring, must proceed from false lights. That such are the doctrines entertained and adopted by the ancient society of Friends, and that the same doctrines are still entertained by the Orthodox party aforesaid, to which party this defendant belongs. That these doctrines are, with the said religious society, fundamental; and any individual entertaining sentiments and opinions contrary to all, or any of the above mentioned doctrines, is held not to be in the same faith with the society of Friends, or the people called Quakers, and is treated accordingly.” And he further alleges, that previous to the separation, the society became divided into two parties, one of which is called the Orthodox, and the other the Hicksite, and that “ they differ essentially from each other in religious doctrines and especially with respect to the doctrines above stated That the Orthodox party hold to them, but that the Hickite party do not adopt and believe in them, but entertain opinions entirely and absolutely repugnant and contrary thereto.”
Decow, in his answer, alleges, that “ the society of Friends acknowledge no head but, Christ, and no principle of authority
He further alleges, that “the Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, to which he belongs, is the same Chesterfield preparative meeting of Friends at Crosswicks, under whose care the said school fund was placed by the contributors thereto, and are identified with them in due and regular succession, and are a part of the ancient society of Friends. That they believe in the Christian religion, as contained in the New Testament, and as professed by ancient Friends, and adhere to the religious institutions and government of the society of Friends; and bear the same cardinaL testimonies to the whole world, as are held most important and characteristic in the said society ; among which are, a testimony against wav—a hireling ministry—against taking oaths—against going to law with brethren—and a concern to observe the golden rule, do unto all men as we would they should do unto us.”
It is perceived, that each party claims for the meeting which appointed him, an adherence to the ancient faith of Friends; although they differ in this, that one points out certain doctrines, which he considers as parts of that faith, and that they are essential parts ; while the other, without directly denying these to be the doctrines of Friends, or that his party in the society hold
There is nothing characteristic in “ a belief in the Christian religion, as contained in the New Testament.” All sects of Christians, however widely separated, unite in professing this. But if I can understand the liberty claimed in this answer for the members of the society, it is, that they may interpret the Scriptures, in reference to the doctrines of the trinity, and of the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ, as the light within them shall direct.
But although Decow, in his answer, has, in some measure, declared the faith of the party to which he belongs, yet he denies that this, or any other court, has a right to institute an inquest into the consciences or faith of members of religious associations. But can this denial be well founded. May this fund be divided, and subdivided, as often as this body shall separate. And parts of it, from time to time, be diverted from its declared purpose, and appropriated to the education of the children of persons connected with other religious persuasions, or of no religion at all. And yet that no court can control it? Surely, this cannot be. This trust can be exercised only by a meeting of the religious society of Friends. The fund can be used only in the education of the children belonging to a meeting of that society. And when, as on this occasion, two distinct bodies, which have separated on points of discipline, or doctrine, or both, come before the court, and each claim the guardianship and use of this fund, as belonging to the society of Friends ; this court may, surely, inquire into the badges of distinction by which the society of Friends are known ; and if they are characterized by established doctrines, we may inquire what those are, and whether
In searching for the doctrines of this society, it is, in my opinion, not necessary to inquire whether there were any differences of opinion among their ancient writers, provided the society had for a long time before this fund was established, promulgated as a body, their religious doctrines, and had settled down in harmony under them. It is a body of Friends, with its settled and known characteristics, at that time, which is contemplated in the trust.
The society of Friends, or Quakers, as they were called by their opponents, had its origin in England about the middle of the seventeenth century ; a time much distinguished for religious inquiry, in many parts of Europe. It was composed of persons who could not conscienciously agree with the existing sects, in their doctrines, modes of worship, or practices, and who found themselves drawn together by a unity of faith and feeling. They called themselves Christians and protestants, but appear to have required from those seeking to become united with them, no formal profession of faith, as a test of principle to qualify them for admission ; looking at their works as evidence of their Christian faith, and their practice, and support of their peculiar testimonies, as evidence of their Quakerism. As they increased in numbers, and attracted the attention of the civil authorities, their principles became the subject of inquiry, and of misrepresentation, by reason of which, they were exposed to reproach and persecution,, and it became necessary for them to come out and avow their leading doctrines to the world. This was done by their leaders and principal men, professing to act in behalf of the society, on several occasions. George Fox, who is generally regarded as the founder of the sect, travelling iti the island of Barbadoes, being assailed with these misrepresentations, and especially with
In 1689, the British parliament passed an act for exempting protestant dissenters from certain penalties, by which the Quakers had suffered for many years. To obtain the benefit of this exemption, they subscribed, among other articles, the following : “ I, A. B. profess faith in God, the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be by divine inspiration.” The historian adds, “ we now see the religion of the Quakers acknowledged and tolerated by an act of parliament:"2 vol. Sewell, 447.
In 1693, the doctrines of the society being misrepresented by George Keith and others, “ they found themselves obliged to put forth their faith anew in print, which they had often before asserted, both in words and writing, thereby to manifest that their belief was really orthodox, and agreeable with the Holy Scrip-tures:" 2 vol. Sewell, 471. And being charged with some so-cinian notions, a short confession of faith, signed by one and thirty persons, of which George Whitehead was one. was, in
Of their early writers, none seems to have been held in higher estimation than Robert Baidata In his “Apology,”
He also published a catechism and confession of faith, which purport to contain “ a true and faithful account of the principles and doctrines, which are most surely believed by the churches of Christ, in Great Britain and Ireland, who are reproachfully called by the name of Quakers.” In these, the doctrines above mentioned, are most fully and explicitly taught and professed.
It is in evidence, that Barclay’s Apology, and his Catechism and Confession of Faith, purporting as aforesaid, have been published and circulated by the Philadelphia yearly meeting, by the use of its own funds, and as their minutes express, “ for the service of truth,” as early as the year 1701, and on several occasions since : 1 vol. Evid. 76, 297.
There is much other evidence laid before us, by documents and witnesses, confirming that which I have thus briefly noticed. But I shall pass it over, merely referring, however, to the letters from Elias Hicks to Phebe Willis and Thomas Willis, written in 1818, in which he distinctly intimates that the society’s belief of the Scriptures, and of the divinity of Christ, which he had been taught from his cradle, whatever was his belief at that time, was fully in accordance with the pietensions of the Orthodox party : 2 vol. Evid. 419, 420, 421.
But are these doctrines essential ? There is strong evidence of this, in the very nature of the doctrines themselves. When men form themselves into associations for the worship of God, some correspondence of views, as to the nature and attributes of the being who is the object of worship, is necessary. The difference between the pagan, the mahometan, the Christian, and the Jew, is radical and irreconcilable. The two latter worship the same God; but one approaches him through a Mediator, whom the other regards as an impostor; and hence, there can be no communion or fellowship between them. Christians have become separated into various sects, differing more or less in their doctrines. In looking at the history of these sects, I am by no means convinced that there was, in the nature of things, any necessity for all the divisions which have taken place. Many of the controversies in the church, have doubtless arisen from minute and subtle distinctions in doctrine, which have been maintained, not only with much ingenuity, but with much obstinacy and pride; and which, by this mixture of human frailty, have been the cause of angry, and often bloody dissensions. And whenever the civil government, or the prevailing party, in a religious society, have formed creeds, and required professions of faith, descending to these minute points, it has necessarily caused the separation of those, or at. least the honest part of them, who could not believe up to the precise line of orthodoxy. Hence, no doubt, many separations have taken place in churches, upon points of doctrine, which would never have disturbed the harmony of the association, had not public professions of faith been required, descending into minute and non-essential particulars.
And with respect to the inspiration of the Scriptures. The belief in the divine nature and atonement of Jesus Christ, and indeed of the Christian religion itself, is intimately connected with that of the divine authority of the sacred writings. “Great are the mysteries of godliness.” And of all the truths declared in Holy Writ, none are more mysterious than the nature, history, and offices of Jesus Christ. The mind that contemplates these truths as based on mere human testimony, must range in doubt and perplexity, or take refuge in infidelity. But if they are regarded as the truth of God, the pride of human reason is humbled before them. It afterwards exerts its powers to understand, and to apply, but not to overthrow them. Faith may repose in confidence upon them, and produce its fruits in a holy life. To a people like the Friends, who pay so much attention to the light within, but who at the same time, acknowledge the deceitfulness of the human heart., and the imperfection of human reason; when they once fix their belief on the testimonies of Scripture, as dictated by the spirit of truth, they necessarily become precious ; as the landmarks, setting bounds to principle and to action; as the charts, by which they may navigate the ocean of life in safety; as the tests, by which they may examine themselves, their principles, and feelings, and learn what spirit they are of. For, in the language of Barclay, “ they are certain,
I have before said, that their great regard for the Scriptures, and desire to comply with them literally, is the foundation of their peculiar testimonies. 'These are acknowledged by Decow and his party to be essential, and a departure from them a ground of disownment: 1 vol. Evid. 43, 385. Does not a strong argument result from this, that they regard the Scriptures as divine truth, and that this belief is essential? When their writers would defend these testimonies, they do not refer us to the light within. They do not say that this has taught them that oaths are unlawful, &c. But they point to passages of Scripture, as authority, and undoubled authority, on these subjects. But why are they authority? Because they are the truth of man? No. Friends spurn at the dictation of their equally fallible fellow man. But because they are the truth of God. Or, in the language of Fox, “We call the Holy Scriptures, as Christ, the apostles, and holy men of God called them, the words of God: 2 vol. Fox’s Jour. 147; 1 vol. Evid. 78. Can it be that the rejection of, or nonconformity to, particular passages, is ground of disownment, and yet that their members are at liberty to reject the whole? What would this be but to permit their fellow' man to select and garble as they please, and dictate what should be believed, and what might be disbelieved ?
These testimonies regard the f radices of the members. Ro
In 1722, the yearly meeting of Philadelphia issued a testimony, accompanying Barclay’s catechism and confession of faith, which they styled “ The ancient testimony of the people called Quakers, revived in which, after a long enumeration of evil practices which the apostles testified against, and through which some fell away, they add, “ and some others, who were then gathered into the belief of the principles and doctrines of the
In addition to all this, several respectable witnesses testify that the denial of these doctrines has always been held to be ground
Upon reviewing the testimony, 1 am satisfied that the society of Friends regard these doctrines as essential, and that they have the power, by their discipline, to disown those who openly call them in question.
But do the Arch street meeting, and its subordinate meetings, hold to these doctrines? It is so alleged ; and it is not denied. The denial, if it be one at all, is that these are established doctrines of the society of Friends. The controversies between the parties, so far as they were doctrinal, show that the party called “ Orthodox” insisted on these doctrines. The offensive extracts of the meeting for sufferings, declares them : 1 vol. Evid. 217; 2 vol. Ibid. 414. And these have been published by the yearly meeting of that party, in 1828. And there is much testimony by witnesses, that the Arch street meeting adheres to them, (1 vol. Evid. 60, 99,) and none to the contrary.
So that it appears to me, that Hendrickson has sufficiently established that the preparative meeting at Chesterfield, which he represents, may, so far as respects doctrine, justly claim to be of the society of Friends.
But it is insisted, that the other party stands on equal ground in this respect; that they are now, or certainly have been, in unity with that society; a society in which no public declaration of faith is necessary ; and that hence, independent of any proof they may have offered, they are to be presumed to be sound in the faith. And that any inquiry into their doctrines, further than as they have publicly declared them, is inquisitorial, and an invasion of their rights of conscience.
If a fact be necessary to be ascertained by this court, for the purpose of settling a question of property, it is its duty to ascertain it. And this must be done by such evidence as the nature of the case admits of: 3 Merrivale, 411, 413, 417; 3 Dessaussure, 557.
I have already stated, that the answer of Decow appeared to me indirectly to deny that the faith of Friends embraces the enumerated doctrines insisted on by Hendrickson, and to claim freedom of opinion on those points. I feel more assured that this
But as I may have mistaken the meaning of Decow’s answer, which is certainly not very explicit in this particular, I will next turn to the evidence, and discover, if I can, what is the fair result of the examination of that.
Decow offers no testimony respecting the belief of his party in the particular doctrines in question. His witnesses refuse to answer on these points, (1 vol. Evid. 387, 381, 406, 475; 2 vol. Ibid. 13, 90, 206,) and his party protest against all creeds, or public declarations of faith, as an abridgement of Christian liberty. Having no such public declaration to resort to, we must ascertain the truth from other sources, so far as it is necessary to be ascertained.
Decow has introduced several witnesses, who testify, and no doubt conscientiously, that they believe they hold the ancient faith of Friends, but they refuse to tell us what this faith is, in reference to these enumerated doctrines. We cannot give much weight to opinion, where we should have facts. The belief should refer to specific doctrines, that the court may judge as well as the witnesses, whether k was the ancient faith or not. The court, in that case, would have an opportunity of estimating the accuracy of the knowledge upon which the belief is founded.
How stands the case, then, upon the proofs? A fund was created for the education of the poor children of a certain preparative meeting of the religious society of Friends. That body has lately become separated. Its unity is broken ; the views of its members are incompatible ; and doctrines held by one party to be sound, are pronounced by the other party to be unsound,. And two distinct meetings exist at this time, and each claims the guardianship and use of this fund. For the safety of the debtor, these parties have been directed to interplead, and to show their
Under this view of the case, I deem it unnecessary to attempt any further investigation of the doctrines of the party called Hicksite. And if ascertained, I certainly would not inquire, as an officer of this court, whether they are right or wrong. It is enough, that it is not made to appear that they correspond with the religious faith of the society of Friends.
I would merely add, that if it be true, that the Orthodox party believe in the doctrines above mentioned, and the Hicksite party consider that every member has a right to his own belief on those subjects, they well might say that their differences were destructive of their unity. If their members and ministers exercise perfect freedom of thought and speech on these points, their temples for worship, and it is to be feared, their own heaits, would soon be deserted by the peace-loving spirit of their Master. There is an essential incompatibility in adverse views, with regard to these doctrines. The divinity of Christ, and the au
And upon this supposition, too, the propriety, as well as legality, of this court’s noticing the doctrines of the preparative meeting, which is to superintend the expenditure of this fund, is too manifest to admit of doubt. We have already seen, by reference to the discipline of this society, with what earnestness they endeavor to educate their children in the knowledge and belief of the Scriptures; and whoever looks into that discipline, cannot but discover their anxiety to train them up in their own peculiar views of the Christian religion. To effect these purposes, their yearly meeting has directed their attention to the subject of schools. “ The education of our youth,” says the discipline, “in piety and virtue, and giving them useful learning under the tuition of religious, prudent persons, having for many years engaged the solid attention of this meeting, and advices thereon having been from time to time issued to the several subordinate meetings, it is renewedly desired, that quarterly, monthly and preparative meetings may be excited to proper exertions for the institution and support of schools ; for want of which, it has been observed, that children have been committed to the care of transient persons of doubtful character, and sometimes of very corrupt minds.” “ It is, therefore, indispensably incumbent on us, to guard them against this danger, and procure such tutors, of our ovm religious persuasion, as are not only capable of instructing them in useful learning, to fit them for the business of this life, but to train them in the knowledge of their duty to God, and one towards another.” Under this discipline, and by the exertions of superior meetings, (2 vol. Evid. 345, 346, 436, 437,) as well as of the members of the Chesterfield preparative meeting, this school at Crosswicks was established, and this fund raised for its support. It thus appears, that the fund was intended to promote, not merely the secular knowledge of the pupils, but their growth in the religious principles deemed fundamental by this people ; or at least, to prevent, through the instruction of teachers of other religious principles, or wholly without principle, the alienation of the minds of their children
I would not be understood to impute the doctrines of Elias Hicks to that party which unwillingly bears his name. Nor do 1 mean to intimate that they would abuse this trust. But I have endeavored to show, that doctrines may justly have an influence on the decision of the question now before us. And without coming to any conclusion with respect to their doctrines, I am of opinion that this fund should be awarded to that meeting which has shown, at least to my satisfaction, that they agree in doctrine with the society of Friends, as it existed at the origin of this trust.
I do, therefore, respectfully recommend to his excellency the chancellor, to decree upon this bill of interpleader, that the principal and interest due on the said bond, of right belong, and are payable to, the said Joseph Hendrickson ; and that he be peimit-
George K. Drake.
The Chancellor decreed accordingly, in favor of Hendrick-son the complainant, for foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises, according to the prayer of the original bill.
See ninth edition, published at Philadelphia in 1775, pages 86, 139, 141, 185, 203, 204, 211, 226, 572, 573, 574. Also in his “Anarchy of the Ranters,” pages 1, 2, 3, 29, 30.
See pages 2, 5, 0, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 134.