bers of the Society of Friends in early times, were deemed as damnable heresies, subversive of the christian religion, and exposing those who entertained their authors, or read their works, to fine and imprisonment; that on the account, in part, of their circulating their books, and preaching the doctrines they did to a very corrupt race of professors of christianity, and under one pretence or other of the kinds I have alluded to, and perhaps others, I understand that there were as many perhaps as fifteen thousand of them confined in prisons, loathsome dungeons, in many instances, in perhaps about thirty years, and not a few of them died in prison, for their testimony to the truth.

Q. Did not Elias Hicks recommend that book, and speak favourably of its author?

A. I have no knowledge of his having done so.

Q. What are the religious doctrines inculcated in that book, so far as you know?

Mr. Price. I object to the question-the book, or a part it, being an exhibit, and if other parts of it are wanted, let the book be produced, as the best evidence.

Mr. Brown. We are entitled nevertheless, I presume, to an answer from the witness.

Witness. My knowledge of that book is very limited indeed-but I conceive its nature was of a doctrinal character; and if so, as I have before answered, temporal courts have nothing to do with them, in my apprehension.

Q. I do not now ask you what are your religious opinions, or what are the religious opinions of the Society of Friends, but simply inquire what are the religious doctrines contained in a book you have referred to? A. My knowledge of that book is so limited, that I cannot pretend to

say.

Counsel. That's enough, I admit. Did any of those present, I mean at the conference alluded to, express any personal dislike or enmity to Elias Hicks?

A. I refer to what I have said on that occasion.

Counsel. I remind the witness that he has said that certain things did happen, but has not said that other things did not happen-and I want to know from him, whether there was or was not any expression of personal dislike to Elias Hicks on that occasion?

A. I think I detailed all I recollected to have occurred at the time alluded to, on my examination, excepting possibly, (which my memory does not fully serve me now,) that there was something said about intercepting or meeting Elias Hicks, by some person or persons named, or going to see him at his own home previous to his leaving it; and I now refer to my answer then.

Mr. Brown. This is now sufficient; I have no disposition to persecute the witness, but he had said that certain things had happened, without saying that others did not happen, and I wished to know from him whether there were any other objections than those which he had stated; he has now answered it.

Witness. I am glad to find such a disposition in the counsel.

Counsel. Did they profess that they were influenced by concern and uneasiness, on account of the spreading of those unsound doctrines which Elias Hicks was charged with preaching?

A. I must beg to refer to my answer as aforesaid.

Q. I must be allowed again to remark, that I do not inquire of the witness, what are his religious opinions, or those of the Society of Friends; but merely, whether those persons did not profess to be concerned, as stated in the question.

A. I understand, that I am now cross-examined on my examination in chief, and if I had that read, and there is no answer to the question there, or that I can know specifically what I did say, I will endeavour to give

an answer.

[The testimony of the witness on his examination in chief, relating to the conference referred to in the question, and its proceedings, was read to the witness; when he further answers,] there was of course, a kind of semblance of concern developed by the persons that spoke on the occasion. But whether it was a real concern for the welfare of society, I wont speak positively, because I don't know what is in men's hearts; but judging from their acts, their subsequent acts, whatever concern might have been manifested on that occasion by the accuser and witness, I have reason to think was bottomed on envy.

Q. Was not Elias Hicks engaged at that time in a visit embracing Friends in several parts of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, and was he not expected shortly to enter on a visit to the families of two of the Monthly Meetings in the city of Philadelphia?

A. I think he had such a prospect or engagement of mind at that time: and obtained a certificate of the unity of the Monthly Meeting of Jericho, of which he was a member then, and lived and died a member of it in unity, and Westbury Quarter; of which he remained a member in unity until his death.

Q. You have said, that Joseph Whitall stated in that conference, certain sentiments which he had heard Elias Hicks preach in public-were those sentiments the same which have since been published by your party with Joseph Whitall's name to them?

A. It is now seven or eight years, or more, since that conversation took place, or opportunity, that I am unable to say what he did hear him say in public; but I think that he charged Elias Hicks with denying the divinity of Christ, and which I admitted, if true of him, he was no christian. And so I suppose would be answered by any man as a truism; but when I complained once to John Cox of the charge which they uttered against us, among the rest, that we denied the divinity of Christ, he said, "we don't know what they mean by it."

[NOON.]

Q. You have stated in your examination in chief, that in the conference to which you have alluded, certain doctrines were imputed to Elias Hicks; was not the doctrine charged upon Elias Hicks by Joseph Whitall on that occasion, in these words: "that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, until after the baptism of John, and the descent of the Holy Ghost;" and "that he was no more than a man;" "that the same power that made Christ a christian must make us christians;" and "that the same power that saved him must save us." And were not these the doctrines that you declare Elias Hicks to have been no christian if he held them?

A. I think I stated before, in reference to that communication of Joseph Whitall's, that as perhaps seven or eight years had elapsed since that conversation took place, and I don't now recollect after hearing that

quotation read, that Joseph Whitall expressed himself as there recited: and am still under the impression that my reply was grounded on his, Elias Hicks', being charged with denying the divinity of Christ.

Q. The charge then which drew from you this remark, that if he held such doctrine he was no christian, was simply that he denied the divinity of Christ?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. You have stated, that upon that occasion, certain other doctrines were imputed to Elias Hicks, which you then declared were in accordance with the doctrines of the Society of Friends. What were those doctrines?

A. I am not aware that I have so stated; but that possibly a part of that paragraph may contain the matter, to which I intended my reply on that occasion, as an answer to. I think it a hard case to be pressed so much to answer to such an interrogatory, respecting a circumstance that transpired so many years back; and when I professed on my examination in chief, and as I still profess, not to have a recollection of all that Joseph Whitall did say; but in general terms, my recollection is clear, that the quotation I have alluded to, was a reply to what he had said.

Q. Of course I cannot expect the witness to answer my question further than his recollection will enable him to do so; and I would only ask of him to answer as far as his recollection will carry him, and to say what part of the quotation I have read, the witness upon that occasion mentioned that he conceived to be in accordance with the doctrines of the Society of Friends?

A. I should like to be indulged with hearing that quotation read again. [Mr. Brown again reads from a book the quotation in his first question this afternoon. The witness proceeds.] I have no recollection that those words were used: and I don't see how the quotation that I have in my mind, could have applied as an answer, if they had been used: which I think was, that "a manifestation of the spirit is given to us in a measure, or according to our individual capacities, and that that manifestation was in Christ in the fulness;" these I think was the amount of what I said on that occasion, to the best of my recollection.

Q. Am I to understand what you now mention, as a quotation from scripture?

A. I give it as the substance of what I think I then said, and which I thought corresponded with those sayings of the apostle, to which I alluded.

Q. As you have stated that you distinctly recollected that you made a quotation in support of some part of the doctrines imputed to Elias Hicks upon that occasion as unsound, I naturally presume that you would recollect what those doctrines were; if you do so recollect, I wish you to state them, whether they are in the words of the quotation I have read or not?

A. I cannot state what they were; if I had a recollection of them distinctly, you should have them, let the consequence be what it would. Q. In the course of the conference of which you have spoken, did you make any objection to its proceedings, or in any way protest against it as irregular and disorderly?

A. From the account I have given of the quotation I attempted, and the vindication of Elias Hicks from the blame or censure, on account of the books spoken of, or pamphlets, I considered I had gone as far in the

way of objection to the proceedings, as the nature of the case then admitted, under the circumstances in which I was there.

Q. Of course that was the whole extent of your objection upon that occasion?

A. I think the circumstance of my nominating Dr. Samuel P. Griffitts, when he said he never heard Elias Hicks preach false doctrines, was as prominent a feature in my communication by way of objection, as what I have recited.

Q. You have once stated, and have now repeated it, that you nominated one person on the committee to visit Elias Hicks, and urged another to serve on it, and were otherwise actively engaged in the business transacted there; was not this course on your part rather furthering the objects of that conference, than an objection to them altogether, as violating the discipline, usages and order of the society in so doing?

A. The circumstance was a new one to me; the persons that were engaged in it, some of them, were such as I had acted with, in the administration of the discipline, in harmony and good fellowship, as I apprehend, generally, and a kind of veneration or high respect for those persons, that I had been accustomed to entertain, for and towards them, I think so operated on my mind then, and for some time after, that I had not become prepared to conceive that such men could have conceived such a wicked conspiracy. But when I observed the fruits of that unlawful association developing themselves, I then became satisfied, that Elias Hicks was really then condemned, in the minds of those people, particularly Jonathan Evans, his accuser. I must make an exception to the cases I have alluded to, to wit, the nomination of Dr. Griffitts, and my private caution to Thomas Wistar, at the close of that meeting, privately administered, outside of the meeting house, to him, warning him to beware of the hostility that Jonathan Evans seemed to have towards him, and exhorted him, to the best of my recollection, to do the old man justice; those circumstances were going as far as my circumstances then appeared to me to permit.

Q. Did you not in that conference with Thomas Wistar, after the close of that meeting, to which you have alluded, urge him to take an early opportunity with Elias Hicks, and say, that if he held the doctrines imputed to him, he ought to be stopped?

A. If I did say so, I have no recollection of it now.

Q. As to the first branch of the question, did you urge him to take an early opportunity with him?

A. I don't recollect.

Q. Was not your conference with Thomas Wistar on the subject, after the meeting, giving him hints as to the manner in which he should perform the duty assigned to him, giving a sanction on your part to the regularity of the proceeding of that conference, in appointing that committee to visit Elias Hicks?

A. I should think they would barely amount to that; when I cautioned him against the hostility of his accuser.

Q. You have said that in the conference you considered Elias Hicks as condemned,-in what way was he condemned, or how was the sentence of condemnation pronounced?

A. I considered it as being so, by his being arraigned as I have recited, and by the subsequent irregular proceedings of the faction that then harmonized in that arraignment, and which they pursued as fast, appa

rently, as circumstances admitted of; for when Elias Hicks came to the city, and two persons of that number waited on him, and, as I understood, were satisfied or appeared to be satisfied with him, according to the account which his companion gave me after they had gone away, out of the house, and Elias and his companion came to us in the back room at Samuel R. Fisher's, that all these proceedings, the testimony of Joseph Whitall, the testimony of the two witnesses, Comfort and Bell, were founded on and related to circumstances or expressions that occurred without their jurisdiction; their combination was consequently without any colour of discipline, and they must hence stand as a disorderly body; their proceedings afterwards, when they sought an opportunity which he refused them, upon account of matters that had transpired out of their jurisdiction; and when he finally consented to give them an opportunity, being pressed by his friends to do so, who had no doubt of his innocence, he gave them that opportunity, as before related, at the Green street meeting house-when those ten elders, or most of them, attended; they denied Elias Hicks the privilege of having his friends with him, on so critical and affecting an emergency; but as Thomas Wistar alleged there and then, that unless all who were present would leave them, that is, go out of the house and leave them and Elias Hicks and his companion alone, they would take for granted that the charges were true that they had against him. That in a conversation with Joseph Whitall next day after, I think, I told him I understood that he, and perhaps others, were in waiting to be called in as witnesses, at that meeting the day previous, when, if they had been called in, here was his judges, who were his accusers, or harmonizing with his accusers. It is easy to see that no justice would be likely to be done him; they merely wanted to make a mock-sham affair, and condemn him, his accusers being judges. In corroboration of what I have stated of his being judged and condemned for expressions that had occurred without their jurisdiction, and with which his own friends at home, and the Friends where the other expressions had occurred, were satisfied; and the communication or bull of the ten elders denouncing him, contained an acknowledgment, which I conceive was a shameful reflection on the old man's character, that "he was innocent or cautious while among them,” so as not to say things that were false doctrine in their estimation, which was the amount of it, I don't profess to have the precise words.

Q. Without alluding at present to the subsequent proceedings, was there any act at all at that conference, by which that condemnation was manifested?

A. For the reasons which I have given, my perceptions were blinded, as regarded the full extent and force of that arraignment, which I afterwards discovered as developed in their subsequent conduct, that he was condemned.

Counsel. I have confined my question to that particular conference, without reference to subsequent proceedings.

Witness. I never have said, nor don't intend to say, that he was condemned in so many words precisely uttered to that effect; but when I came to consider the force of the expressions emanating from the fountain they did, that "he has given much uneasiness to his friends at home, and they can't stop him," and "unless we can stop him here he must go on," I consider those expressions a declaration of his condemnation, as clear as the circumstances would then admit of.