History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884, Part 94

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898. cn; Westcott, Thompson, 1820-1888, joint author
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L. H. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 992

USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884 > Part 94

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

Stamp Act created intense excitement throughout the colonies, and paralyzed the efforts of the Penn- sylvania agents in London, rendering futile in ad- vance any efforts that might have been made by the Quaker interest to array the crown against the pro- prietaries. In the struggle for American liberty which followed, a great majority of the Pennsylvania Quakers adhered to the royalist cause, "so much so as to persecute such of their members as inclined to the patriot side." 3

In consequence of this state of feeling among them, and repeated acts on their part exhibiting a settled hostility to the patriot cause, extreme meas- ures were resorted to by the Revolutionary authori- ties, and the sect suffered heavily in character and in- fluence by the result of the contest. Their meetings for worship were less interfered with, however, than were those of any other denomination. During the period of Whig ascendency in Philadelphia, they were not disturbed, and when the British occupied the city they were treated with special consideration and respect on account of their well-known loyalist tendencies.

During the Revolution there was no change in the situation of the meeting-houses. The Bank meeting- house, on Front Street, the great meeting-house, at Second and High Streets, the Hill Meeting, or the Pine Street Meeting, and those at Germantown, Gwynedd, and other places in Philadelphia County, remained in use by members of the society. After the Revolution it was concluded to abandon the Bank meeting-house on Front Street,4 and to build a new meeting-house in Keys Alley (now called New Street), between Front aud Second, which was called " the North Meeting,-more commonly " the Keys Alley Meeting." The latter was finished and occupied, Watson says, in 1789. Probably it was later. To the North Meeting, in Keys Alley, were attached many worthies, among whom were Samuel Smith, John Parrish, Samuel Emlen, Thomas Scattergood, William Savery, Henry Drinker, Jacob Tompkins, Leonard Snowden, Nathan A. Smith, Joseph Justice, Thomas Morris, Joseph Yerkes, John de Marsellac, Stephen Grellet, John Webb, and on the women's side of the meeting-house, Rebecca Jones, Hannah Catherill, and others.

3 Ibid.

+ The late William McKoy, in his "Reminiscences," gives the follow" iog statement of the reasons which led to the removal of the Bank meet- ing-house :

" Friends were long accustomed to hold night meetings on the Sabbath. Their house on the Bank Hill, on Front Street, was at first called Even- ing Meeting because chiefly made for such a convenience when that at the Centre Square was too far off. They continued the evening meet- ings till after the Revolution, when they were coostrained by their senso of ' not letting their good being evil spoken of,' to disuse them, because their young women (as at some other meetings almost ever since, were mobbed by rude young men, who assembled In long lines of idters, generating and cherishing more evil without the walls than the good people could counterbalance within. The change met the approbation of the discreet,-of those who virtually alm by every means ' to suppress vice and immorality.'"

I Thompson Westcott.

2 Ibid.

1254

HISTORY OF PHILADELPHIA.

The meeting-house at Byberry, built in 1714 and reconstructed in 1753, was so dilapidated about 1800 that it was evident a new structure would soon have to be built. In 1786 the select members of Byberry Meeting were Joseph Thorntou (minister), Thomas Townsend, John Townsend, Susanna Walmsley, Grace Townsend, Agnes Walmsley, and Mary Knight.

The excitement of the times had not produced any perceptible effect upon the discipline of the society, which continued its warnings to youth against vain and unprofitable fashions, idle amusements, follies, games, and recreations, and its recommendations in favor of plainness of dress and truth and soberness in conversation. In 1792 the Yearly Meeting ad- monished those who departed " from that simplicity which truth requires, and who run into and copy the vain fashions of the world," that in case they could not be reclaimed, Monthly Meetings might "give forth testimony of disownment against them."1

In 1792 Yearly Meeting appointed a committee to visit Quarterly, Monthly, and Preparative Meetings, which, it was said, " as truth may open the way, may conduce to the promotion of our several religious testimonies, and the benefit of individuals." Upon this committee the most influential Friends belonging to Yearly Meeting were appointed, viz., Nicholas Waln, Caleb Cresson, James Thornton, William Blakeley, Oliver Paxson, Joshua Sharpless, Samuel Canby, Abraham Gibbons, Isaac Coates, Warner Mifflin, Daniel Cowgill, George Dillwyn, Benjamin Clarke, John Collins, William Rogers, Benjamin Reeve, Isaac Martin, Abraham Hibbard, John Simp- son, John Hoskins, James Pemberton, Huson Long- streth, and Mark Miller. In 1800 it was agreed that "the publishing of testifications and papers of ac- knowledgment at our meetings for public worship should be in future discontinued." This had refer- ence to a practice at meetings in which erring Friends publicly confessed their shortcomings and aberrations. The practice had given much food for gossip and scandal, while scarcely securing the advantages which were hoped for from the humiliations.

Among the Friends who visited Philadelphia about this time were Joseph Nichols, founder of the sect known as " Nicholites" or " New Friends." Nichols was a farmer of Kent County, Md., who, in 1760, having led a gay life and become very popular on account of his social qualities, turned his attention

1 In regard to this subject William McKoy says,-

" The dress of Friends, at first, was not intended to differ greatly from the common modo of the titne, suvo that it was to exclude all show, and to appear simple and neat, I mean that they have -inco seemed moro peculiar in their dress from the fact that fashion changed since from what was their starting-point, and to which they have adhered with more steadiness and sobriety than others. When they started as a seet, broad-brimmed felt hats, with loops at the side, were common. So of their coats end the straight collars. The drab was their prevalent color, because least removed from the uncolored state of cloth or drap. They excluded the use of metal buttons bernuse of their former extreme tinsel finery, nud they woro cloth-covered or stained horn ones. They used ties to shoes when buckles were worn with much display."

to religious matters, and soon after began to exhort. He insisted on self denial, plainness of living, and bore testimony against war, slavery, oaths, and a hireling ministry. The principles of his followers were much like those of the Society of Friends. The Nicholites effected a regular order of discipline and church organization about 1780. About 1800 and afterward some of them united with Friends, and in time all the Nicholites went over to the latter and transferred their meeting-house property to the Friends.

Another prominent visitor to the Philadelphia meetings was Elias Hicks, who afterward became noted as the disseminator of principles which led to a division in the society. He was the son of John and Martha Hicks, of Hempstead, L. I., where he was born on the 19th of May, 1748. In his youth he was apprenticed to a house-carpenter, and learned · that trade. He began to speak in Friends' meetings in 1775, when he was twenty-seven years old, and soon became very active in the ministry. He was well known throughout the country for his fervid oratory, as well as for his purity of life and devotion to good objects.2

Having expressed opinions which seemed to be in conflict with those generally held by the society, he received, in 1818, a letter from Phœbe Willis, who wrote to him "under a profession of concern for his religious welfare." Thomas Willis, of Jericho, L. I., and Samuel Parsons, of Flushing, clerk of New York Yearly Meeting, had in the mean time taken down various utterances of Hicks, and the accusation was now brought against him of entertaining heretical views. Hicks replied to a second letter from Phœbe Willis in 1820, and to one from Thomas Willis in 1821. Some time after these letters were written, Willis proposed a friendly interview with Hicks, who requested that his letters should be brought to him. On that occasion the letters were exchanged. Hicks gave up his letters from Phoebe and Thomas Willis, and in return received those which he had sent to them. But a copy of one of his letters was, without the knowledge of Hicks, kept back. It was circulated among Friends who were opposed to Hicks' doctrines, and was printed.

In 1819, Hicks attended a Monthly Meeting at the Pine Street meeting-house. He spoke in the men's meeting, and "expressed a concern that he felt to visit the women Friends in their meeting for disci-

2 A writer in The Christian Examiner and General Review thus speaks of Ilicks as he appeared about 1828: " His figure was tall, his propor- tione muscular and athletic, his face of the Roman cast, intellectual and commanding, his voice deep, his gesture dignified and graceful. Ho had porhaps as much of what is called ' presence' as any man who could be unmed. The knowledge that he was to speak had drawn together s lurgo assembly, which was sitting, when wo entered, in the most pro- found silence. Statuary could not have been moro still. Not a limb moved, not a garment rustled, not a breath was heard. At length this venerable figure arose like an apparition from another world, and poured forth a strain of natural eloquence which is not often surpassed."

-- -

1255

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.

pline." Some objection was made, particularly by Jonathan Evans, an elder. But a large number of Friends having "expressed their full unity at his being at liberty," he went to the women's meeting, Isaac Lloyd, an elder, being appointed to go with him. While he was engaged at the women's meet- ing, Evans insisted on adjourning the men's meeting, which was considered "an unusual, if not an un- precedented, proceeding." Some members concurred with Evans, and the meeting was adjourned. This transaction was construed to be an affront to Hicks, and produced great excitement, showing, as it did, the existence of a feeling unfavorable toward him in Philadelphia.

In 1822 measures were concerted at an unofficial meeting of a portion of the Meeting for Sufferings. Jonathan Evans was the principal actor. After the regular meeting was closed, this particular meeting was held by the few who remained. The subject of Hicks' unsoundness was discussed. As it was under- stood that he was about to visit Philadelphia again, and as it was asserted that he preached doctrines contrary to the doctrines of the society, it was de- clared necessary to stop him. Two or three elders were thereupon appointed to wait on Elias Hicks when he should arrive in the city, and although the object of their visit was not stated, it may be pre- sumed that it was to remonstrate with him for his alleged heresies. Hicks was not deterred in his object. He went to Baltimore, and upon his return to the city was waited upon by the elders. He seems to have satisfied them, but their report was not ac- ceptable to those who sent them. He was then sum- moned to appear before the male elders of the five Monthly Meetings of Philadelphia, and after pro- testing that they had no authority over him, that the utterances complained of were made outside of the Philadelphia Meeting, and that no sentiment deliv- ered by him in Philadelphia had ever been objected to, he finally agreed to meet the elders from the Monthly Meetings at the Green Street meeting- house. He proposed to bring John Comly, Robert Moore, John Moore, John Hunt, and others, some of whom had been at the Southern Quarterly Meeting, and who, having heard his most recent expressions, could give evidence in the case. The ten elders re- fused to allow these Friends to appear. One of them said that they desired to have a "private opportunity" with Elias Hicks, and added that " unless it was pri- vate they would have none." Abraham Lower, a minister of the Green Street Meeting, protested, partic- ularly on account of unfairness ; also because Hicks was then performing " family visits" to the members of that meeting, some of whom thought themselves concerned in the case, and insisted on being present at the conference between Hicks and the elders. The latter would not accede to this, and they with- drew. Two of them then endeavored to dissuade the elders of the Green Street Meeting from allowing

Hicks to prosecute his visits. Subsequently the ten elders-Caleb Pierce, Leonard Snowden, Joseph Scat- tergood, S. P. Griffiths, T. Stewardson, Edward Ran- dolph, Israel Maule, Ellis Yarnall, Richard Humph- ries, and Thomas Wister-sent a letter, dated Dec. 19, 1822, to Hicks, embodying the charges made against him. These were that he held and promnl- gated doctrines repugnant to those professed by the society, i.e., according to the statement of Joseph Whitall, he argued "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." Some time after Whitall had brought these alleged decla- rations to the notice of the society, several Friends being together in the city, received an account from Ezra Comfort of alleged expressions by Hicks at a public meeting in Delaware, which was confirmed by Comfort's companion, Isaiah Bell. Comfort and Bell represented that Hicks had declared "that Jesus Christ was the first man who introduced the gospel dispensation, the Jews being under the outward or ceremonial law or dispensation, it was necessary that there should be some outward miracle, as the healing of the outward infirmities of the flesh, and raising the outward dead bodies, in order to introduce the gospel dispensation ; He had no more power given Him than man, for He was no more than man ; He had nothing to do with the healing of the soul, for that belongs to God only. Elisha had the same power to raise the dead; that man, being obedient to the spirit of God in him, could arrive at as great or a greater degree of righteousness than Jesus Christ; that 'Jesus Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; neither do I think it robbery for man to be equal with God;' then endeavored to show that by attending to that stone cut out of the mountain without hands, or the seed in man; it would make man equal with God, saying, for that stone in man was the entire God." On hearing the statement of Comfort and Bell, the meeting decided the subject to be one of such importance as to "require an exten- sion of care in order that if any incorrect statement had been made it should as soon as possible be recti- fied, or, if true," that Hicks might be " possessed of the painful concerns of Friends and their sense and judgment thereon." Accordingly, two elders waited on Hicks, who denied the statement of Comfort and Bell, but declined to meet his acensers in company with the two elders, thicreby leaving " the minds of Friends without relief." After a reiteration of Hicks' refusal, the elders from the different Monthly Meet- ings of the city were convened and requested "a pri- vate opportunity" with him, which he also refused. On the following day, however, he consented to meet them at a time and place of his own fixing, but when assembled (according to the statement of the

---- -

1256

HISTORY OF PHILADELPHIA.

proceedings in the letter of December 19th, from the | words that "Jesus Christ was the first man who intro- elders to Hicks), "a mixed company being collected, the elders could not in this manner enter into busi- ness which they considered of a nature not to be inves- tigated in any other way than in a select, private op- portunity. They therefore considered that meeting a clear indication of thy continuing to decline to meet the elders as by them proposed." Under these circumstances the elders declared that, as it appeared that Hicks was not willing to hear and disprove thie charges brought against him, they felt it their duty to declare that they could not have religious nnity with his conduct or with the doctrines he was charged with promulgating.

To this letter Hicks replied two days later, assert- ing that the charges against him by Whitall were not "literally true," but were founded on a forced and improper construction of his words. He added that he did not consider himself amenable to Whit- all or to any other for crimes laid to his charge as being committed in. the course of the sittings of the last Yearly Meeting, as " not any of my fellow-mem- bers of that meeting discovered or noticed any such things, which I presume to be the case, as not an in- dividual has mentioned any such things to me but contrary thereto." Many of the "most valued Friends," he added, " acknowledged the great satis- faction they had with my services and exercise in the course of that meeting, and were fully convinced that all those reports were false; and this view is fully confirmed by a certificate granted me by the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings of which I am a member, in which they expressed their full unity with me, and which meetings were held a considerable time after our Yearly Meeting, in the course of which Joseph Whitall has presumed to charge me with unsound- ness of doctrine, contrary to the sense of the Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings of which I am a member, and to whom only do I hold myself amen- able for all condnet transacted within their limits." With reference to the charges preferred by Ezra Comfort, be asserted that they were "in general in-

correct," and assigned as his reason for refusing to confront his accuser, that Ezra Comfort had departed from gospel order in not mentioning his uneasiness when present with him, and when he ( Hicks) could have appealed to Friends of the meeting to justify bim ; that therefore he considered that Comfort had acted in a disorderly manner, contrary to discipline, and he ( HIicks) had consequently refused compliance with the requisitions of the elders, considering them arbitrary and contrary to the established order of the society. Hicks' letter was accompanied by a certifi- cate from Robert Moore, Joseph Turner, and Joseph G. Rowland, in which they asserted that the state- ments of Comfort and Bell-of expressions made by Hicks at "a meeting succeeding the late Southern Quarterly Meeting"-were incorrectly quoted. That portion of the charge of Bell, commencing with the

duced the gospel, and that it was necessary there should be some outward miracles in order to introduce the gospel dispensation," was substantially correct ; but the succeeding phrases, "Christ had no more power given Him than man, for He was no more than man," and "that He had nothing to do with healing the soul, for that belonged to God only," were incorrect. Various other statements in the charges of Bell were declared to be incorrectly quoted. Twenty-two members of the Southern Quarterly Meeting subsequently sent a letter corroborating the certificate of Moore, Turner, and Rowland. Comfort and Bell were brought before the Monthly Meeting to which they belonged, but were unwilling to acknowl- edge error, and were disowned; but were reinstated by the Yearly Meeting.

On the 1st of January, 1823, nine elders wrote another letter to Hicks, in which they expressed dis- approbation of his doctrines. Hicks' real or alleged opinions had now begun to attract general attention in the society, and many sermons and pamphlets were published on the subject.1

In the latter part of 1822 the Meeting for Sufferings of Philadelphia was called upon to consider a doc- trinal controversy over the signatures of " Paul" and " Amicus," published in a periodical at Wilmington, Del. "Paul" attacked the doctrines of Friends, and " Amicus" defended them. The Meeting for Suffer- ings was called upon with the expectation that it would snstain the position of "Amicus," as being correct statements of Friends' doctrines. But objec- tions were made, and the author of "Amicus" promptly avowed his intention of taking the respon- sibility. This was not satisfactory. A committee of the Meeting for Sufferings in January, 1823, proposed the adoption of a minute disavowing the statements of " Amiens." By way of counteracting it they brought forward a project to publish a book entitled, " Extracts from the Writings of Primitive Friends Concerning the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ." . The proposed minute was to be inserted in the preface, but the publisher refused to print it. There was also objection to the extracts. They were printed but not distributed. At the Yearly Meeting in the spring of 1823 the proceedings of the Committee of Sufferings were read in relation to these matters ; but to the great surprise of many, instead of merely

1 Among these were a report of a conversation with Hicks by Anna Braithwaite, of England, which was discredited by Hicks' friends in a pamphlet, " Letters and Observations," by Edward Parker, published in Philadelphia in November, 1824; "Calumny Refuted," said to be from the pen of an Episcopal clergyman ; "Sermons delivered by Elias Hicks and Edward licks in Friends' Meetings, New York, in Fifth month, 1825, taken in Short-Hand ;" "Sermons by Thomas Wetherald," also taken in short-hand, a sermon delivered in Baltimore by Gerard T. Hopkins, and many others. A portrait of Elias Hicks in silhouette, from a cutting by Master Hubbard, celebrated as a profile cutter by sight, was published in April. It was the only method by which a por- trait ol Hicks could be obtained, as be was strongly opposed to sitting for a portrait.

1257

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.

stating the proposition in regard to the " Extracts," Jonathan Evans, the clerk of the Meeting for Suffer- ings, had copied on his minutes all the "Extracts," which were thus read as part of the minutes to the Yearly Meeting. The design, it was supposed, was to obtain for the "Extracts" the sanction of the Yearly Meeting without further examination, and thus have them recognized as established doctrines. Efforts were made to have them taken from the minutes, which was objected to by Evans, because such action would deface them. Finally the Yearly Meeting decided not to publish the pamphlet. It was called in derision " The Creed."

The party opposed to Hicks held the places of in- fluence in the meeting. Under the discipline and practices of the society, the clerk of the meeting pos- sesses power almost autocratic. It is his privilege to decide how questions are determined by his under- standing of the opinion of the majority of the mnem- bers, which opinion is usually called the "weight of the meeting." The clerk ascertains the "weight of the meeting" sometimes by what is said, and some- times by what is not said.1

To have the clerk of the meeting on the side of either party was therefore an important matter, and the party opposed to Elias Hicks-which about this time began to he called "Orthodox"-addressed itself particularly to obtain, not only in Yearly Meeting, but in Quarterly, Monthly, and Weekly Meetings, the clerks, overseers, trustees, and a majority of the important committees. In Philadelphia they carried nearly everything their own way. Of the five Monthly Meetings, the Green Street Meeting alone withstood the powerful combination. In the latter a new trouble arose in consequence of the method of dealing with Leonard Snowden, one of the members. Green Street Quarterly, in December, 1822, had acted on the religious engagement of Elias Hicks in visit- ing the families of members with an indorsement of unity and approbation, which was placed upon its certificate. Snowden, it was alleged, assented to the certificate and the language used in it, but afterward joined with the opponents of Hicks in a paper im- peaching his gospel ministry. As Green Street Meet- ing sustained Hicks, the conduct of Snowden was looked upon as irregular and disorderly. The meet- ing resolved that he should be " taken under its care through the medium of the overseers." They made earnest efforts to "effect a reconciliation," which

1 In 1823, Samuel Bettle was clerk of the Yearly Meeting, and he was a strong opponent of Elias Hicks. Janney, in his " History of Friende," says that Bettle " regarded all those who gave their voices against the adoption of the Declaration of Faith presented by the Meeting for Suf- ferings as having no weight at all, thua virtually disfranchising them without the shadow of authority." Being examined on this matter, Samuel Bettle testified as follows: "I never considered them entitled lo any weight or influence at all. I mean the same persons who had expressed themselves in relation to those extracts, and in opposition to them, in the Yearly Meeting of 1823, and whose objectione I have quoted."

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884, Part 94

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898. cn; Westcott, Thompson, 1820-1888, joint author Publication date: 1884 Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L. H. Everts & Co. Number of Pages: 992

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898. cn; Westcott, Thompson, 1820-1888, joint author
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L. H. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 992