do so they shall sustain it, until it shall be the will of Him, who can either uphold or destroy, to let it perish.

SIXTH-DAY AFTERNOON, 3 o'clock.

I had endeavored, if your honors please, before the adjournment this morning, to exhibit somewhat of the origin of this society, into whose rights we are inquiring, to find out if I could the principles and the peculiarities, which distinguished it from the rest of the world, in order while measuring to it the rights to which it is entitled, we might look to the reality, and not to fancied individuals or a fancied society. I have done this, because I believed there could be no safe administration of justice, unless we did understand what the peculiarities of this people are. I had endeavored to satisfy you that there was one great, leading, conclusive, and marked feature, which distinguished them from all other professing christians. That that feature was proclaimed in public by the founder of the society. And I endeavored also to follow down the explanation of that feature, so that it should be within the distinct apprehension of all of us. How far I have succeeded I must leave to you. This feature, however, does not stand upon any inference of my own; it is to be found in every one of all those passages which were read by my associate counsel; and I venture to say, that no man understands one single one of those passages, that does not find that feature there. I beg for a moment or two to call the attention of the court to some of those passages, which may be considered as an index to those already read. The Christian Quaker, has been read repeatedly, and I will refer you to page 124, in which the author commences with this idea.

"Being to write of the light of Christ within, the great principle of God in man, the root and spring of divine life and knowledge in the soul, that by which salvation is effected for man, and which is the characteristic of the people called quakers, their faith and testimony to the world; I desire to consider it under these three following questions, as stated by none of the meanest of our adversaries, being comprehensive of the principle, its force, and friends."

The second question runs thus: "what is that light which leadeth to salvation, and how doth it lead to salvation?”

"By light, I understand not the metaphorical use of the word; as when Christ said to his disciples, ye are the lights of the world;' or as the apostle speaks, now are ye light in the Lord,' nor yet the mere spirit or reason of man. But Christ, that glorious sun of righteousness, and heavenly luminary of the intellectual or invisible world; represented, of all outward resemblances, most exactly by the great sun of this sensible and visible world. That as his natural light arises upon all, and gives light to all, about the affairs of this life, so that

divine light arises upon all, and gives light to all that will receive the manifestations of it, about the concerns of the other life. Such a light I mean by that light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' and that leadeth those that obey it to eternal salvation.”

He is asking who is the christian quaker, not the infidel quaker, not the man who denies the christian religion, as we have been represented here; but he is asking who is the christian quaker, and his answer is, that he is the man who adheres to the light, the great principle of God in man, and when he inquires what is that light, he tells you that in relation to the religious world, and in regard to the heart, it is the same great principle with that great luminary which is now giving to the natural world its light, and its existence. It is as the Promethean fire drawn from Heaven itself, and gives animation to all the intellectual, the moral, and the religious world. It is this great pervading principle which we rely on; and without it, you may call a man a quaker, but he is no quaker.

The next is the preface to Fox's Journal, written by William Penn. Such names must give currency to the truth, when we are inquiring who are quakers and what are their principles. Page 14.

"Two things are to be briefly touched upon: the doctrine taught, and the example they led among all the people. I have already touched upon their fundamental principle, which is as the corner stone of their fabric: and to speak eminently and properly, their characteristic, or main distinguishing point and principle, viz. the light of Christ within, as God's gift for man's salvation. This, I say, is as the root of the godly tree of doctrines, that grew and branched out from it."

Now, sirs, when I presented to you this great fundamental truth, this morning, as the tree upon which grew the branches of doctrine, and the fruits of testimonies, I had the authority of William Penn, and other of the founders of this society. He calls it their characteristic or main distinguishing principle, and yet it is to be wrested away from us, and without it we are to be regarded as quakers, and if we adhere to it, we are denounced as heretics, and the forfeiture of our property is made to depend on it. It is the main distinguishing point and principle, the light of Christ within, which they depended upon. It is the tree upon which grow the branches of doctrine and the fruit of testimonies. There is his starting point, and it must be the starting point of every court and every man, who seeks the truth in relation to this great inquiry. I will call the attention of the court to Barclay, page 99, a passage which has been read two or three times. It is not necessary for me to read it again, but I beg you will refer to it, and bear it in mind.

Now, sirs, he is inquiring into the principles of christianity, calling them principles of christianity, and inquiring distinctly what these

principles are; what are the principles which he and his associates hold; and he tells you, their first principle is this. And what was it? It was the inward essence, the bond and ligament which tied them together, it was somewhat of God, some light, grace, power, measure of the spirit, some divine, spiritual, heavenly, substantial life and virtue. But where was it to be found? In one man only, or in any one age of the world? No, sirs, in all men emphatically, and in every age. It was to be the faithful witness against all unrighteousness in the heart of man, and it leads, draws, moves, and inclines the mind of man to righteousness, and as he gives way thereto, it seeks to leaven him into the nature of itself, producing by its action on a willing heart, a resemblance to the maker of that heart. This it was, and there is no difficulty in the inquiry, in knowing what they meant by it. It is their chief principle, it is the great, first, fundamental trait, which stands alone in their system. It is that which distinguished them from all other christians, and if we take that away from them we destroy the quaker. You may make him presbyterian, baptist, episcopalian, or methodist, but you make him cease to be a quaker. It is his chief first principle, it is the point from which he starts, and he must carry it with him, every step through his journey, or he ceases to belong to that class of christians.

I beg your attention to a work, which was at one period in the history of this people, more the subject of comment, than any other one single book. It contained more matter of discussion in consequence of the peculiar circumstances in which the society was at that time. I mean Ellwood's Epistle. We have had from the beginning of this case, reference made to the controversy which existed in the days of George Keith. I shall allude to it now, but you shall hear more of it before I close, as I intend to present it to the court. Ellwood published this in relation to the principles advocated by George Keith. He was on the part of those who adhered to the institutions which existed then, and have come down now to the present day. And he exhibited to the world, the principles of the society in opposition to Keith. It is his epistle to friends, and it was approved in the most solemn manner, by the highest authority they had at that day, (in regard to ecclesiastical matters,) in England and throughout the world. I shall read a few passages, but if you would read it from beginning to end, you would find every line of it conforming to my view. It is "An Epistle to Friends, briefly commemorating the gracious dealings of the Lord with them; and warning them to beware of that spirit of contention and division which had appeared of late in George Keith, and some few others that join with him, who have made a breach and separation from friends in some parts of America, by THOMAS ELLWOOD."

Your honors will remember, that Keith was very anxious to establish in the society, a form of doctrines, to which its members must subscribe, in order to hold a right of membership, which the society

would not and could not acknowledge. They had a bond, but it was a spiritual one. And you will find that Ellwood supports me, by what he says in relation to Keith, in the positions which I have taken.

"In what he (Keith) infers from R. Barclay, he mistakes him, I suppose. Ι am sure he wrongs him. He says, page 8, 'That some principles and doctrines, and points of faith are necessary to be agreed upon, together with the practices necessarily depending thereupon, and to be owned, professed, and declared by us, to be, as it were, the terms that draw us together, and the bond by which we become centered into one body and fellowship, and distinguished from others, (yet not this so the bond, but that we have a more inward and invisible, to wit, the life of righteousness,) is the express doctrine and testimony of Robert Barclay's book, called the Anarchy, &c., p. 48.' These are neither Robert Barclay's words nor sense in that place. His words are these. We being gathered together into the belief of certain principles and doctrines, without any constraint or worldly respect, but by the mere force of truth upon our understandings, and its power and influence upon our hearts; these principles and doctrines, and the practices necessarily depending upon them, are, as it were, the terms that have drawn us together, and the bond by which we became centered into one body and fellowship, and distinguished from others. Yet this not so the bond, but that we have also a more inward and invisible, to wit, the life of righteousness,' &c. Now observe, Robert Barclay doth not here say, as George Keith says his express doctrine and testimony is, 'some principles and doctrines, and points of faith are necessary to be agreed on' as if men were to contrive and cut out their own terms, and before they entered in a society or fellowship, should consider, consult, and conclude among themselves what principles, doctrines and practices they would have to the terms and bond of their society; much less that an owning, professing and declaring those principles, doctrines and practices, should be terms of that communion. But that those principles and doctrines, and the practices necessarily depending upon them, which we, by the mere force of truth upon our understanding, and its power and influence upon our hearts, without any constraint or worldly respect are gathered into the belief of, are, as it were, the terms and bond, &c. So that he does not make a bare profession, verbal confession or declaration of those principles, doctrines and practices, to be any terms at all. The principles, doctrines and practices themselves, he calls not the terms and bond, strictly or properly, but as it were. But the terms and bond, strictly and properly speaking, are, with Robert Barclay, the life of righteousness which is inward and invisible."

"His urging lesser matters, as plain language and habit, refusing to salute with the hat and knee, and men's and women's meetings, to be made and accounted by friends terms of their communion, and his ap

pealing to all intelligent friends, whether it be not so, shows his ignorance and errors. I believe he will find no intelligent friend, that will own any of these things to be terms of communion, among us."

Can this be explained away? Is it possible for human ingenuity to overthrow it? Did Ellwood understand the fundamental truth of that society or not? If he did, then every position I took this morning, every principle is sustained by this author, and he represented the whole society in the controversy with Keith. In that day they thought as my clients think now, sirs; in that day they referred to that great principle, and there they found the terms and bonds of their communion. These testimonies alluded to are the fruits, the sign of the inward principle, the consequences of the bond, but not the bond itself. When any fell away from them, they gave evidence that the bond was broken. Now he goes on further, in relation to this.

"Fruits, effects and signs, I grant they are, (when they are sincerely and honestly performed,) of that inward and invisible life of righteousness, which is indeed the true and proper term and bond of our communion." But although we do not make those outward things the terms or bond of our communion, but that divine life and power which brings them forth, (when they are rightly brought forth;) yet inasmuch as we assuredly know that the testimony borne in those outward things, (plain language, plain habits, and refusing to salute with hat and knee,) is of God, and is that which God has led his people into, and required us to bear; and that our men's and women's meetings are of God's institution, for the service and benefit of his church; if any would pretend to be of us, and by practice contradict our testimony in the former, or oppose the latter, such would thereby manifest to us, that they were either not come to, or departed from, that divine power and life of righteousness, which is the term and bond of our holy fellowship and communion; and might therefore be justly refused by us, without making those outward things the terms of our communion."

Sirs, when I was attempting this morning to exhibit this bond of the society, I was not speaking in my own language; but I was using the same that was used in the year 1694, by the society of quakers. They may disown it at this day, but with it they must disown their name. I will not for the present detain the court any longer. I have read enough to show, from the first and highest source, the very best authority for my positions. There is none higher. It is incomparably better than the expositions, scraps or texts, published in modern times. We are told, thoughtlessly told, that we were to seek for the principles of this institution, from the views of intelligent men of modern times. Do not Hendrickson and his friends seek to exclude us from the society, because we do not believe with ancient friends; and do we