Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1833-09-12

Second They deny the doctrine Of the n
tonenent, and contend tina. man NAV have &C.
cess to his God without any mediator; they
contend that the crucihxion and suiirrings Of
Christ, II an atonement at all, were IN atone
ment only for the legal sins Of the Jews.
Third--They deny the inspiration Of the
Holy Scriptures, and hold that they contain
doctrines and injunctions that are incorrect,
aud that they arc mere shadow"
Stacy Decow, ON behalf of the Hicksite
party, In his answer to the bill Of interple ader
iijcd by shotwcli, studiousiy avoids detailed
exposition Of doctrines; alleging that ..thc,
Society Of Friends ackuowlcdg no he ad bur
Christ, and no principle Of authority OF go
'ernment in the Church, but tho love and
power Of God operating on the heart, and
thence influencing the Judgment, and pro-
ducing unity Of feeling, brotherly sympathy.
and condesccnsion to each other. The great
fundamental principle Of the Society, the di-
''oe light and power operating on the soul,
being acknowledged by all its members rs the
eiieetual bond Of union the right OF each in-
drhuai to judge Of the true meaning OF
Scripture testimony relating 20 the doctrines
oil Christianity, according TO the best evil
dence IN bis own mind, uncontrolled by the
arbitrary dictation Of his equally faliiblc fell
low man, hath been rs well tacitly rs cxpii.
city acknowledge by the Society,"" He al
ieges, that the hrst difficulties aud final sepa-
ration grew out Of an attempt "by few in
d"ihuais, (now of the Orthodox partly who
haG long been continued in important stations.
gradually and covertly attempting to assume
and arrogate an authority over their brethren,
never delegated to them, and attempted TO
impose upon the Yearly Meeting, document
IN form designed to operate rs q rrriffsn
creed, adapted TO their peculiar views, and
believed also TO have been intended as an in
| strument TO attack some faithful, WORTHY fell
low members against whom they had conceiv-
ed some personal offence, and subyeIsive of
that freedom of thought and indv idual opinion
which the Society of Friends had ALWAYS
cherished and maintained as an unalienabie
right"
Decow further insists "that the question.
and facts set forth by Iiendrickson in the orr
ginal bill in relation to the schism in the So
ciety Of Friends, and discrepancies among
them in regard TO matters Of faith and dis
cipline, II they exist, as is stated, which he
ny no means admits, cannot lawfully or equi-
tabiy affect the right Of tie fund belonging to
the said Chesterfield Prcparative Meeting
that the legitimate enquiry before the Court
respects the right Of property, and that no
Court have a right to institute an inquest into
the eonsciences or faith of members Of reIi-
gious societies or associations, or subject them
TO the ordeal Of creed, prepared by those
| claiming adversely, in order to disfPanchise
or deprive them OF their legal rights ne
further describes the polity Of the Society of
Friends, as being that Of "a pure Democracy.
all its members having equal rights as breth-
rem and sisters; neither ministers, elders,
overssers, clerks, or other officers having any
eminence over their brethren, either in right,
authority, rank, or privilege'-and carries
this principle of equality throughout all the
ramifications Of their government. THAT
all propositions, questions or other matters,
properly submitted to any meeting, WAS 10 he
determined by the voice OF the majority pre-
sent"
Each Partygives his own version Of the trans
actions Immediately preceding and subse-
quent to the separation Of the Yearly Meeting
at Philadelphia in 1927, in which there Is
less collision about facts, than about the mo-
tises and views that led TO the facts.
Upon the matter thus presented to the Chan
cellor, the parties were referred TO Master,
before whom all the facts considered materi-
al IN the cause were to be made manifest
In glancing over nearly a thousand pages Of
evidence taken before the Master, we gather
that the principal points endeavor TO be
maintained by the parties, were;
BY the Orthodox--Their belief as set forth
IN the answer and original bill Of Hendrick.
son-its identity with the belief Of early
Friends-tho spurious character Of the Hicks
tie doctrines, and their repugnance to those
entertained by early Friends--that the sepa-
ration Of the Society grew out Of AN attempt
to spread these spurious sentiments on the one
hand, and To suppress them on the other-and
that the Hicksites were unsound, aud unlike
ancient Friends in belief, and seceders BY
their own acts. That the Society Of Friends
were never in their meetings, governed by
the voice Of the majority, but by the sense
Of the meeting gathered by the clerk.
by the Hicksites--That their belief and
that Of early Friends were the same, and that
they believed in the Scriptures--both Of " hich
they maintained in so many words, without
permitting themselves in the mos trivial par
tIcular, TO be dragged into details, expOsitIons
or explanations. That they were not sepa-
lists or secedeTs, but were composed Of ma
jority of the Friends belonging 10 the Pbila
delphia Yearly Meeting. That they were not
followers Of Elias Hicks, but Of GEORGE FOX;
that there was no power ia temporal courts
TO inquire into spiritual things, and they there
fore declined answering questions touching
doctrines. They did not accuse the Orthodox
OF .sying departed from The belief Of Friends
and were willing to share the property ac-
c0rding 20 numbers. Their contest ~ this suit
tVA thNfi shef' aAe NV AVi Ane vi otts
Upon these PIeadings sbd this testimony,
the cause came on for 4 hearing before the
late Chief Justice Ewing and Associate Jus.
tice Drake, sitting ~ Masters 10 Chaneery.-l
II was there argued BY George Wood. Esq
and isaac ~. " illiamsOn, Esg. on behalf Of
IIsndricksoni and BY Gen. " al and samuel
l.. Southland, 20. on behalf Of Dceow,
defendant. In their opinions read before
the Chancellor, both Judges concurred "a
the power Of che Court ~ inquire into the
religious do~trines 81 society in order 10
settle and direct trust Teposed IN that Soci-
tty. On the main question, a. 20 which con-
stiiuted the real Society 81 FFicnds, although
taking different grounds, they both arrived 81
the same conclusion. The Chef Justice be- /
ing % opinion ihst tho HIcksae party had |
tnsde themselves seoeder, BY their acts, while /
JustIcs Drske maintained that they were . /
new sect, holding doctrines entirely repug-
nsnt y those held By the early Friends. d. /
conformity % these Opinions, a decree tn /