The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1865-01-19
Fer the Palladium.
or the fAHa1iur2
"reminiscences of the Friends, No. 5.

But Il was not the unita-lanisrn Of ELIAS Hicks
that his adherents cnnteuded for considered il neces
sary to adopt They simply contendei for his right
to express his convictions, and denied the auihori-
~ Of any CT body Of juigs his preaching
By the assumed standard Of any Greed Therefore
the real ground Of the Struggle SEEMS TO have been
resistance to ecclesiastical power though theological
opinions uuavoiably beca me in.ertvisiei with i: Ii
was new form Of the old battle perpetualy renewed
ever since the world began, between authority and
iniiyldual freedom. The agitation which hal for
sometime been heaving under the surface, Is said to
have been brought into open manifestation by
mon which ELIAS Hicks, preached against the
Of Slave produce, in 1912 bitter warfare followed.
Those who refused 70 denounce his opinions
cused of being ufIels and separatiss aud they call
ed their bgoted and Indifferent With regard
20 disputed doctrines both claimed 20 find sufficient
authority in the writings Of early Friends. and each
side charged the other with mutlatin and z1srepre-
sentng those writings. As usual in theological con-
iroversies the .kein became more and ensnged,
till there way left but it in In 1877 and
1928, separation took place in the Yearly Meetings
of Philadelphia, New York, and several other places
Thenceforth the members were divided into two dis
tinct secis- In places the friends of ELIAS
Hicks far numerous. and in others his op-
ponents had a majority. Each party claimed to be
hc genuine Society of Friends, AMI denied the others
right retain the tit'e. The opponents Of ELIAS
HICKS, callel themselves "orsh dox Friends" and
named his adherents .'iicksites.' The latter re-
pudatel the title, because they had Acknowledged
him their standard of belief thou Oh they loved and
revercd his character, and stood By him the repre-
sentative of liberty Of conscience. They called them
selves Friends" and the others 1.-THE Orthodox
The question which the genuine Society of Friends,
was more important than il would seem to a mere
lookeron, for large peculiar interests involved
therein. Is it is known those who acquainted
with the Friends that they form a sort of common
wealth BY themselves within the civil commonwealth
by which they governed.
They pay their Public School Tax, and in addition
of their own Society; they support their poor,
while they pay the pauper tax other citizens.
They hays buryng grounds apart from others because
they have conscientious scrnPles concerning
ments and ePitaphs. OF cours, the question which
of the two contcniing parties tho true Society
of Friends, involved the question, who owned the
Meeting houses, the burying grounds and School funds
The friends of ELIAS Hicks Offered divide the
property according the relative numbers Of each
party but those called Orthodox refused accept the
proposition. Lawsuits brought in various parts
of the country. In consequences much bitter animos-
ty existed. The Orthodox in Phla elpha, refused 10
allow those whom they called "Sep,ratists Hcksites
to bury their dead in the ground belonging the
divided Society of Friends. On the occasion of funer
ais they refused deliver up the keys and aftar their
opponents hal demonstrated in vain, they forced the
lock