LETTERS AND OBSERVATIONS

RELATING TO THE

CONTROVERSY

RESPECTING THE

DOCTRINES OF ELIAS HICKS;

CONTAINING

A REVIEW

OF HIS

LETTER TO DR. N. SHO "MAKER.

THIRD EDITION-REVISED.

PHILADELPHIA :

PRINTED FOR THE READER.

1824.

NOTE. We sincerely regret that circumstances render it necessary to lay the following pages before our readers, but it must be remembered that we have not been the first to resort to the press. Necessity has compelled us into the measure. The publication of Elias Hicks' letter to E. A. Atlee, representing the character of Anna Braithwaite in an unfavourable point of view, and the circulation which has been given to it, render it an act of justice due to her, thus plainly to exhibit the real state of the case.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

THE subsequent letter from Anna Braithwaite to a friend at Flushing, Long Island, was written, with a view of preserving a clear and correct account, of the conversation which took place between her and Elias Hicks, on the two occasions mentioned; that it might be produced to correct any misrepresentations which should get abroad, after she had quitted our shores.

During the whole of A. B.'s visit to America, she evinced a watchful care, not to become the instrument of circulating or exaggerating reports, which she might hear relative to the differences of opinion that existed among some individuals.

Towards Elias Hicks her whole conduct was certainly that of a friend and a Christian. Instead of forming her opinion of his doctrines, from the representations of others, she waited upon him, and inquired for herself; and it was his own expressions, which satisfied her of the pernicious tendency of his principles. She had heard him for herself, not only in private but in his public preaching, and was fully confirmed in the belief, that he denied the truth of what she considered to be, important and essential points of Christian faith.

What then became her duty as a gospel minister? To cover up and to conceal these opinions which he had avowed to her, when she knew that he was constantly inculcating the same opinions, in a less open

and forbidding, but more insinuating and dangerous form?

Would she have acted the part of a faithful minister, if she had not warned her fellow-professors of the Christian name, against the adoption of these sentiments, which E. H. was holding up to them as more spiritual and consistent, but which she conscientiously believed to be imminently dangerous to the peace and future happiness of their immortal souls? No-she would have been guilty of betraying her Master's cause.

Convinced as she was, most sincerely, that his doctrines were opposed to the spread of vital Christianity, it was her duty to sound the alarm, and solemnly to warn her hearers against the adoption of them. And she did it faithfully.

Elias Hicks charges Anna Braithwaite with "traducing his religious character behind his back." This is certainly a mis-nomer; for she opposed his principles in his presence, where he had every opportunity to deny that he held such principles, had this been the fact. Now, if E. H. calls this traducing his religious character, it would seem that he himself considers his doctrines of such a nature, that, if the Christian world knew that he held them, it would lower his character as a religious man.

Anna Braithwaite did no more than unfold, in their true light, and confute by scripture and sound argument, the sentiments which he had avowed to her; and, for the injury which his religious character has sustained, his principles are in fault-not her refutation of them.

Whatever motives may be attributed to A. B. by those who shrink from a full and free investigation

into the opinions of E. H., it is certain, that she acted openly and without disguise. In a select assembly of some hundred persons, of whom E. H. was one, she alluded to the interviews noticed in her letter, and detailed the principal assertions of E. H. as she has put them down on paper; and he had full liberty to deny, if he thought proper; which, however, he did

not.

During her stay in New York for several weeks previous to her embarkation, E. H. had every opportunity, if he had chosen, to come forward and to disclaim what he knew she had asserted, in his presence, to be his doctrine; and further, she evinced a desire to meet him, and caused a message to this effect to be delivered to him; but he neither came forward to meet her, nor publicly denied the correctness of her assertions, until after she had left America, to return to her family and friends.